BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1352
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1352 (Logue)
As Amended August 30, 2011
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 19, 2011) |SENATE: |34-0 |(August 31, 2011) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |9-0 |(September 8, 2011) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
| | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: REV. & TAX.
SUMMARY : Provides that specified vehicle license fee (VLF)
revenues deposited into the Local Revenue Fund of 2011 for local
law enforcement realignment purposes would not be subject to
expenditure requirements of a local ordinance in Nevada County.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead:
1)State that designated VLF revenues shall not, for purposes of an
ordinance of the County of Nevada, be deemed VLF revenues as
defined in the California Constitution.
2)Define, for purposes of the bill, the term "designated vehicle
license fee revenues" to mean vehicle license revenues that are
collected and required to be deposited into the Local Law
Enforcement Services Account in the Local Revenue Fund 2011.
3)Declare that a special law is necessary because of the unique
circumstances related to a local ordinance governing the
expenditure of VLF funds received by Nevada County.
4)Provide that no reimbursement is required by the provisions of
the bill.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 1352
Page 2
1)Provides for the imposition of an annual VLF for any vehicle
subject to registration in California.
2)Directs that specified VLF revenues collected after July 1, 2011,
be distributed to the Local Law Enforcement Services Account in
the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for allocation to cities, counties
and cities and counties for local public safety.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill granted the State Board of
Equalization, meeting as a public body, discretion to relieve
interest under specified circumstances.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
there are no state costs as a result of the Nevada County VLF
provisions.
COMMENTS : In March of 1996, Nevada County voters approved Measure
F, an initiative that required that all funds received from the
State of California from VLF funds, as defined in the State
Constitution and in statute, must be segregated into a separate
accounting fund. The initiative required that Nevada County spend
at least half of those funds in each fiscal year only for public
roads, ways, and highways for maintenance repair, circulation
enhancement, general road safety, and fire access in the
unincorporated portion of the county.
Nevada County officials, as a result of additional VLF revenues
contained in the February 2009 budget agreement, believed that
Measure F would require them to make a general fund expenditure on
roads in an amount equal to half of the amount of additional VLF
revenues allocated to the for law enforcement purposes. SB 636
(Ashburn), Chapter 605, Statutes of 2009, was enacted to ensure
that the increased VLF revenues dedicated for local law enforcement
purposes would not be subject to the requirements of Measure F.
This bill would enact similar provisions to ensure that VLF
revenues dedicated to local law enforcement as part of the
realignment package, as specified in SB 89 (Budget and Fiscal
Review Committee), Chapter 35, Statutes of 2011, are not subject to
the requirements of Nevada County's local ordinance.
Support arguments: In the years since Measure F was enacted, two
state budgets, in 2009 and 2011, have funded local public safety
programs via a portion of the VLF. This bill ensures that the
additional VLF revenues are not subject to the requirements of
AB 1352
Page 3
Nevada County's local ordinance.
Opposition arguments: Instead of seeking a legislative remedy,
Nevada County officials may want to consider revising Measure F to
narrow the application of the ordinance to a specified portion of
VLF funds that is not required by law to be used for law
enforcement purposes.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN:
0002868