BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1192| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 1192 Author: Oropeza (D) Amended: 8/30/10 Vote: 21 SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 5/4/10 AYES: Corbett, Harman, Hancock, Leno NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE : 5-0, 5/5/10 AYES: Cox, Aanestad, Kehoe, DeSaulnier, Price SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-2, 5/27/10 AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee NOES: Denham, Wyland NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox, Walters SENATE FLOOR : 32-1, 6/3/10 AYES: Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cedillo, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Dutton, Florez, Hancock, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Oropeza, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee NOES: Denham NO VOTE RECORDED: Aanestad, Cox, Harman, Hollingsworth, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-27, 8/30/10 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Airports: rental car facility fees CONTINUED SB 1192 Page 2 SOURCE : City of Los Angeles DIGEST : This bill expands the definition of customer facility charge to include a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for the purpose of financing, designing, constructing, and operating any common-use transportation system, as specified, and for acquiring vehicles for use in that system. This bill authorizes an alternative fee following a hearing and finding by the airport, as provided, that the customer facility charge will not generate sufficient revenue to finance and operate the consolidated rental car facility and common-use transportation system. The bill provides for the collection of the alternative fee on a per-day basis, as specified. The bill, requires any airport seeking to collect an alternative customer facility charge to provide reports on an annual basis to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary detailing the total amount of the customer facility charge collected, how the funds are being spent, the amount of and reason for any changes in the airport's budget or financial needs, and whether certain airport concession fees have increased since the prior report, if any. The bill also requires the airport to complete a specified independent audit prior to the initial collection of the customer facility charge, prior to any increase, as specified, and every three years after initial collection and any increase, as provided. The bill requires the Controller to review those audits and independently examine and substantiate the necessity for and the amount of the customer facility charge. The bill requires the individual airports being audited to reimburse the Controller's costs. The bill also requires the Controller to report to the Legislature on his or her conclusions, as provided. This bill incorporates additional changes to Section 1936 of the Civil Code, as proposed by AB 2059 (C. Calderon), to be operative only if AB 2059 and this bill are both enacted; each bill amends Section 1936 of the Civil Code, and this bill is enacted after AB 2059. Assembly Amendments (1) amend the definition of "customer facility charge" and authorizes an alternative fee SB 1192 Page 3 following a hearing by the airport; (2) delete the reference to the Bob Hope Airport, Fresno Yosemite International Airport and the San Diego International Airport and now include any airport seeking to collect an alternative customer facility charge; (3) add double-jointing language with AB 2059 (C. Calderon) relative to Section 1936 of the Civil Code; (4) improve the oversight process by requiring airports to provide additional information regarding the uses and alternatives for the funds, clarify the obligations of the State Controller; (5) delete the $550,000 appropriation and instead require the individual airports to reimburse the Controller's cost incurred by being audited; and (6) delete the 27-vote requirement. ANALYSIS : Existing law governs contracts between rental car companies and their customers. Existing law authorizes a company that rents passenger vehicles to the public to collect a customer facility charge, which means a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for certain purposes, if specified circumstances apply, including, but not limited to, the collection of the fee is required by an airport operated by a city, a county, a city and county, a joint powers district, or a special district, the fee is calculated on a per contract basis, the fee is a user fee and not a tax, as specified, and the fee is $10 per contract, except as specified. Existing law provides that a statute that imposes a requirement that a state agency submit a periodic report to the Legislature is inoperative on a date four years after the date the first report is due. This bill 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. SB 1192 Page 4 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. Background 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. Common-use transportation systems, including bus shuttle systems, transport rental car customers to and from terminals and the consolidated rental car facility. In 1999, the Legislature passed and the governor signed SB 1228 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 760, Statutes of 1999, which permits San Jose International Airport to collect a customer facility charge of $10.15 to finance and construct these consolidated rental car facilities and common-use transportation systems, subject to certain conditions. San Francisco and San Diego were also permitted similar statutory authority. AB 491 (Frommer), Chapter 661, Statutes of 2001, authorizes 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, repeals 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 customer facility charge (CFC). In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) plans to build a consolidated rental car facility. A recent Los Angeles Times article noted the following about the project: SB 1192 Page 5 Los Angeles International Airport officials are drafting plans to build a terminal that will house many of the area's rental car companies, providing space for 33,000 vehicles while helping untangle the airport's notorious congestion and cutting pollution. The terminal, which could cost as much as $800 million, is also expected to make it easier for people to find their rental agencies or switch from one to another if the line is too long or it doesn't have the right car. LAX has collected $47 million for the project since 2007 by charging a flat $10 fee on rentals from the 10 companies whose vans circle the airport looking for customers. But the fee is not bringing in enough money, said Mark Adams, chief government affairs representative for Los Angeles World Airports, which operates LAX. In order to raise more funds, the airport is hoping to boost the surcharge through a daily fee rather than the current flat fee on rentals. The airport is still several years from beginning construction of the terminal. . . . Although airport traffic is down substantially since 9/11, rental agency vans make about 800,000 trips a year into the main airport, according to airport statistics, often with just one or two passengers. With a consolidated rental facility, buses would shuttle passengers between it and airline terminals, dropping the number of trips to 437,000 annually. Trips would be cut even further if a planned light-rail system with stops at the rental car terminal is built. Adams said the rental terminal is "considered the most significant air quality mitigation" effort in the airport's master plan. ("LAX plans a consolidated car rental facility," Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2010.) FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/10) SB 1192 Page 6 City of Los Angeles (source) Alliance for a Regional Solution to Airport Congestion Bob Hope International Airport California Airports Council California Chamber of Commerce Fresno-Yosemite International Airport Inglewood-Airport Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce San Francisco International Airport ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office states, "Construction of consolidated rental-car outlets at California commercial airports is now a fairly common practice. 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. "Airports currently use Consumer Facility Charges (CFCs) to finance the insurance of long-term debt to pay for the design, construction and operations of these rental offices and the operation of the common-use transportation systems at airport terminals. With limited exceptions, existing state statute passed in 2001 only allows collection of the CFC at a fixed rate of $10 per rental-car transaction. This one-size-fits-all approach is failing to provide sufficient revenues to: 1) issue or service existing bonds to finance the construction of these car-rental offices; 2) cover ongoing operational costs of the offices and their common-use transportation systems. The current transaction fee does not offer an airport authority the flexibility to tailor its fee to local market conditions. In addition, when new car-rental outlets planned in California airports cannot be sufficiently funded under the current $10 per contract fee without airport subsidies, other vital airport services are effected." This bill is sponsored by the City of Los Angeles which SB 1192 Page 7 argues that the bill would "provide California's airports with the funding mechanism they need to construct essential consolidated rental car facilities. These facilities reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and increase consumer choice. It is for these reasons our city is proposing to construct such a facility at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). However our state's airports are currently locked into a fixed $10 per contract Customer Facility Charge (CFC) first set in 1999 that is often insufficient to fully fund construction of these facilities or to pay for the ones that have already been built." ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Swanson, Vacancy, Vacancy ASSEMBLY FLOOR : AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Jeffries, Knight, Logue, Miller, SB 1192 Page 8 Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Norby, Silva, Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines NO VOTE RECORDED: Caballero, Swanson, Vacancy, Vacancy RJG:do 8/31/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****