BILL ANALYSIS SB 1192 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1192 (Oropeza) As Amended August 20, 2010 Majority vote SENATE VOTE :32-1 JUDICIARY 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Feuer, Brownley, Evans, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, | | |Huffman, Jones, Monning, | |Charles Calderon, Coto, | | |Saldana | |Davis, De Leon, Gatto, | | | | |Hall, Skinner, Solorio, | | | | |Torlakson, Torrico | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Tran, Hagman |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller, | | | | |Nielsen, Norby | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Provides for a new method of calculating and controlling consumer fees for covered airport consolidated rental car facilities, and new uses for those fees. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides an alternative method for calculating a customer facility charge (CFC) based on the number of days a vehicle is rented, up to a maximum of five days, rather than a flat rate per contract, if an airport subject to the bill demonstrates the need to do so. 2)Requires that any airport wishing to exercise this authority must do so before January 1, 2018. 3)Expands the purposes to which a CFC can be used to include a fee to finance, design, and construct terminal modifications to accommodate and provide customer access to common-use transportation systems, as well as to acquire vehicles for a common-use transportation system. 4)Requires additional auditing and reports to demonstrate the need for and purposes to which CFCs are put, including new oversight by the State Controller. SB 1192 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis: 1)Costs to the State Controller will be about $45,000 for each audit and will be fully reimbursed by any airport that seeks to assess the alternative CFC. 2)The state, which incurs around 220,000 car rental days per year, could experience unknown increased costs for multi-day rentals at the specified airports. (These increased costs could be partially offset by reduced costs for single-day rentals at these airports.) Regardless, any increased costs would be allocated among a multitude of fund sources, thus the impact on any single fund would likely be minor. COMMENTS : In recent years, many airports have located rental car facilities off-site, often in consolidated facilities that house all car rental companies in one location. These facilities may be served by common-use transportation systems, including bus shuttle systems, which transport rental car customers to and from terminals and the consolidated rental car facility. These facilities and systems are made possible by rental car user fees for customers who choose to rent from an on-airport rental car company. The authority to collect these fees began in 1999 when the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 1228, which permitted San Jose International Airport to collect a customer facility charge of $10.15 to finance and construct a consolidated rental car facility and common-use transportation systems, subject to certain conditions. San Francisco and San Diego were also permitted similar statutory authority. In 2001, AB 491 (Frommer), Chapter 661, Statutes of 2001, authorized other public airports to collect a $10 fee per contract to finance, design, and construct consolidated rental car facilities and common-use transportation systems. In 2007, SB 641 (Corbett), Chapter 44, Statutes of 2007, repealed the special authorization for San Jose International Airport and instead applied the more general provisions enacted by AB 491 to San Jose International Airport, thus permitting it to collect a $10 per-contract CFC. According to the author, consolidated rental-car outlets at California commercial airports are now a fairly common practice. SB 1192 Page 3 These centralized rental locations aggregate the operations of the on-airport rental car companies into one large site and house rental offices such as service centers and ready/return parking lots. Consolidated rental-car outlets are a vital step toward alleviating airport traffic congestion and air pollution. Consumer choice at many airports is also limited or non-existent by the many separate rental-car outlets and use of dedicated shuttles, vans and buses. This bill would permit any covered airport operator to collect a CFC calculated on an alternative basis - a varying amount per day during each day of the rental period, rather than the current $10 rate per-contract. This new authority would be capped at a maximum of five days per rental. This is a new method for calculating the CFC for airports that wish to invoke it, but this alternative computation does not affect the existing limitations and protections regarding CFCs. As with the existing method of computation, CFC collection authority terminates when the bonds used for financing are paid or author, except as otherwise specified. According to the sponsor the amount of CFC charged in other large hub U.S. airports for consolidated rental car facilities ranges from $2.50 per day (Orlando, FL) to $6.20 per day (New Orleans, LA). Of the 12 non-California airports surveyed, the majority (five airports) were in the $2.50 to $4 range. Two airports charged fees in the $4.01 to $5 range; four airports in the $5 to $6 range; and one airport was above $6. This bill would allow the CFC to be increased at the covered airports over a period of time, starting at $6 and potentially increasing to $9 if circumstances warrant. The City of Los Angeles states that average car rental terms at LAX are a little over four days. Under this bill, the CFC charge could go from $10 to approximately $36. Supporters, including the California Chamber of Commerce, believe increased fees are appropriate. This bill would permit the alternatively-calculated customer facility charge to be collected after a review and approval process, beginning with a public hearing at the airport and subject to a further review by the State Controller to substantiate the need for and amount of the fee request. According to a survey by the sponsor, six airports are currently collecting a CFC, but none of the six has completed the audit SB 1192 Page 4 required by existing law, apparently without consequence. They would be required to comply with this existing requirement as a condition of exercising any new authority. The new review and approval process is designed to ensure that there is better oversight and accountability. The bill also expands the uses of CFC revenue to allow for the acquisition of vehicles to be used for the transportation of customers in a common-use transportation system, and to allow for terminal modifications for the purpose of accommodating and providing access to a common-use transportation system. The bill also clarifies existing law by using consistent terminology and authorizing the use of CFC funds for the operation of common-use transportation systems, but not for the operation of consolidated airport rental facilities. Existing law distinguishes between consumers at on-airport rental car facilities and those who use off-airport facilities in order to avoid imposing a user-fee on off-airport consumers unless they are required to use the common-use transportation system. The fee must be proportionate to the costs of the common-use transportation system only. This bill further clarifies that any fee for a consolidated rental car facility shall be collected only from customers of on-airport rental car companies. Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0006516