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