BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 767
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 767 (Levine) - As Introduced: February 21, 2013
SUBJECT : Vehicles: additional registration fees: vehicle-theft
crimes.
SUMMARY : Makes permanent provisions of law that allow Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties to increase the
fee on vehicle registration to fund the prevention of vehicle
theft crimes, and expands authorization to all counties.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes all counties to increase the motor vehicle
registration fee from $1 to $2, and the commercial vehicle
service fee from $2 to $4, upon adoption of a resolution by
the board of supervisors, and submission of the resolution to
the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
2)Deletes the January 1, 2018 sunset date on the vehicle
registration surcharge authorization, thereby making the
provisions permanent.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a vehicle registration fee of $46 to be paid for the
registration of every motor vehicle, except those expressly
exempt.
2)Authorizes a variety of additional fees that are related to
the operation of motor vehicles to be paid with the
registration, most particularly to address certain air quality
and law enforcement issues.
3)Authorizes, until January 1, 2018, counties to adopt an annual
$1 vehicle registration service charge for passenger vehicles
and an annual $2 vehicle registration service charge for
commercial vehicles where that charge is used exclusively to
fund programs that enhance the capacity of local police and
prosecutors to deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes.
4)Authorizes, until January 1, 2018, the Counties of Los
AB 767
Page 2
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego, to increase the fee on
motor vehicle registration from $1 to $2, and would provide
that the service fee on commercial motor vehicles to increase
from $2 to $4, upon adoption of a resolution of its board of
supervisors.
5)Requires the resolution to be submitted to DMV at least six
months prior to the operative date of the fee increase.
6)Provides that resulting revenues are continuously
appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, for the
administrative costs of the State Controller, and for
disbursement by the Controller to each county that has adopted
such a resolution, based upon the number of vehicles
registered, or whose registration is renewed, to an address
within that county.
7)Provides that in any county with a population of 250,000 or
less, the money must be expended exclusively for those vehicle
theft crime programs and for the prosecution of crimes
involving driving while under the influence of alcohol or
drugs, or both, or vehicular manslaughter, or any combination
of those crimes.
8)Prohibits the money collected from being expended to offset a
reduction in any other source of funds, nor for any purpose
not authorized under existing law pertaining to the imposition
of this fee.
9)Requires the submittal of a quarterly expenditure and activity
report to the designated statewide Vehicle Theft Investigation
and Apprehension Coordinator in the CHP for each county that
adopts a resolution to impose the fee.
10) Requires the issuance of a fiscal year-end report to the
Controller on or before August 31 of each year, and requires
the report to include a detailed accounting of the funds
received and expended in the immediately preceding fiscal
year, as specified.
11) Provides that each county that fails to submit the report
by November 30 of each year will have the fee suspended by the
Controller for one year, commencing on July 1 following the
Controller's determination that a county has failed to submit
the report.
AB 767
Page 3
12) Requires, on or before January 1, 2013, and on or before
January 1 annually thereafter, the Controller to provide to
the CHP copies of the yearend reports submitted by the
counties, and requires the Controller, in consultation with
the CHP, to review the fiscal yearend reports submitted by
each county to determine if fee revenues are being utilized in
a manner consistent with the provisions of law allowing for
the imposition of the fee.
13) Requires the Controller to consult with the participating
counties' designated regional coordinators, if the Controller
determines that the use of the fee revenues is not consistent
with existing law, and allows the Controller to suspend the
authority to collect the fee for one year.
14) Requires the Controller on or before January 1 to annually
prepare and submit to the Legislature a revenue and
expenditure summary for each participating county that with
specified information.
15) Provides, in Article XIII C of the California Constitution,
that a 'tax' means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind
imposed by a local government, except for the following:
a) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or
privilege granted directly to the payor that is not
provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed
the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring
the benefit or granting the privilege.
b) A charge imposed for a specific government service or
product provided directly to the payor that is not provided
to those not charged, and which does not exceed the
reasonable costs to local government of providing the
service or product.
c) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to
a local government for issuing licenses and permits,
performing investigations, inspections, and audits,
enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the
administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
d) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local
government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of
AB 767
Page 4
local governmental property.
e) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the
judicial branch of government or a local government, as a
result of a violation of law.
f) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.
g) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in
accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Existing law establishes a basic vehicle registration fee of
$46, plus a $23 surcharge for additional personnel for the
CHP, for the new or renewal registration of most vehicles or
trailer coaches. Existing law also authorizes local agencies
to impose separate vehicle registration fee surcharges in
their respective jurisdictions for a variety of special
programs, such as abating abandoned vehicles and deterring,
investigating, and prosecuting vehicle theft.
2)The initial authorization for counties to impose a $1 fee to
fund programs to deter, investigate and prosecute vehicle
theft was contained in SB 2139 (Ed Davis), Chapter 1670,
Statutes of 1990. Subsequent legislation has extended the
sunset date several times, including AB 1664 (Dutra), Chapter
514, Statutes of 2004, and most recently, AB 286 (Salas),
Chapter 230, Statutes of 2009, which extends the program until
January 1, 2018.
There have been several other legislative attempts to extend
the sunset date on the program, including AB 878 (Davis,
2007). In addition to expanding the sunset date, AB 878 also
contained provisions that would have allowed a county increase
the surcharge imposed on vehicle registrations from $1 to $2.
AB 878 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with the
following message, "On numerous previous bills attempting to
raise registration fees, I have held that fees such as these
should be approved by a vote of the people. This measure does
not include such a provision." Additionally, AB 1768 (Davis,
2012), would have allowed for a $3 fee applying only to Los
Angeles County, but failed passage in the Assembly
AB 767
Page 5
Transportation Committee.
3)AB 1404 (Feuer) Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012, authorizes the
Counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego to
double the vehicle registration fee for vehicle theft
prevention (from $1 to $2), and the service fee on commercial
motor vehicles (from $2 to $4).
This bill extends the authority currently granted to Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego statewide to all
counties, and deletes the January 1, 2018 sunset date thereby
making the provisions permanent. This bill allows all
counties, though a resolution by the board of supervisors to
increase the vehicle registration fee from $1 to $2, and the
service fee on commercial motor vehicles from $2 to $4. This
bill is sponsored by the California State Sheriffs'
Association.
4)The author argues, "Vehicle theft prevention programs are an
incredibly effective tool for combatting crime. The
activities funded by this fee produce a remarkable return on
taxpayer's investment. In the last fiscal year, counties
maintaining a vehicle theft prevention surcharge collected a
combined $31 million to fund theft prevention programs;
program activities in turn recovered a combined $151 million
in stolen vehicle assets. This bill gives local law
enforcement agencies the tools they need to fight vehicle
theft in their communities."
According to the author, 47 counties have created a vehicle
theft program pursuant to the original authorization in 1990,
and have recovered stolen vehicle assets at a rate of nearly
$5 for every $1 of surcharge revenue collected.
5)CalTax, in opposition to the bill, argues, "By burying the
funding of vehicle theft prevention programs into the cost of
registering a vehicle the Legislature would be ignoring the
importance of a transparent revenue structure. For years,
hidden taxes have frustrated voters. In 2010, voters passed
Proposition 26 to stop the Legislature from disguising fees as
taxes. This bill ignores the voters and undermines the spirit
of Proposition 26."
6)Taxes at the local level require a two-thirds vote for those
taxes that are specifically dedicated to be used for certain
AB 767
Page 6
purposes, otherwise if the tax is for general purposes, a
majority vote of the residents in the jurisdiction is then
needed.
Since Proposition 26 (2010) has changed the rules of fees and
taxes, and thus tightened the requirements needed for local
voter approval, the issue of whether voter approval is
necessary to increase the fee may be an issue that is
ultimately up to the courts to decide.
7)Also before this Committee, AB 1324 (Skinner) would authorize
the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to increase the fee on
vehicle registration for the prevention of vehicle theft
crimes. The Committee may wish to discuss both measures on
their individual merit, but also contemplate whether two
separate measures are necessary.
The Committee may wish to consider the policy of removing the
sunset date and extending the provisions permanently. On the
one hand, needing to introduce legislation every few years to
extend a sunset date may not be an efficient use of
legislative resources, but on the other hand, statutes with
sunset dates allow for periodic oversight by legislators and
staff on the implementation and effectiveness of those
statutes.
8)Support arguments : Supporters argue that this bill will help
counties maintain regional auto theft prevention programs and
taskforces that have proven to be successful and a sound
economic investment.
Opposition arguments : Opposition argues this bill distorts the
purpose of California's vehicle registration program and
buries the funding of a vehicle theft prevention program into
the cost of registering a vehicle.
9)This bill was heard in the Transportation Committee on April
8, 2013, and passed with a 10-6 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Sheriffs' Association [SPONSOR]
California District Attorneys Association
AB 767
Page 7
California New Car Dealers Association
California State Association of Counties
Opposition
CalTax
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958