BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 10
                                                                  Page  1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 10 (Leno)
          As Amended  July 8, 2009
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :21-16  
           
           TRANSPORTATION      9-5         REVENUE & TAXATION  6-2         
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Eng, Blumenfield,         |Ayes:|Charles Calderon, Beall,  |
          |     |Buchanan, Brownley,       |     |Coto, Ma, Portantino,     |
          |     |Galgiani,                 |     |Saldana                   |
          |     |Bonnie Lowenthal, John A. |     |                          |
          |     |Perez, Solorio, Torlakson |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Jeffries, Conway,         |Nays:|Harkey, Hagman            |
          |     |Garrick, Miller, Niello   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Enacts the Local Assessment Act.  Specifically,  this  
          bill  :  

          1)Authorizes county boards of supervisors, by ordinance, to  
            impose a voter-approved local assessment (VALA) for general  
            fund purposes, under the following conditions:  

             a)   The ordinance is approved by a two-thirds vote of the  
               board of supervisors;  

             b)   The ordinance complies with requirements of existing law  
               pertaining to vote thresholds that must be attained before  
               a local government or district can impose either special or  
               general taxes; and,

             c)   The ordinance proposing the VALA is approved by a  
               majority vote of the voters voting on the ordinance.  

          2)Requires any ordinance imposing a VALA to include the  
            following specific provisions:  

             a)   The VALA is to be imposed on residents of the county, or  
               city and county, for the privilege of operating a vehicle  








                                                                  SB 10
                                                                  Page  2


               or trailer coach on public highways in the county or city  
               and county;

             b)   The amount of the VALA is to be set at the difference  
               between 2% of the market value of a vehicle or trailer and  
               the current vehicle license fee and cannot exceed 2% of a  
               vehicle's market value;

             c)   Any adjustment to the rate cannot take effect until the  
               first day of the fiscal year following the one in which the  
               change became operative; and,

             d)   The county or city and county contracts with the  
               California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to administer  
               and collect the VALA.  

          3)Provides that a voter-approved ordinance imposing a VALA, if  
            consistent with conditions set forth in this bill, that was  
            approved by the board of supervisors and the voters prior to  
            this bill becoming effective is enforceable if both of the  
            following apply:  

             a)   The assessment is not imposed until at least 90 days  
               after the effective date of this bill; and,

             b)   The board of supervisors ratifies adoption of the  
               ordinance after the effective date of this bill and prior  
               to the VALA being levied.  

          4)Authorizes a county, or city and county, to impose VALA at a  
            lower rate than otherwise provided for in this bill for  
            low-emission vehicles.  

          5)Prescribes responsibilities for DMV in administering a VALA.  

          6)Provides that if a county, or city and county, imposes a VALA  
            and, as a result, experiences a reduction in revenue, the  
            state is not liable for making the county, or city and county,  
            whole.  

          7)Requires the Franchise Tax Board to report to DMV an estimate  
            of the total amount of revenue lost to the state in the prior  
            year resulting from deductions taken under the Personal Income  
            Tax Law for taxes paid as a result of the a VALA having been  








                                                                  SB 10
                                                                  Page  3


            imposed.  

          8)Requires DMV to withhold from VALA revenues an amount equal to  
            revenues lost to the state in the prior year because of  
            Personal Income Tax Law deductions, as reported by the  
            Franchise Tax Board, and to deposit that amount in the General  
            Fund.  

           EXISTING LAW  :  

          9)Imposes a vehicle license fee (VLF), in lieu of a personal  
            property tax, on all California motor vehicles based on the  
            market value of the vehicle.  The taxable value of a vehicle  
            is established by the purchase price of the vehicle,  
            depreciated annually according to a statutory schedule.  For  
            the taxpayer, VLF is deductible on both state and federal  
            income taxes.  Revenue from VLF is dedicated to local  
            governments.  

          Until May 19, 2009, the VLF rate had been .65% of a vehicle's  
            market value.  ABX3 3 (Evans, Chapter 18, Statutes of 2009-10  
            Third Extraordinary Session) increased that rate, until July  
            1, 2013, to 1.15%.  Revenue derived from the increase is  
            dedicated to the General Fund and to local public safety  
            programs.  

          10)No local government or district may impose any special tax  
            unless and until the special tax is submitted to the local  
            government or district electorate and approved by a two-thirds  
            vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue.  

          11)No local government or district may impose any general tax  
            unless and until such general tax is submitted to the local  
            government or district electorate and approved by a majority  
            vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue.  

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  The Senate Appropriations Committee noted that  
            actual revenues would depend upon the number of counties  
            approving an assessment and the number of vehicles registered  
            in those counties.  For example, if only San Francisco (with  
            423,110 fee-paid vehicle registrations) approved an assessment  
            of 2% and the current VLF is 1.15%, annual local revenues  
            would be $43,147,220 and the estimated annual tax revenue loss  
            in the first year would be approximately $1.5 million.   








                                                                  SB 10
                                                                  Page  4


            Estimated state revenue losses from the prior year will be  
            deducted by DMV from the amount collected and deposited in the  
            General Fund.  

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, the VLF is one of the  
          largest sources of general-purpose tax revenues for California's  
          counties.  Revenues derived from the VLF fund vital programs,  
          including public safety, public health, social services, fire  
          protection, public works, and cultural activities.  Much of this  
          revenue was lost when the Governor signed an executive order in  
          2003 reducing the VLF.  The author asserts that this bill gives  
          county voters a viable alternative to cutting services.   
          Further, this bill encourages acquisition of low- and  
          zero-emission vehicles because it authorizes counties to impose  
          a lower VALA for these vehicles.  

          Writing in opposition to this bill, DMV argues that recent  
          increases to the registration and vehicle license fees have  
          raised the average cost to register an automobile in California  
          to $194 and adding yet another local fee to the vehicle  
          registration process would be excessive and hard on the troubled  
          auto industry.  DMV is further concerned that the option for  
          counties to impose a lower assessment for low-emission vehicles  
          would be extremely complicated and difficult for it to  
          implement.  

          Concern for the impact of vehicle sales is echoed by the  
          Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.  According to the  
          Alliance, the automobile industry is "extraordinarily  
          beleaguered" and sales are at historic lows.  The Alliance  
          argues that adding another tax or fee increase will be  
          unsustainable.  The Alliance also takes issue with the fact that  
          revenues raised as a result of this bill would not benefit  
          transportation directly.  

          Previous legislation:  AB 799 (Leno) of 2005 and AB 1590 (Leno)  
          of 2007, were both very similar to this bill, except they  
          applied only to the City and County of San Francisco.  AB 1590  
          was never taken up in a Senate policy committee, and the  
          Governor vetoed AB 799.  

          In his veto message, the Governor stated that he was not opposed  
          to modest increases in fees if such increases are approved by  
          the impacted voters and not addressed in a piecemeal fashion.   








                                                                  SB 10
                                                                  Page  5


          In addition, he argued that, because the revenues generated by  
          this bill would not be directed to projects related to vehicles  
          but used to bolster the San Francisco's general fund, the bill  
          was an unfair burden to place solely on the shoulders of  
          motorists.  The Governor further wrote, "Throughout the year, my  
          administration worked with members of the Legislature on a  
          proposal that would have given all counties the authority to  
          adopt, with voter approval, modest license fee add-ons to fund  
          environmental and traffic mitigation programs.  Unfortunately,  
          those efforts were ultimately rejected.  I encourage the  
          Legislature to reconsider this decision when they return next  
          year."   
           
          According to this author, SB 10 has been crafted to apply to all  
          counties, in response to the Governor's previous direction.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 

                                                               FN:  0003653