BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2393|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2393
Author: Levine (D)
Amended: 7/3/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 7-3, 6/17/14
AYES: DeSaulnier, Beall, Galgiani, Hueso, Lara, Liu, Pavley
NOES: Gaines, Cannella, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Roth
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-1, 6/30/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-31, 5/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Vehicle registration surcharge: fingerprint
identification systems
SOURCE : California State Sheriffs Association
DIGEST : This bill authorizes counties to impose either a $1
or $2 vehicle registration surcharge to fund fingerprint
identification systems.
ANALYSIS : Existing law establishes a basic vehicle
registration fee of $46, plus a $24 surcharge for additional
personnel for the California Highway Patrol (CHP), for the new
or renewal registration of most vehicles. Existing law also
CONTINUED
AB 2393
Page
2
authorizes local agencies to impose separate vehicle
registration fee surcharges in their respective jurisdictions
for a variety of special programs, including $1 for fingerprint
identification programs. County boards of supervisors adopt
resolutions imposing the surcharge and declaring the purpose of
and need for the surcharge. In counties that have imposed the
surcharge, commercial vehicles pay an additional $2 and other
vehicles pay an additional $1 with their vehicle registrations
for the fingerprint program.
Existing law continuously appropriates the funds generated by
the $1 and $2 surcharges, which are collected by the Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and disbursed by the State Controller,
to each county that has adopted the required resolution.
Counties may only spend these revenues to fund programs that
enhance the capacity of local law enforcement to provide
automated mobile and fixed-location fingerprint identification
of individuals who may be involved in driving under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, vehicular manslaughter, and other
vehicle-related crimes, as well as other crimes committed while
operating a motor vehicle.
Every participating county must issue a fiscal year-end report
to the State Controller. The State Controller must notify DMV
if a participating county either does not file the report or
does not expend the surcharge revenue for an authorized purpose.
In either instance, DMV suspends collection of the surcharge in
that county for a year.
This bill:
1.Authorizes any county that has imposed a $1 vehicle
registration surcharge for fingerprint identification systems
to increase that surcharge to $2 through a resolution its
board of supervisors adopts.
2.Authorizes a county without this surcharge currently in place
could choose to impose either a $1 or $2 surcharge through a
resolution its board of supervisors adopts.
3.Specifies that counties which impose $2 surcharges on their
regular vehicle registrations would automatically increase the
surcharge on commercial vehicles from $2 to $4 as well.
4.Requires a county submit the resolution to DMV at least six
CONTINUED
AB 2393
Page
3
months prior to the date DMV will begin collecting the $2
surcharge.
Comments
Since 1986, the Department of Justice has operated an automated
fingerprint identification program, known as Cal-ID. This
program is designed to assist law enforcement agencies in
various ways, including verifying the identity of persons placed
under arrest, identifying human remains, and identifying
criminal suspects by the use of fingerprints.
Local law enforcement agencies have access to the Cal-ID system,
but many agencies had, in the past, reported that the necessary
access equipment was antiquated and that they were not
financially able to take full advantage of the significant
advances in the related technology.
In light of these shortcomings, the Legislature enacted SB 720
(Lockyer, Chapter 587, Statutes of 1997) which authorized, until
January 1, 2003, participating counties to impose the $1 annual
surcharge to fund local law enforcement use of automated mobile
and fixed-location fingerprint identification equipment
(live-scan). AB 879 (Keeley, Chapter 986, Statutes of 2002)
extended the sunset date to 2006 and added requirements for
participating counties to report to the State Controller and for
the Controller to report to the Legislature on the program. In
2005, AB 857 (Bass, Chapter 470) extended the sunset date until
January 1, 2012, and then in 2011, AB 674 (Bonilla, Chapter 205)
repealed the sunset date, making the program permanent.
Although the program is permanent, the author introduced this
bill to restore some of the lost purchasing power of the $1
surcharge, which has not changed since the inception of the
program 17 years ago. In addition, proponents note that this
increase would enable law enforcement to take advantage of
advances in fingerprinting technology.
The people passed Proposition 26 in November 2010, and so
amended the California Constitution to require that any "change
in statute which results in a taxpayer paying a higher tax must
be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all
members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature."
This bill does not result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax but
CONTINUED
AB 2393
Page
4
delegates to county boards of supervisors the authority to
impose a higher surcharge on vehicle registrations to fund a
specific government function. Ultimately, county counsels will
have to determine a vote threshold at the county level.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time DMV programming costs of approximately $40,000 for
each county that elects to increase the fee. If a county has
never imposed the fee, DMV's programming costs would be
$100,000. All DMV costs are recoverable from fee revenues.
Unknown local fee revenues, potentially in the millions
annually. Actual local revenue gains would depend upon the
number of counties exercising the authority to impose the
higher fee, and the number of registered vehicles subject to
the fee. Currently 45 counties impose the fee, which
generated $29.8 million in net local revenues in 2012-13.
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/30/14)
California State Sheriffs' Association (source)
Alameda County Sheriff's Office
California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors
California District Attorneys Association
California State Association of Counties
County of San Mateo Office of the Sheriff
Napa County Office of Sheriff-Coroner
Orange County Sheriff's Department
Sheriff-Coroner, Santa Cruz County
Sheriff's Office, County of Kern
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/30/14)
California Car Clubs
California Taxpayers Association
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California State Sheriffs'
Association states, "The Legislature approved SB 720 (Lockyer,
Chapter 587) in 1997, allowing for the collection of a $1
CONTINUED
AB 2393
Page
5
vehicle registration fee, upon the adoption of a resolution by a
county's board of supervisors, with the proceeds directed to
local agencies to purchase and upgrade equipment compatible with
the Department of Justice (DOJ) Cal-ID system, a program that
has been very successful. It reduces DOJ workload by avoiding
the scanning of inked fingerprint cards and has increased
officer safety by providing rapid and accurate identification of
persons law enforcement encounters in the field. Additionally,
the evolution of technology has heightened these benefits and
eliminated some unnecessary transportation to booking
facilities.
"Technological developments and inflation have reduced the
purchasing power of the proceeds of this program. Additionally,
county jail bookings have increased with time and changes to our
criminal justice system. Given the enhanced technology,
increased benefits, and the fact that the fee has not been
adjusted since it was created more than 15 years ago, it is
appropriate to allow counties to decide whether they would like
to increase this fee."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that the fee
increase proposed in this bill runs afoul of Constitutional
provisions governing the imposition of special taxes, namely
that imposition of such a tax requires a two-thirds vote of the
electorate.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-31, 5/27/14
AYES: Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford,
Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley,
Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez,
Gordon, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine,
Lowenthal, Mullin, Nazarian, Pan, Quirk, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dababneh,
Dahle, Daly, Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove,
Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Muratsuchi, Nestande, Olsen, Perea, Salas,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Gonzalez, Patterson, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk-Silva, Vacancy
CONTINUED
AB 2393
Page
6
JA:nl 7/31/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED