BILL ANALYSIS
SB 83
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 83 (Hancock)
As Amended September 4, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : Vote not relevant
SUMMARY : Allows county transportation planning agencies to ask
voters to impose a $10 vehicle registration fee for
transportation-related projects and programs. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
negative impact of traffic congestion, the ability of
transportation improvements to reduce congestion, the measures
available to lessen the impact of motor vehicle-related
pollution, and the Legislature's intention to establish a
program that allows countywide transportation planning
agencies to address congestion and mitigate the impacts of
motor vehicles on air and water quality, and improve the
business climate and natural environment.
2)Allows a countywide transportation planning agency to place a
majority vote ballot measure before the voters of its county
to authorize an increase in motor vehicle registration fees in
the county for transportation-related projects and programs
described in this chapter.
3)Allows such an agency to impose an additional fee of up to $10
on each motor vehicle registered within the county.
4)Requires the ballot measure resolution to be adopted by a
majority vote of the governing board of the agency at a
noticed public hearing and to contain a finding of fact that
the projects and programs to be funded by the fee increase
have a relationship or benefit to the persons who will be
paying the fee, and the projects and programs are consistent
with the adopted regional transportation plan. The finding of
fact requires a majority vote of the governing board at a
noticed public hearing.
5)Requires the ballot measure to be submitted to the voters of
the county and, if approved by them, applies the increased fee
to the original vehicle registration occurring on or after six
months following the adoption of the measure by the voters and
SB 83
Page 2
to a renewal of registration with an expiration date on or
after that six-month period.
6)Requires the governing board of the agency to adopt an
expenditure plan allocating the revenue to
transportation-related programs and projects that have a
relationship or benefit to the persons who pay the fee.
Transportation-related programs and projects include, but are
not limited to, programs and projects that have the following
purposes:
a) Providing matching funds for funding made available for
transportation programs and projects from state general
obligation bonds;
b) Creating or sustaining congestion mitigation programs
and projects; and,
c) Creating or sustaining pollution mitigation programs and
projects.
7)Defines, for this bill's purposes:
a) "Congestion mitigation programs and projects" to
include, but not be limited to, programs and projects
identified in an adopted congestion management program or
county transportation plan; projects and programs to manage
congestion, including, for example, high-occupancy vehicle
or high-occupancy toll lanes; improved transit services
through the use of technology and bicycle and pedestrian
improvements; improved signal coordination, traveler
information systems, highway operational improvements, and
local street and road rehabilitation; and transit service
expansion; and,
b) "Pollution mitigation programs and projects" to include,
but not be limited to, programs and projects carried out by
a congestion management agency (CMA), a regional water
quality control board, an air pollution control district,
an air quality management district, or another public
agency that is carrying out the adopted plan of one of
those entities;
8)Limits administrative costs associated with the programs and
projects to 5% of the fees distributed to a countywide
SB 83
Page 3
transportation planning agency.
9)Defines, for this bill's purposes, "countywide transportation
planning agency" to mean a county's CMA or the agency
designated to submit the county's transportation plan.
10)Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), if requested
by a countywide transportation planning agency, to collect the
voter-approved registration fee upon the registration or
renewal of registration of a motor vehicle registered in the
county, except those vehicles that are expressly exempted from
the payment of registration fees.
11)Requires the countywide transportation planning agency to pay
for the initial setup and programming costs identified by DMV
through a direct contract with the department.
12)Requires DMV to distribute the fee's net revenues after
deducting all its incurred costs.
13)Provides that costs deducted by DMV are not to be counted
against the 5% administrative cost limit.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires CMAs within urbanized areas to prepare and adopt
congestion management programs.
2)Requires CMAs to update their programs every two years.
3)Requires the programs to include:
a) Traffic level of service standards established for a
system of highways and roadways designated by the
congestion management program agency;
b) Performance elements regarding the movement of people
and goods;
c) Program elements that promote alternative
transportation methods, including carpools, vanpools,
transit, bicycles, and other strategies.
d) Analysis of land use decisions on regional
transportation systems; and,
SB 83
Page 4
e) A seven-year capital improvement program.
4)Establishes a basic vehicle registration fee of $34, plus a
$22 surcharge for additional personnel for the California
Highway Patrol, and authorizes local agencies to impose
separate vehicle registration fee surcharges in their
respective jurisdictions for a variety of special programs,
including:
a) $1 for service authorities for freeway emergencies;
b) $1 for deterring and prosecuting vehicle theft;
c) Up to $7 for air quality programs;
d) $1 for removing abandoned vehicles; and,
e) $1 for fingerprint identification programs.
5)Distinguishes a fee from a tax in that a fee pays for a
specific service or project and cannot exceed the reasonable
costs of providing the service or projects that it funds.
Unlike a tax, which benefits the general public, the payer of
the fee is the beneficiary.
6)Allows fees to be imposed by an agency's governing board.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee
analysis, DMV's startup costs will be paid in advance through
contracts with authorizing agencies, and its ongoing costs will
be reimbursed from collected fees. There will also be unknown
annual revenue gains for each county that approves the fee.
The analysis cites DMV statistics, noting there were 31,363,851
fee-paid vehicle registrations in the state in 2008. This bill
could generate up to $313.6 million annually for local
transportation purposes if every county approved a ballot
measure to impose an additional $10 vehicle registration fee.
The analysis further states that DMV would be required to
administer the collection and distribution of the fees on behalf
of each countywide transportation planning agency that received
voter approval to impose the new surcharge. Initial costs for
programming the new fee into DMV's processing system would
likely be in the range of $250,000 for each approved fee. These
SB 83
Page 5
costs would be paid up front by the agency imposing the fee
through a direct contract with DMV. These initial costs would
be repaid to the local agency from the initial revenues
distributed by DMV. Ongoing administrative costs to DMV would
be deducted from fees collected prior to distribution to the
local agency.
COMMENTS : This bill is identical to SB 205 (Hancock), which was
held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
The sponsor, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency,
states in support, "To maximize the capacity and improve the
efficiency of the transportation network, local transportation
agencies are relying more on intelligent transportation systems
(ITS). These strategies include signal light coordination, and
monitoring real-time traffic conditions at intersections and on
freeways which allow the agency to adjust signal times and
update travel times on freeway message signs. While Proposition
1B dedicated $250 million for technology based improvement to
local streets and roads and the Corridor Mobility Improvement
Account funds are also being used to implement intelligent
transportation systems, there is no funding source to pay for
the ongoing operations and maintenance of technology based
improvements.
"SB 205 creates an effective means of aligning the operation and
maintenance costs of these systems with those who will benefit
the most.
"Using technology to maximize the capacity of our transportation
system will improve management of congestion and incidents along
these routes, improve mobility, and provide timely multi-modal
transportation information. Vehicle registration fees are an
appropriate funding source for transportation system programs
that directly benefit motorists."
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association states in opposition,
"As currently drafted, SB 205 would violate the California
Constitution. Under Propositions 13 and 218, local voters are
required to approve tax increases like this one by a 2/3rds vote
because it would authorize a tax for a special purpose. Using
the Legislature to circumvent citizen's right to vote on tax
increases in these two counties is contrary to the letter and
spirit of the constitutional protections enacted by taxpayers to
prevent un-voted taxes disguised as 'fees.' " In the same vein,
SB 83
Page 6
the auto clubs do not view the bill's registration assessment as
a fee but rather as a tax. The clubs argue that the bill's use
of its revenues to fund water quality projects, for instance, is
inconsistent with the concept of a fee. Significantly, when
presented with similar bills in the past, the Governor has
vetoed them, complaining that they lack any provision for
approval by 2/3 of the affected electorate that is requisite for
the enactment of a tax.
Related legislation: SB 205 (Hancock), an identical measure,
was held in suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Legislative history: SB 348 (Simitian), Chapter 377, Statutes
of 2008, extended, from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2013, the
authority of the City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County to assess an up-to four dollars annual fee on
vehicles registered within San Mateo County for programs to
manage traffic congestion and storm water pollution.
AB 444 (Hancock) of 2008 would have allowed vehicle registration
fees, up to $10 per vehicle, to be imposed for congestion
management programs in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa
Clara, Solano, and Santa Cruz Counties. AB 444 was held in the
Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
SB 613 (Simitian) of 2007 would have allowed the City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County to reauthorize,
through January 1, 2019, an existing fee of up to four dollars
on motor vehicles registered within the county for a program for
the management of traffic congestion and storm water pollution.
SB 613 was vetoed.
SB 1611 (Simitian) of 2006 would have allowed county
transportation CMAs or boards of supervisors to impose, subject
to majority vote approval of county voters, a maximum $25
surcharge on the annual renewal of vehicles registered in their
respective jurisdictions to fund transportation-related projects
and programs, including pollution prevention programs carried
out by a congestion management agency, a regional water quality
control board, or a local air district. SB 1611 died on
Suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1623 (Klehs), of 2006 would have authorized the designated
county transportation agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin
and Napa Counties to impose an annual fee of up to five dollars
SB 83
Page 7
on motor vehicles registered within their respective
jurisdictions for a program to manage traffic congestion and
mitigate the environmental impacts of motor vehicles within that
county. AB 1623 was vetoed.
SB 680 (Simitian), of 2005 would have authorized the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority to adopt an annual vehicle
registration fee of up to five dollars per vehicle for up to
eight years to finance traffic and transportation improvements
in Santa Clara County. SB 680 was vetoed.
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0002995