BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1324
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
K.H. "Katcho" Achadjian, Chair
AB 1324 (Skinner) - As Amended: March 21, 2013
SUBJECT : Registration or renewal fees.
SUMMARY : Authorizes Alameda County to increase the fee on
vehicle registration to be used to fund the prevention of
vehicle theft crimes. Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows Alameda County, upon adoption of a resolution by the
board of supervisors, to increase the fee on the registration
of motor vehicles from $1 to $2, and the commercial vehicle
service fee from $2 to $4 (existing authority allows this for
Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties).
2)Applies all other provisions in existing law related to
increasing the registration fee to fund the prevention of
vehicle theft crimes to Alameda County.
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
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
AB 1324
Page 2
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 within the California Highway
Patrol (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.
12) Requires, on or before January 1, 2013, and on or before
AB 1324
Page 3
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.
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
local governmental property;
e) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the
judicial branch of government or a local government, as a
AB 1324
Page 4
result of a violation of law;
f) A charge imposed as a condition of property development;
and,
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 to
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
Transportation Committee.
3)AB 1404 (Feuer), Chapter 775, Statutes of 2012, authorizes the
AB 1324
Page 5
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, to Alameda County, the authority currently
granted to the counties of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and
San Diego. This bill allows Alameda County to increase the
vehicle registration fee from $1 to $2, and the service fee on
commercial motor vehicles from $2 to $4. These provisions
will sunset on January 1, 2018, the date established for the
authorization for the other three counties. This bill is
author-sponsored.
4)The author argues, "Alameda County faces an urgent need to
address car theft. 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."
5)The California Taxpayers Association, in opposition to the
bill, argues, "It doesn't make sense to charge motorists a fee
to fund anti-vehicle theft programs when a motorist registers
a vehicle. When a motorist is billed for registering a
vehicle, he or she assumes that all costs associated with this
service would be limited to registration activities. Adding
additional costs at the time of registering a vehicle hides
the true cost of government."
6)Taxes at the local level require a two-thirds vote for those
taxes that are specifically dedicated to be used for certain
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 767 (Levine) would authorize
AB 1324
Page 6
all counties to increase the fee on vehicle registration for
the prevention of vehicle theft crimes, and would delete the
January 1, 2018 sunset date, thereby making the provision
permanent. The Committee may wish to discuss both measures on
their individual merit, but also contemplate whether two
separate measures are necessary.
8)Support arguments : Supporters argue this bill will help
improve public safety by providing additional resources to
address car thefts throughout Alameda County.
Opposition arguments : Opposition argues that this bill
results in a regressive tax on the middle class, hides the
cost of government, and increases the complexity of the local
tax structure.
9)This bill was heard in the Transportation Committee on April
15, 2013, and passed with a
10-5 vote.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
City of Oakland
Opposition
California Taxpayers Association (CalTax)
Analysis Prepared by : Misa Yokoi-Shelton / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958