BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1324 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1324 (Skinner and Bonta) As Amended May 2, 2013 Majority vote TRANSPORTATION 10-5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Gordon, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Levine, Alejo, Bradford, | | |Blumenfield, Bonta, | |Gordon, Mullin, Stone | | |Buchanan, Daly, Frazier, | | | | |Gatto, Holden, Nazarian | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Linder, Logue, Morrell, |Nays:|Melendez, Waldron | | |Patterson, Quirk-Silva | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | | | |Bradford, | | | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | | | |Weber | | | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | | | |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 AB 1324 Page 2 six months prior to the operative date of the tax increase. 3)Sunsets the provisions on January 1, 2018. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, as stated in the State Controller's annual report, Alameda is one of 47 counties that have adopted the $1/$2 surcharges, which generated revenue totaling $1.3 million in 2011-12. This bill would allow doubling of these surcharges for four years, and thus a doubling of the annual revenue over this time as a source of funds to combat vehicle theft. COMMENTS : Existing law establishes a basic vehicle registration fee of $46, plus an additional $23 fee for additional personnel for the California Highway Patrol (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 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 AB 1324 Page 3 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. 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. Analysis Prepared by : Ed Imai / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000463 AB 1324 Page 4