Agenda Human Relations Commission October 11, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Village Committee Room 3930 North Murray Avenue, Shorewood, WI

Transcription

1 Agenda Human Relations Commission October 11, 2018, 6:30 P.M. Village Committee Room 3930 North Murray Avenue, Shorewood, WI 1. Call to order 2. Consider Approval of September 13, 2018 minutes 3. Public Comments 4. Discuss Observations in the Community 5. Staff Liaison Updates 6. Discuss collections of unpaid citations in Municipal Court 7. Discuss and review ground rules for Commission to consider 8. Discuss Formulating Sub-committees 9. Discuss Future Meetings 10. Adjournment DATED at Shorewood, Wisconsin, this 4th day of October, 2018, VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD Sara Bruckman Village Clerk It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above stated meeting to gather information; no action will be taken by any governmental body at the above stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Should you have any questions or comments regarding any items on this agenda, please contact the Village Manager s Office at Upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals.

2 Human Relations Commission Minutes September 13, P.M. Village Hall 3930 N. Murray Avenue, Shorewood, WI Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. Members present: Kerri Balliet, McKenzie Edmonds, Gladys Mitchell-Walthour, Sharveta Parker, Jesse Dercks, Sarah Spencer Others present: Assistant Village Manager Tyler Burkart, Students Mira Lee Prabhu, President Allison Rozek, Police Lieutenant Thomas Liebenthal Members not present: Shavonda Sisson, Trustee Ann McKaig 2. Consider Approval of August 9, 2018 minutes Ms. Balliet moved to approve the August 9, 2018 minutes. Motion seconded by Ms. Edmonds. Motion approved by a 6-0 vote. 3. Public Comments The pastor and a member of the parish from Kingo Lutheran Church was in attendance. They have been meeting with Village staff members Hayley Johnson and Elizabeth Price discussing several of these issues. 4. Discuss Observations in the Community There was a story shared about the Police stopping a resident because they had received calls about a suspicious person in the neighborhood. A few members summarized the discussion about Police-community relations. The facilitator did a great job engaging others in the discussions and many people stayed afterwards. They expressed a desire for the discussion to be longer because the dialogue stopped right when the discussion was at an impactful point. Other stories were shared about some stories and feelings that minorities may feel in the Shorewood community. 5. Staff Liaison Updates Mr. Burkart informed the Commission the Village Board will receive an introduction to the 2019 proposed budget presentation on September 17. He reminded the Commission that $500 will be in a line labeled Citizen Committees. Mr. Burkart also let the Commission know the Village Board and staff has a few items ready for the Commission to discuss. 6. Discuss creation of mission statement for the Commission The Commission took some time to brainstorm ideas on what a mission statement could be for the Commission. Mr. Burkart informed the Commission of ways to develop a mission statement. The Commission proposed the following mission statement after discussion:

3 Human Relations Commission September 13, 2018 Minutes Mr. Dercks moves to adopt the following mission statement: We, the Human Relations Commission of Shorewood, cultivate community-wide change through learning, engagement, and policy to advance human dignity, respect, and civil rights. Ms. Parker seconds the motion. Motion passed Discuss ground rules for Commission to consider The Commission discussed some ground rules that are important to conduct business. The ideas shared during the conversation include: 1. It is acceptable to agree to disagree. 2. Disagree with the idea and not the person. 3. Respect unfinished business. 4. Respect your role as a Village official and representative of the HRC. 5. Explore without judgement and hostility. 6. When making public statements on Human Relations topics, engage in a civil matter with others. Mr. Dercks moves to adopt ground rules 1-5 and tabling future discussion along with any other ground rules including item 6 established by the Commission. Ms. Parker seconded. Motion passed Consider Approving Objectives and Initiatives Mr. Dercks moves to adopt the following objectives and initiatives for the HRC sub-committees: Education, Programming and Outreach Sub-Committee Educational awareness of pronouns for gender and transgender populations. Education on alternatives to calling the Police and identify when those instances may be. Education on cultural competence. This may include a summit that engages discussions on diversity. This may also be directed towards Village staff and volunteer committees. Provide Police an opportunity to share how they do things and engage in community discussions. Formalize outreach process with the public (i.e. social media). Review and propose new structure for a Welcome New Neighbors program. Be present at community events to provide educational resources. Reach out to teachers and the schools to integrate educational components from the Commission. Process, Policy and Legislative Review Sub-Committee Build a larger understanding about disparities through community programs. Review and creation of a Justice and Dignity ordinance. Review Village s hiring and recruiting practices. Possibility to expand training to businesses and the rest of the community. Review ADA procedures for the Village.

4 Human Relations Commission September 13, 2018 Minutes Review holiday practices and celebrations in the community. Review potential ordinance language to address conversion therapy. Data Analytics, Documentation and Reporting Sub-Committee List of resources that direct residents to have a complaint addressed. This includes finding a resource to provide mediation for community members if needed. Create a process for documenting and reporting incidents heard and discussed in the community. Analyze data and statistics related to human relation issues. Provide data to be available to the public. Define the measureables for Commission. Ms. Parker seconded the motion. Motion passed Discuss Formulating Sub-committees Mr. Burkart asked for all Commission members to send their preferences for the subcommittees to him as well as Ms. Parker. Mr. Burkart will also send an invitation to be a part of the sub-committees to community members who applied to the Commission but weren t selected. 10. Discuss Next Meeting Next meeting will be Thursday, October 11 at 6:30 p.m. 11. Adjournment. Ms. Balliet moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Ms. Spencer. Motion approved by 6-0 vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Tyler Burkart Assistant Village Manager

5 VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Agenda Item: Discuss Municipal Court Unpaid Citations Date: October 11, 2018 Presenter: Tyler Burkart, Assistant Village Manager Department: Village Manager s Office Overview Please provide a summary of the agenda item along with bullet points highlighting the main items and key issues. Earlier in 2018, the Village Board directed staff to begin using a State debt collection (SDC) agency and the tax refund intercept program (TRIP) to receive payment for unpaid citations. An attached memorandum provided by the Municipal Court demonstrates the reasons for this recommendation and the amount of unpaid citations. The Village Board asked the Human Relations Commission to review these practices and determine if the Commission wants to make a recommendation for or against these practices. The main concern expressed by at least one Village Board member was that pursuing unpaid citations significantly impacts minority groups. Data attached to this memorandum provides some data in response to this concern. Any recommendation made by the Human Relations Commission will be forwarded on to the Village Board for consideration. Action Required / Recommended Please include the recommended motion or required action for this agenda item. No action is required. If the Commission wishes to make a recommendation, the following language may be used: I recommend to the Village Board and the Municipal Court to (not) use the state debt collection agency and the tax refund intercept program to go after unpaid citations. Fiscal Note / Budget Impact Please include the budget impact for this agenda item. The Shorewood Municipal Court has a balance due by defendants as of $2,415,514. The attached memorandum addresses the amount of projected revenue to be received by using the SDC and TRIP. Attachments Please list the following attachments and supporting documents for this agenda item. 1. Memo from Municipal Court on State debt collection program 2. Data showing unpaid citations based on ethnicity and location

6 VILLAGE OF SHOREWOOD MUNICIPAL COURT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: VILLAGE BOARD NORMA KUNZE, COURT CLERK STATE DEBT COLLECTION (SDC) DATE: 8/27/2018 CC: JUDGE DONAL DEMET The Village of Shorewood Municipal Court has a recommendation that would increase revenue and provide the court with an additional means to enforce monetary judgments and to protect the integrity of our Judge/courts decisions This memo recommends implementation of State Debt Collect (SDC). Why State Debt Collection (SDC)? The Shorewood Municipal Court has a balance due by defendants as of $2,415,514. There are two ways to collect debt through the State of Wisconsin: State Debt Collection (SDC): Department of Revenue (DOR) collects from asset(s) the defendant(s) may have in any State. Tax Refund Intercept Program (TRIP): DOR intercepts tax refunds from State the defendant(s) files their taxes. The Department of Revenue estimates TRIP would collect 3-5% of the $2,415,514 balance due by defendants, which would be anywhere from $72,465 to $120,776 collected. They also estimate SDC would collect 33-35% (the percentage provided by the Department of Revenue) of the $2,415,514 balance due by defendants, which would be anywhere from $845,430 to $797,120 collected. The Municipal Court is proposing the Village utilize SDC and TRIP to collect on debt owed. SDC would provide the court with an additional means to enforce monetary judgments and to protect the integrity of the Judge/courts decisions. It would not be used until the defendant s other avenues for payments have expired. Note: A debt means any amount owed to a government agency where the debt has been reduced to a judgment or the debtor has been notified and has been given an opportunity to be heard with regard to the amount owed. The debt must be more than 90-days past due and must not be subject to an open legal action or administrative proceeding. Debts will not be submitted to the Department of Revenue (DOR) for collection if the debtor enters into a repayment agreement with the agency or is in negotiations to resolve the debt.

7 What can a defendant expect in the collection process? The Village of Shorewood Municipal Court would be required to send a Notice of Referral to the defendant at least 30-days prior to sending a debt to the Department of Revenue (DOR) to process first through SDC. A warning letter with language of DOR possible collection actions is a powerful tool to encourage debtors to pay prior to referral to DOR. The notice provides an opportunity for defendants to contact the Village of Shorewood Municipal Court to resolve the obligation prior to referral. If the defendant does not contact the Village of Shorewood Municipal Court, the debt would be referred to the DOR. DOR sets up a collection case for the debt and adds a collection fee. The fee is 15% of the amount referred (minimum $35.00). A Notice of Referred Debt is sent with contact information and a payment voucher. If the defendant is unable to pay the balance in full, they may request a payment plan through the DOR. If in the event that bankruptcy is filed by the defendant, they are to notify the DOR and the Village of Shorewood Municipal Court. DOR will stop collection actions until the bankruptcy has been discharged. If the debt survives bankruptcy, DOR will resume collections. What is the Department of Revenue (DOR) Collection Philosophy? The collection of debt is based on the premise that the voluntary resolution of an account is preferable to exercising the authority delegated to the Department of Revenue to collect these delinquencies by involuntary methods.first preference in resolving accounts is full payment. Since this is not always achievable, the DOR is willing to negotiate mutually agreeable voluntary repayment schedules when circumstances indicate that it is the reasonable thing to do.when taxpayers demonstrate that they will not voluntarily pay their legal obligations, DOR will then initiate involuntary collection actions such as attaching wages or levying bank accounts.special Handling Refund Setoff: Certain overpayments to tax accounts will be applied to debts referred for collection. Setoff hierarchy: Debts owed to DOR Debts owed for Child Support Debts owed for victim restitution Debts owed to state agencies (SDC) Debts owed to counties and municipalities (SDC) Debts owed to state agencies, counties and municipalities (TRIP) Implementation costs would be a one-time fee of $2,750.00, and annual fee of $750.00, for a total first year cost of $3,

8 Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Asian/Pacific $ 20, Village of Shorewood Municipal Court Hispanic $ 38, Amer Indian or Alaskan $ 6, White $ 1,191, Black $ 1,012, Total $ 2,270, Unpaid Adult Citations by Race 0% 2% 1% 45% 52% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black

9 Citations Issued (unpaid) in 2018 Municipalities Citations Issued Milwaukee Municipality 327 Shorewood Municipality 40 Other Milwaukee Municipalities 27 Outside Municipalities 28 Citations Issued in Milwaukee Municipality Shorewood Municipality Other Milwaukee Municipalities Outside Municipalities Citations Issued in % 7% 9% 78% Milwaukee Municipality Shorewood Municipality Other Milwaukee Municipalities Outside Municipalities

10 Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Paid Unpaid Unpaid Asian/Pacific $130, $149, Asian/Pacific $149, Hispanic $68, $107, Hispanic $107, Amer Indian or Alaskan $10, $16, Amer Indian or Alaskan $16, White $2,063, $3,231, White $3,231, Black $831, $1,830, Black $1,830, Total $3,104, $5,335, Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race UNPAID $16, $107, $149, $1,830, $3,231, $5,335, PAID $10, $68, $130, $831, $2,063, $3,104, $0.00 $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, Total Black White Amer Indian or Alaskan Hispanic Asian/Pacific

11 4% 2% 27% 0% Paid Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan 67% White Black 3% 2% 0% Unpaid 34% 61% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black

12 Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Paid Unpaid Unpaid Asian/Pacific $40, $55, Asian/Pacific $55, Hispanic $25, $53, Hispanic $53, Amer Indian or Alaskan $3, $7, Amer Indian or Alaskan $7, White $590, $996, White $996, Black $423, $1,168, Black $2,282, Total $1,083, $2,282, Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race UNPAID $7, $53, $55, $996, $1,168, $2,282, PAID $3, $25, $40, $423, $590, $1,083, $0.00 $500, $1,000, $1,500, $2,000, $2,500, Total Black White Amer Indian or Alaskan Hispanic Asian/Pacific

13 4% 2% 0% 39% Guilty by Default - Paid 55% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black 2% 2% 0% 29% Guilty by Default - Unpaid 67% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black

14 Paid & Unpaid 2017 Adult Citations by Race Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Paid Unpaid Unpaid Asian/Pacific $7, $9, Asian/Pacific $9, Hispanic $8, $16, Hispanic $16, Amer Indian or Alaskan $ $ Amer Indian or Alaskan $ White $59, $100, White $100, Black $25, $125, Black $125, Total $101, $252, Paid & Unpaid 2017 Adult Citations by Race Violation Date: 1/01/ /31/2017 UNPAID PAID $ $16, $9, $25, $ $8, $7, $59, $100, $125, $101, $252, $0.00 $50, $100, $150, $200, $250, $300, Total Black White Amer Indian or Alaskan Hispanic Asian/Pacific

15 8% 8% Paid 2017 Adult Citations by Race Violation Date: 1/01/ /31/ % 58% 0% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black 4% 6% Unpaid 2017 Adult Citations by Race Violation Date: 1/01/ /31/ % 40% 0% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black

16 Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Paid Unpaid Unpaid Asian/Pacific $2, $4, Asian/Pacific $4, Hispanic $3, $9, Hispanic $9, Amer Indian or Alaskan $ $ Amer Indian or Alaskan $ White $19, $49, White $49, Black $13, $97, Black $97, Total $39, $160, Guilty by Default 2017 Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race UNPAID $ $9, $4, $49, $97, $160, PAID $13, $19, $ $3, $2, $39, $0.00 $20, $40, $60, $80, $100, $120, $140, $160, $180, Total Black White Amer Indian or Alaskan Hispanic Asian/Pacific

17 7% 9% 0% 34% Guilty by Default Paid 50% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black 3% 6% 0% Guilty by Default Unpaid 61% 30% Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black

18 Debt Collection Adverse Impact Report How to read this report: This report indicates the (a) direction, (b) degree and (d) statistical significance (where possible) of the difference in (1) paying citation by race, and (2) receiving Guilty by Default by race. This report does not indicate the (a) causes of the adverse impact, (b) whether or not those causes themselves have adverse impact, or (c) which of/whether those causes are valid/invalid create intended/unintended impact (note: causes that intend impact are defined by law as inherently invalid) Adverse Impact is not Discrimination. They are related but different terms and neither is mutually inclusive/exclusive. Adverse Impact may be caused by many factors. Often, but not always, those factors can be isolated using regression modelling. These factors (dependent variables) are typically described as: Confounding [i.e. explanatory] variables that cause both events and thus makes them appear related Intermediate [i.e. tainted] variables that are caused by one event and in turn causes the other For example (1) Ice Cream Consumption has adverse Impact on Drowning through the confounding variable Summer. (2) PTSD has adverse Impact on early mortality through intermediate variables such as Drug Use. Here we are concerned with the relationship between the variables Debt Collection and Race. Several confounding/intermediate variables that may be related to both Debt Collection and Race are notable: (1) Citation rate, (2) demographics, (3) $ amount of ticket, (4) type of ticket, (5) late fee, (6) other penalty, (7) seasonality (date of citation), (8) locality of recipient, (9) Gender, (10) Age, (11) time from ticket to payment, (12) race of citing officer, (13) guilty by default, (14) income, (15) education, (16) employment, (17) SDC Collection rate, (17) TRIP Collection rate, (18) correlation of dependent variables, (19) other Absent evidence, it is not clear that any given variable (a) is related to both Debt Collection and Race, or (b) whether the relationship is best described as counfounding or intermediate. The relationship and tradeoff between X increase Equity and Y increase in Revenue can be measured with lesser/greater degrees of confidence. At the tailends both have diminishing marginal returns. Nonetheless the question of 'what degree of tradeoff ought one make?' is one of policy and cannot be determined mathematically.

19 Demographics Municipalities Citations Issued Weight # Weight W B H A 2+ O Source : Milwaukee Municipality % 35.0% 40.0% 17.3% 3.5% 3.4% 0.8% Census City of MKE Shorewood Municipality % 86.4% 2.9% 3.2% 4.8% 2.0% 0.7% Census Shorewood Other Milwaukee Municipalities % 49.6% 27.2% 15.1% 4.4% 2.7% 1.0% Census MKE County Outside Municipalities % 79.0% 6.7% 6.9% 4.4% 1.9% 1.1% Census WI TOTAL % W B H A 2+ O SUM Estimated (weighted) Availability Pool* 68.0% 15.7% 8.7% 4.4% 2.4% 0.8% 100.0% *Several assumptions are made here: (1) The weighing of pool is best guess reflection populations that are physically present in Shorewood at arbitrary time X. (2) That overlapping demographic pools are robust enough that weighted score remains reasonable approximation Municipalities Citations Issued (Unpaid) Milwaukee Municipality 327 Shorewood Municipality 40 Other Milwaukee Municip 27 Outside Municipalities 28 W White B Black H Hispanic A Asian 2+ Two or More O Other (Where neccesary, White is defined as 'non minority' or as 'white alone, non Hispanic') Unpaid by Race (2018?) Village of Shorewood Municipal Court Asian/Pacific Hispanic Amer Indian or Alaskan White Black Total $20,745 $38,638 $6,512 $1,191,665 $1,012,996 $2,270,557

20 Debt Collection Impact Ratio Report This report describes the Adverse Impact between the sample (unpaid tickets) with the population (total tickets). The generally accepted range for non significant adverse impact is between 80% and 120% (AKA '80% rule" Griggs v. Duke Power ). Read this report as follows "Column Y is ##% as likely as Row Y to have an unpaid citation" OR Row X is ##% as likely as Column Y to have a paid citation". While comparison between each group was provided, Adverse Impact refers to the comparison of one group to the average of all groups (Total) Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations Adverse Impact Race by Race A H N W B Total Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid 53.5% 61.0% 61.5% 61.0% 68.8% 63.2% A $130,071 $149,674 $279,745 A 46.5% 53.5% 100% 114% 115% 114% 129% 118% H $68,642 $107,408 $176,051 H 39.0% 61.0% 88% 100% 101% 100% 113% 104% N $10,468 $16,692 $27,161 N 38.5% 61.5% 87% 99% 100% 99% 112% 103% W $2,063,870 $3,231,575 $5,295,445 W 39.0% 61.0% 88% 100% 101% 100% 113% 104% B $831,059 $1,830,263 $2,661,322 B 31.2% 68.8% 78% 89% 89% 89% 100% 92% Total $3,104,110 $5,335,612 $8,439,722 Total 36.8% 63.2% 85% 97% 97% 97% 109% 100% Adverse impact is not indicated in total Citations Paid & Unpaid 2017 Adult Paid & Unpaid 2017 Adult Adverse Impact Citations by Race Citations by Race A H N W B Total Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid 54.9% 66.2% 74.4% 62.9% 82.9% 71.4% A $7,657 $9,306 $16,963 A 45.1% 54.9% 100% 121% 136% 115% 151% 130% H $8,253 $16,175 $24,428 H 33.8% 66.2% 83% 100% 112% 95% 125% 108% N $248 $719 $966 N 25.6% 74.4% 74% 89% 100% 85% 112% 96% W $59,365 $100,485 $159,850 W 37.1% 62.9% 87% 105% 118% 100% 132% 114% B $25,922 $125,965 $151,887 B 17.1% 82.9% 66% 80% 90% 76% 100% 86% Total $101,444 $252,651 $354,095 Total 28.6% 71.4% 77% 93% 104% 88% 116% 100% Adverse impact in collections is indicated in CY 2017 impacting [Asian] in collection and [Black] in non collection. [Asian] is disproportionately likely to pay citation (adverse impact indicated [not paying is preferable to paying] ). [Black] is disproportionately likely to not pay citation adverse impact indicated in collection [no late fee/collection preferable to late fee/collection] ) Assumption: Model does not take into account (a) increase in citation amount due to late fees, (b) average differences in citation amount, (c) repeat offenders, (e) other outliers/factors Statistical significance was not indicated as either: (a) number of citations issued/paid, or (b) individual line data is required.

21 Paid & Unpaid Adult Paid & Unpaid 2017 Adult Citations by Race Citations by Race Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid Total A $130,071 $149,674 $279,745 A $7,657 $9,306 $16,963 H $68,642 $107,408 $176,051 H $8,253 $16,175 $24,428 N $10,468 $16,692 $27,161 N $248 $719 $966 W $2,063,870 $3,231,575 $5,295,445 W $59,365 $100,485 $159,850 B $831,059 $1,830,263 $2,661,322 B $25,922 $125,965 $151,887 Total $3,104,110 $5,335,612 $8,439,722 Total $101,444 $252,651 $354,095 Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race 2017 Paid Unpaid Total Paid Unpaid Total A $40,214 $55,928 $96,142 A $2,568 $4,217 $6,785 H $25,408 $53,405 $78,813 H $3,656 $9,354 $13,010 N $3,628 $7,242 $10,870 N $124 $595 $719 W $590,662 $996,977 $1,587,639 W $19,388 $49,032 $68,419 B $423,845 $1,168,718 $1,592,562 B $13,464 $97,594 $111,057 Total $1,083,757 $2,282,270 $3,366,027 Total $39,199 $160,791 $199,990 % Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race % Guilty by Default Paid & Unpaid Adult Citations by Race 2017 Paid Unpaid Total Impact Ratio Paid Unpaid Total Impact Ratio A 30.9% 37.4% 34.4% 86.2% A 33.5% 45.3% 40.0% 70.8% H 37.0% 49.7% 44.8% 112.2% H 44.3% 57.8% 53.3% 94.3% N 34.7% 43.4% 40.0% 100.3% N 50.0% 82.8% 74.4% 131.7% W 28.6% 30.9% 30.0% 75.2% W 32.7% 48.8% 42.8% 75.8% B 51.0% 63.9% 59.8% 150.0% B 51.9% 77.5% 73.1% 129.5% Total 34.9% 42.8% 39.9% 100.0% Total 38.6% 63.6% 56.5% 100.0% Adverse impact in Guilty by Default Total is indicated in for all but [Hispanic] and [Native American] in all collections and all but [Hispanic] in 2017 collections

22 The Department of Revenue estimates TRIP would collect 3 5% of the $2,415,514 balance due by defendants, which would be anywhere from $72,465 to $120,776 collected. They also estimate SDC would collect 33 35% (the percentage provided by the Department of Revenue) of the $2,415,514 balance due by defendants, which would be anywhere from $845,430 to $797,120 collected. Balance Due: TRIP SDC Report: $2,415,514 3% 5% 33% 35% Total: $5,335,612 $72, $120, $797, $845, Est annual $252,651 Exclusion Tickets <$35 Fees Per recover 15% Assumption Registration $2,750 TRIP and SDC are mutually exclusive Annual $750 (i.e. total collection = 36% 40%, est 38%) Assumptions Collection Rate Exclusion Rate 38% 34% Year Owed Collected (38%) fee Addn'l Revenue One Time $2,415,514 $605, $94, $511, Ongoing $252,651 $63, $13, $50,360.05