BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1768
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 1768 (Davis) - As Introduced: February 17, 2012
SUBJECT : Vehicles: additional registration fees.
SUMMARY : Allows counties the option to impose a higher vehicle
registration fee (from the existing $1 fee to a $3 fee), and
modifies reporting requirements for those counties that have
adopted a resolution to impose the fee. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Allows counties the option to impose a higher vehicle
registration fee of $3 to be paid at the time of registration
or renewal of registration of every vehicle, upon the adoption
of a resolution by a county board of supervisors, for the
purposes of enhancing the capacity of local police and
prosecutors to deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes.
2)Authorizes, if a county has adopted a resolution to impose the
existing $1 fee, the county to increase the fee to $3 in the
same manner as the imposition of the initial fee in existing
law.
3)Provides that a resolution to increase the fee from $1 to $3
must be submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) at
least six months prior to the operative date of the fee
increase.
4)Modifies requirements for the fiscal yearend report issued to
the State Controller as follows:
a) Requires the report to detail the amount of funds
expended by the county for the immediately preceding year;
b) Deletes, from the provisions requiring the details of
expenditures made by the county for salaries and expenses,
purchase of equipment and supplies, and other expenditures
made listed by type, the requirement to include explanatory
comments for those expenditures.
c) Requires the inclusion of other relevant information the
AB 1768
Page 2
Controller may reasonably require to determine whether the
fee revenues are being utilized in a manner consistent with
the authority of counties to impose the fee.
5)Deletes the requirement for the Department of the California
Highway Patrol (CHP), in consultation with all participating
county designated regional coordinators, to review the
effectiveness of reducing vehicle theft crimes funded by the
imposed fees.
6)Deletes an out-of-date requirement for the CHP to provide a
report based on the review specified in 5) above to the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2009.
7)Makes other technical and conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows counties, until January 1, 2018, to impose a $1 annual
vehicle registration fee on specified vehicles to fund
programs that enhance the capacity of local police and
prosecutors to deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes.
2)Provides that fees, after deduction of the administrative
costs incurred by the DMV, must be paid quarterly to the
Controller.
3)Provides that the money paid to the Controller is continuously
appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, for the
administrative costs of the Controller, and for disbursement
by the Controller to each county that has adopted a
resolution, based upon the number of vehicles registered, or
whose registration is renewed, to an address within that
county.
4)Provides that money allocated to a county must be expended
exclusively to fund programs that enhance the capacity of
local police and prosecutors to deter, investigate, and
prosecute vehicle theft crimes.
5)Provides that in any county with a population of 250,000 or
AB 1768
Page 3
less, the money shall 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 combination of
those crimes.
6)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.
7)Requires the submittal of a quarterly expenditure and activity
report to the designated statewide Vehicle Theft Investigation
and Apprehension Coordinator in the CHP for each county that
adopts a resolution to impose the fee.
8)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, including, at a minimum, all of the following:
a) The total revenues received by the county for the
immediately preceding fiscal year;
b) The total expenditures by the county for the immediately
preceding fiscal year;
c) Details of expenditures made by the county, including
salaries and expenses, purchase of equipment and supplies,
and any other expenditures made listed by type with an
explanatory comment;
d) A summary of vehicle theft abatement activities and
other vehicle theft programs funded by the fees collected
e) The total number of stolen vehicles recovered and the
value of those vehicles during the immediately preceding
fiscal year; and,
f) Any additional, unexpended fee revenues received for the
county for the immediately preceding fiscal year.
9)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
AB 1768
Page 4
Controller's determination that a county has failed to submit
the report.
10)Requires, on or before January 1, 2006, and on or before
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.
11)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.
12)Requires the Controller to inform the DMV on or before
January 1 that the authority to collect the fee for that
county is suspended, when the determination is made by the
Controller that the fee shall be suspended.
13)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 that with
specified information.
14)Requires the CHP, in consultation with all participating
county designated regional coordinators, to review the
effectiveness of reducing vehicle theft crimes that were
funded by the fees.
15)Required the CHP, on or before January 1, 2009, to provide a
report based on that review and submit the report to the
Legislature.
16)Sunsets the ability of counties to impose the fee and related
requirements on January 1, 2018.
17)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
AB 1768
Page 5
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
result of a violation of law.
f) A charge imposed as a condition of property development.
g) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in
accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS :
1)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 (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,
AB 1768
Page 6
2007). In addition to expanding the sunset date, AB 878 also
contained provisions that would have allowed a county 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."
AB 860 (Salas, 2008), a bill that would have extended the
sunset for the vehicle theft program (but did not contain an
increase in the surcharge) was also vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, along with many other bills, due to the
historic delay in passing the 2008-09 state budget and was
issued a generic veto message.
2)According to the sponsor, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, 47 counties have created a vehicle theft program
pursuant to the original authorization in 1990, including the
Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention (TRAP) in Los
Angeles County. Since 1993, TRAP has made 9,276 arrests,
recovered 23,245 stolen vehicles, and inspected 4,278
businesses, with the recovered stolen vehicle values totaling
nearly $400 million.
In 2004, TRAP employed 71 personnel to combat auto theft at a
cost of a little more than $7.3 million. This year, TRAP has
only 29 people assigned at a cost of $7.2 million, because of
reduced vehicle registration and a more than 50% increase over
the past years in operating, fuel and equipment costs which
has resulted in the reduction of personnel. The sponsor
believes that raising the vehicle license fee by up to $3 will
infuse more money into TRAP teams and vehicle theft teams
throughout the state so they can continue to effectively
combat auto theft.
3)The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) believes that
the additional $3 fee is a special tax and therefore requires
a two-thirds vote of all county residents under the provisions
of Propositions 13 and 218. HJTA notes that the Article XIIID
was recently amended by voters following the passage of
Proposition 26 in 2010, which broadened the definition of what
constitutes a tax to include many payments currently
AB 1768
Page 7
considered to be fees or charges. According to HJTA, this
means that an increase in such charges would then trigger
applicable state or local voting requirements contained in the
California Constitution.
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 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 from $1 to $3 may be an issue that is
ultimately up to the courts to decide.
4)Support arguments : Raising the vehicle license registration
fee by up to $3 will infuse more money into vehicle theft
teams throughout the state so they can continue to effectively
combat auto theft.
Opposition arguments : Cal Tax, in opposition, writes that all
proposed local taxes - including fees disguised as taxes -
must be subjected to the scrutiny required by a two-thirds
public vote.
5)This bill is double-referred to the Committee on
Transportation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department �SPONSOR]
Opposition
CalTax
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
AB 1768
Page 8