FISCAL NOTE

Date Requested: February 09, 2017
Time Requested: 03:24 PM

1556	Introduced	SB226
Agency:	Treasurer's Office, WV
CBD Number:	Version:	Bill Number:	Resolution Number:
CBD Subject:	Crime

FUND(S):

Special Revnue

Sources of Revenue:

Special Fund

Legislation creates:

Neither Program nor Fund

Fiscal Note Summary

Effect this measure will have on costs and revenues of state government.

The purpose of Senate Bill 226 is to amend the West Virginia Contraband Forfeiture Act (“Act”) by adopting a clear and convincing evidence standard; shortening the time to institute forfeiture proceedings; designating persons to be made respondents to a petition for forfeiture; redirecting disposition of all forfeited property; providing for the disposition of property when forfeiture is not ordered; and providing for the effect of amendments to the law on pending actions. The various amendments to the Act will generally have the effect of reducing the amounts received. For example, increasing the evidence standard to “clear and convincing” from a “preponderance” and reducing the time to institute forfeiture proceedings will make it more difficult for prosecutors and law enforcement. It also appears that revenues may be decreasing for various reasons, such as criminals finding other means of carrying and receiving money through the use of debit and charge cards. In addition, just because there has been a seizure does not mean the amount will be forfeited. In some cases, after the amount has been forfeited, it must be returned to the person from whom it was seized. The preparer of this fiscal note could not locate a centralized source of the amounts collected through the Act. Currently, prosecuting attorneys are to receive 10% of all forfeited property under the Act and 90% is to be deposited into the special law enforcement investigation fund of the seizing law enforcement agency. The 90% is received by city, county and state law enforcement agencies throughout West Virginia. Senate Bill 226 redirects that 90% away from law enforcement and to the West Virginia School Fund, by requiring the balance to “be paid over to the State Treasurer for deposit and investment in accordance with section five, article twelve of the Wet Virginia Constitution.” In an effort to attempt to determine how much might be received by the School Fund, the preparer of this fiscal note made numerous calls to law enforcement agencies at all three levels and to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Institute. The initial problem, which is easily apparent, is that the revenue stream is inconsistent because it depends initially on persons being detained and/or arrested and then being found to have items subject to forfeiture. Currently, the more rural areas of the state appear to be seizing more items subject to forfeiture than the more urban areas. According to the officers and their staff with whom I spoke one of the reasons is because there is more law enforcement in urban areas and they have forced drug dealers and others to use less traveled highways. Various law enforcement agencies have combined their services with other agencies at other levels. MDENT (Metro Division Enforcement Network Team) consists of officers from the Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department and five cities in Kanawha County. Of the amounts MDENT receives, 50% is retained for its operations and then 50% is allocated to the participating cities for their own specific drug enforcement efforts. It has seen its gross collections decrease from $379,475 in Fiscal Year 2014 to $266,409 in Fiscal Year 2016, a 30% decrease. In fiscal year 2016, there were 4 months in which no moneys were received. Given the area covered by MDENT, its collections appear larger than most of the other drug task forces, counties and/or cities that were willing to provide me with information. Monongalia County has seen its revenues drop from $94,870 in Fiscal Year 2014 to $1,459 in Fiscal Year 2016, an 85% decrease. Wayne County receives about $15,000 annually. Counties like Randolph have seen slight increases in the amounts they are collecting. The West Virginia State Police were unable to provide data to me about their collections. In reviewing the Funds in wvOASIS that appear to be receiving forfeiture funds, I cannot easily discern which are pursuant to this Act, other forfeitures or from the federal government. For example, fund 6506, State Police Forfeited Property Investigation Fund netted $5,544 in Fiscal Year 2013, $140,562 in Fiscal Year 2014 and $136,313 in Fiscal Year 2015. In Fiscal Year 2016, the fund received $147,395.30 in revenues and has an account investment balance of $901,345.54 as of June 30, 2016. No useful data was provided by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals or the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Institute. Most of the law enforcement officers with whom I spoke, Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs and State Police officers, offered that the funds received have enabled them to create dedicated drug enforcement units. They also offer that many of the units are either fully or mostly financially self-sufficient because of these forfeitures and that if they no longer receive the moneys, they will be forced to discontinue the units. For these and related reasons, there is no way to provide a reasonable estimate or to even extrapolate an estimate from the data obtained from some of the law enforcement agencies to be meaningful in terms of calculating how much money the School Fund might receive. In addition, there will be additional costs incurred by the State Treasurer in collecting and monitoring the moneys received. We would estimate the costs to be approximately $1,500 per year.

Fiscal Note Detail

Effect of Proposal	Fiscal Year
Effect of Proposal	2017 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	2018 Increase/Decrease (use"-")	Fiscal Year (Upon Full Implementation)
1. Estmated Total Cost	0	0	0
Personal Services	0	0	0
Current Expenses	0	0	0
Repairs and Alterations	0	0	0
Assets	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0
2. Estimated Total Revenues	0	0	0

Explanation of above estimates (including long-range effect):

Memorandum

Person submitting Fiscal Note: Diana Stout
Email Address: diana.stout@wvsto.com