BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1768
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 1768 (Davis) - As Introduced: February 17, 2012
SUBJECT : Vehicle registration fees
SUMMARY : Increases, to $3, the fee that counties may add to
annual vehicle registration fees for the purpose of funding
programs to deter and prosecute vehicle theft. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Allows counties, by a resolution adopted by the board of
supervisors, to impose a $3 annual vehicle registration fee
surcharge in order to enhance the capacity of local police and
prosecutors to deter, investigate, and prosecute vehicle theft
crimes. (In a county with a population of 250,000 or less, the
proceeds of the fee must 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 any combination
of those crimes.)
2)Adds to the year-end report that counties must already make to
the California State Controller (Controller) regarding their
expenditure of these funds, any other relevant information the
Controller may reasonably require to determine whether fee
revenues are being utilized in a manner consistent with
statute.
3)Repeals obsolete statutory language regarding this program.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows counties, by resolution of the county board of
supervisors, to impose a $1 fee to be paid at the time of
registration or renewal of registration of every vehicle
registered to an address within that county, except trailers
and those vehicles expressly exempted from payment of
registration fees. The fees, after deduction of DMV's
administrative costs are paid quarterly to the Controller.
2)Requires all commercial motor vehicles registered in those
counties to pay an additional service fee of $2.
AB 1768
Page 2
3)Appropriates the funds continually, without regard to fiscal
years, for the administrative costs of the Controller, and for
disbursement by the Controller to each participating county,
based upon the number of vehicles registered, or whose
registrations are renewed, to addresses within that county.
4)Requires money allocated to a county to be expended
exclusively to fund programs that enhance the capacity of
local police and prosecutors to deter, investigate, and
prosecute vehicle theft crimes. In any county with a
population of 250,000 or less, the money must 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 any combination of those crimes.
5)Prohibits this money from being expended to offset a reduction
in any other source of funds, or for any purpose not
authorized under this statute.
6)Requires each participating county to submit a quarterly
expenditure and activity report to the designated statewide
Vehicle Theft Investigation and Apprehension Coordinator in
the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
7)Requires participating counties to issue a fiscal year-end
report to the Controller that includes a detailed accounting
of the funds received and expended in the immediately
preceding fiscal year, including specified information on
expenditures.
8)Suspends the fee for one year in any county that fails to
submit the report.
9)Requires the Controller annually to prepare and submit to the
Legislature revenue and expenditure summary for each
participating county that includes the total revenues received
by each county, the total expenditures by each county, and the
unexpended revenues for each county.
10)Sunsets all of these provisions on January 1, 2018.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the sponsor, the Los Angeles County
AB 1768
Page 3
Sheriff's Department, 47 counties have created vehicle theft
programs funded by county-based registration surcharges that
were first authorized in 1990. One of these, Los Angeles
County's Taskforce for Regional Autotheft Prevention (TRAP), has
since its 1993 establishment 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 registrations 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 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.
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 extended 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) of, 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) of 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.
AB 1768
Page 4
The California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA) points out
that while it has consistently supported the current $1 fee, it
has also "consistently opposed fee increase bills since they all
fail to require the additional levies be put to a vote of the
people affected." CNCDA cites numerous "hidden vehicle fees"
already paid by vehicle owners in most counties on top of the
annual $34 registration fee, such as the vehicle license fee
(VLF), an air quality district fee, a smog abatement fee for
vehicles 4 model-years old or newer, a $1 abandoned vehicle
trust fee, a $22 CHP fee, a $1 freeway call box fee, a $1 theft
deterrence fee, a $1 fingerprint identification fee and, a $1.75
per tire California tire fee.
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 Article XIIID of the
California Constitution 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 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
Constitution.
Cal Tax, writing in opposition, argues that all proposed local
taxes, including "fees disguised as taxes," must be subjected to
a two-thirds public vote.
Taxes at the local level require a two-thirds vote for those
that are specifically dedicated to be used for certain purposes.
If the tax is for general purposes, only a majority vote of the
residents in the jurisdiction is 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 one that is ultimately up to the courts to decide.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (sponsor)
California State Sheriffs' Association (co-sponsor)
Galpin Motors
AB 1768
Page 5
Longo Toyota
Longo Lexus
TRAP
Opposition
California New Car Dealers Association
CalTax
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Howard Posner / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093