BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1324
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 1324 (Skinner) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
SUBJECT : Vehicle registration fees: vehicle theft crimes
Alameda County
SUMMARY : Authorizes Alameda County Board of Supervisors
(Alameda County) to increase the tax on vehicle registrations
for the prevention of vehicle theft crimes. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Authorizes Alameda County, upon adoption of a resolution, to
increase the tax on the registration of motor vehicles from $1
to $2, and its commercial vehicle service tax from $2 to $4.
2)Requires that the resolution approved by Alameda County be
submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) at least
six months prior to the operative date of the tax increase.
3)Sunsets the provisions on January 1, 2018.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, until January 1, 2018, the Counties of Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego, to increase the motor
vehicle tax from $1 to $2, and would provide that the service
tax on commercial motor vehicles to increase from $2 to $4,
upon adoption of a resolution of its board of supervisors.
Requires the resolution to be submitted to DMV at least six
months prior to the operative date of the tax increase.
2)Authorizes, until January 1, 2018, counties to adopt an annual
$1 vehicle registration service fee for passenger vehicles and
an annual $2 vehicle registration service fee for commercial
vehicles where that fee is used exclusively to fund programs
that enhance the capacity of local police and prosecutors to
deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft crimes.
3)Requires counties that adopt these service tax or fees
(depending if the tax or fee were approved subsequent to the
passage of Proposition 26 in November 2010) to report the
expenditures for salaries and expenses, purchase of equipment
AB 1324
Page 2
and supplies, and any other expenditure listed by type, with
an explanatory comment.
4)Requires a vehicle registration fee of $46 to be paid for the
registration of every motor vehicle, except those expressly
exempt.
5)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. These fees support, among other
things, service authorities for freeway emergencies,
California Highway Patrol (CHP) staffing, and fingerprint
identification programs.
6)Requires revenues collected for vehicle crime prevention be
expended exclusively to fund programs that enhance the
capacity of local police and prosecutors to deter,
investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft crimes. However, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Existing law establishes a basic vehicle registration
fee of $46, plus an additional $23 fee 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 fees in their
respective jurisdictions for a variety of special programs, such
as abating abandoned vehicles and deterring, investigating, and
prosecuting vehicle theft.
The vehicle theft program may be established in counties if
approved through a resolution by a county board of supervisors
that imposes a $1 fee on every new or renewal vehicle
registration, plus another $2 on commercial vehicles. Smaller
counties adopting vehicle theft programs (those with a
population of less than 250,000) may also use the resulting
funds to prosecute specified driving under the influence and
vehicular manslaughter crimes. Each quarter, participating
counties must submit to CHP a report on the expenditures and
AB 1324
Page 3
activities as well as submitting a fiscal year end report to the
California State Controller.
Separately, the Counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San
Diego are authorized to increase the motor vehicle tax from $1
to $2, and the service tax on commercial motor vehicles from $2
to $4, upon adoption of a resolution of its board of
supervisors.
This bill would provide Alameda County with the same
authorization currently extended to the Counties of Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, and San Diego, to increase the tax on motor
vehicle registrations from $1 to $2, and the service tax on
commercial motor vehicles from $2 to $4. The bill sunsets these
provisions on January 1, 2018, that correlates to the sunset
date established for the authorization for the other three
counties.
The author indicates that Alameda County faces an urgent need to
address car theft citing, "From 2011 to 2012, 12,622 cars were
reported stolen in the county, a 17% increase from 2011. This
rate was higher than the 11% increase in car theft rates seen
statewide. Increases were reported by almost every citywide
police department in Alameda County, as well as by the Alameda
County Sherriff's Office, BART Police, and CHP offices in the
county." The author contends that the bill would provide
Alameda County with much-needed funds to prevent and combat the
growing problem of vehicle theft.
This bill deals with the complicated issue of "fees" versus
"taxes" and the vote requirements for each, as prescribed by
Proposition 26, enacted in November 2010. Proposition 26
requires that any "change in statute which results in a taxpayer
paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less
than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses
of the Legislature." This bill does not result in a taxpayer
paying a higher tax but delegates to the separate county boards
of supervisors the authority to impose a higher tax on vehicle
registrations to fund a specific government function.
Ultimately, the counsel for each county would have to determine
a vote threshold at the county level. So while this bill is a
majority vote measure in the Legislature, the local action to
increase the registration tax may ultimately require a
two-thirds vote of the electorate in a county.
AB 1324
Page 4
Writing in opposition to this bill, the California Taxpayers
Association indicates that the bill is a regressive tax thus
imposing a greater burden upon lower- and middle-income
taxpayers. The association further contends that the bill hides
the true costs of government and that the taxes should be
limited to paying for administrative costs incurred by DMV for
the registration of vehicles.
Legislative history : AB 767 (Levine), of 2013, would authorize
the board of supervisors of all the counties within the state to
increase the tax on vehicle registrations for the prevention of
vehicle theft crimes. That bill was approved by this committee
and is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Local Government
Committee.
AB 1404 (Feuer) Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012, authorizes the
Counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego to
increase their $1 vehicle registration tax for vehicle theft
prevention to $2, and their commercial tax from $2 to $4.
AB 1768 (Davis) of 2012, would have allowed for a $3 tax
applying only to Los Angeles County. That bill failed passage
in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 286 (Salas) Chapter 230, Statutes of 2009, extends the sunset
date to the current date of January 1, 2018.
AB 860 (Salas) of 2008, would have extended the sunset for the
vehicle theft program (but did not contain an increase in the
fee). That bill was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with his
generic veto message referencing the budget delay.
AB 878 (Davis) of 2007, a similar bill that was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger who indicated that the voters should
decide on the vehicle registration fee increase.
SB 2139 (Davis), Chapter 1670, Statutes of 1990, establishes the
initial vehicle theft crime prevention program funded through
vehicle registration fees.
Double-referral : This bill is double referred to the Assembly
Local Government Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 1324
Page 5
Support
City of Oakland (sponsor)
Opposition
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093