BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 767|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 767
Author: Levine (D), et al.
Amended: 6/12/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 8-3, 6/11/13
AYES: DeSaulnier, Beall, Galgiani, Hueso, Lara, Liu, Pavley,
Roth
NOES: Gaines, Cannella, Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/24/13
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-25, 5/16/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicle registration fee surcharges: vehicle theft
programs
SOURCE : California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs Association
DIGEST : This bill authorizes counties to increase from $1 to
$2 vehicle registration surcharges that they impose to fund
vehicle theft prevention, investigation, and prosecution
programs, and it deletes the 2018 sunset date on the
authorization to impose these surcharges.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a basic vehicle
registration fee of $46, plus a $23 surcharge for additional
CONTINUED
AB 767
Page
2
personnel for the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the new or
renewal registration of most vehicles. Existing law also
authorizes local agencies to impose separate vehicle
registration fee surcharges in their respective jurisdictions
for a variety of special programs, including until January 1,
2018, a $1 surcharge for a program to deter, investigate, and
prosecute vehicle theft. This surcharge is $2 for commercial
vehicles. In counties with populations of 250,000 or less,
prosecutors may use the resulting revenues also to prosecute
crimes involving driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
and vehicular manslaughter.
Existing law that took effect in January allows Los Angeles
County, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties to increase their
existing surcharge to $2 for noncommercial vehicles and to $4
for commercial vehicles to fund their programs to deter,
investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft.
A county board of supervisors must adopt a resolution to impose
this surcharge on every new or renewal vehicle registration
within the county. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
collects the surcharge and remits those fees, after deducting
its own administrative costs, to the State Controller. State
law continuously appropriates these funds, which the Controller
disburses to each participating county based on the number of
registered vehicles within that county.
Each quarter a participating county must submit to CHP a report
on the expenditures and activity of the program, and by August
31 every year each county must submit a report to the Controller
that describes the fiscal year that just ended:
Total revenues received from the surcharge by the county;
Total expenditures by the county on eligible programs;
A summary of vehicle theft abatement activities and other
programs funded by the surcharge;
The total number of stolen vehicles recovered and their
value;
The total number of vehicles stolen and a comparison to the
preceding fiscal year; and
CONTINUED
AB 767
Page
3
Any unexpended surcharge revenues received.
The Controller may suspend collection of the fee if the local
agency is not reporting as required by law or is not expending
funds as authorized. The Controller annually reports to the
Legislature on this program.
This bill:
1. Authorizes any county that has imposed a $1 vehicle
registration surcharge for vehicle theft prevention to
increase that surcharge to $2 through a resolution its board
of supervisors adopts. These counties surcharge on
commercial vehicles would increase from $2 to $4 as well.
The county must submit this resolution to DMV at least six
months prior to the date DMV will begin collecting the $2
surcharge.
2. Authorizes a county that has not adopted a resolution to
impose a $1 fee to instead adopt a resolution to impose a $2
fee.
3. Deletes the January 1, 2018 sunset date.
Comments
Purpose . SB 2139 (Davis, Chapter 1670, Statutes of 1990)
authorized counties to impose a $1 surcharge on vehicle
registrations to fund vehicle theft programs. Since then, the
cost of these programs has far outpaced the increased number of
registered vehicles on the road.
47 counties impose the surcharge, using the revenue to conduct
probation searches, fund interagency sting operations,
"chop-shop" investigations, and other vehicle theft prevention
programs. Statewide county activities funded by the surcharge
led to the recovery of more than 130,000 stolen vehicles in
2012.
According to CHP data, the 25 counties that recovered the most
stolen vehicles in 2012 all fund vehicle theft abatement
activities with the surcharge. With the exception of two
counties, all of the top 40 counties for vehicle theft recovery
CONTINUED
AB 767
Page
4
are counties with a surcharge-funded prevention program. This
bill allows these counties to increase their surcharges to keep
pace with rising costs and deletes the sunset date on the
authorization to impose the surcharge.
Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties . Last year,
AB 1404 (Feuer, Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012) authorized the
counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego to
increase their $1 vehicle registration surcharges for vehicle
theft prevention to $2 through a resolution its board of
supervisors adopted. These counties must submit this
resolution to DMV at least six months prior to the date DMV will
begin collecting the $2 surcharge. None of these counties has
yet to exercise this new authority.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
DMV implementation costs of approximately $60,000 (Motor
Vehicle Account). All initial and ongoing administrative
costs to DMV and the Controller's Office are fully recovered
from fee revenues.
Potential local revenue gains of approximately $19 million
annually if all counties that currently impose the vehicle
theft surcharge approve an increase. This figure excludes
the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego,
all of which currently have the authority to increase the
surcharge.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/06/13)
California Police Chief's Association (co-source)
California State Sheriffs' Association (co-source)
Alameda County District Attorney
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
California District Attorneys Association
California New Car Dealers Association
California State Association of Counties
City of Oakland
Lassen County
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
CONTINUED
AB 767
Page
5
Santa Barbra County Sheriff's Office
Shasta County Sheriff's Office
Yolo County Sheriff's Office
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/06/13)
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author indicates that the county
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, the 47
counties with a surcharge collected a combined $31 million to
fund these programs, program activities in turn recovered a
combined $151 million in assets and recovered more than 130,000
vehicles. This is an example of government working well. AB
767 gives local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to
fight vehicle theft in their communities."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Taxpayers Association
indicates "For years, hidden taxes have frustrated voters. In
2010, voters passed Proposition 26 to stop the Legislature from
disguising fees as taxes. AB 767 ignores the voters and
undermines the spirit of Proposition 26. Vehicle-theft
prevention programs are important to public safety. However,
the Legislature should not fund these efforts through a tax
disguised as a fee intended to cover the costs of registering a
vehicle."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-25, 5/16/13
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Skinner,
Ting, Torres, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
Pérez
NOES: Achadjian, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Cooley, Dahle,
Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Nestande, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk-Silva, Salas, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
CONTINUED
AB 767
Page
6
NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Grove, Holden, Melendez, Morrell, V.
Manuel Pérez, Stone, Vacancy
JA:k 8/08/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED