BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2393
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2393 (Levine) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:9-6
Local Government 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes an increase in the county-imposed vehicle
registration fee surcharge used to fund fingerprint
identification programs. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes an increase from $1 to $2 (and from $2 to $4 for
commercial vehicles) for counties that have already imposed
the surcharge pursuant to current law.
2)Authorizes imposition of a $2 fee ($4 for commercial vehicles)
for counties that have not imposed the fee.
FISCAL EFFECT
Additional annual revenue to counties of up to $30 million
statewide, depending on how many counties exercise the authority
to double their fingerprint fee. Currently, 45 of the state's 58
counties-representing almost 98% of the state's population-have
imposed the existing fee, which generated net revenue to those
counties totalling $29.8 million in 2012-13.
COMMENTS
1)Background . Current law establishes a basic vehicle
registration fee of $46, plus a $24 surcharge for additional
personnel for the CHP, for the new or renewal registration of
most vehicles or trailer coaches. Current law also authorizes
local agencies to impose separate vehicle registration fee
surcharges in their respective jurisdictions for a variety of
special programs, such as abating abandoned vehicles,
AB 2393
Page 2
deterring, investigating, and prosecuting vehicle theft, and
for funding fingerprint identification programs. Since 1997
counties have had authority to impose the $1 fee for
fingerprinting.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "This bill simply gives
local law enforcement agencies the tools needed to help keep
their communities safe?Technological developments and
infractions have reduced the purchasing power of the proceeds
of an existing fee authority that funds automated fingerprint
identification." This bill is sponsored by the California
State Sheriffs Association.
3)Opposition . The California Taxpayers Association and the
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argue that the fee is
inconsistent with Proposition 26 of 2010, as the fee is not
regulatory nor does it provide a direct benefit to the
fee-payer. Lacking this nexus, opponents argue it is a tax
increase requiring two-thirds voter approval.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081