BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                            



           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 983|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           
                                           
                                    THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 983
          Author:   Hernandez (D)
          Amended:  5/21/14
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  4-2, 4/30/14
          AYES:  Wolk, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
          NOES:  Knight, Walters
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Beall

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8

           SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE  :  5-2, 5/28/14 (Pursuant  
            to Senate Rule 29.10)
          AYES:  Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
          NOES:  Knight, Walters


            SUBJECT  :    Cities and counties:  sales and use taxes:  revenue  
                      sharing agreement:  card lock system

           SOURCE  :     City of South El Monte


           DIGEST  :    This bill, beginning January 1, 2015, provides that a  
          buying company, as defined, does not include a retailer that  
          contracts to sell fuel through a card lock system.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law authorizes counties, under the  
          Bradley-Burns law, to impose a local sales and use tax of up to  

                                                                CONTINUED






                                                                     SB 983
                                                                     Page  
          2


          1% on tangible personal property sold at retail in the county,  
          or purchased outside the county for use in the county.  All  
          cities and counties within California have adopted ordinances  
          under the terms of the Bradley-Burns Law and levy the 1% local  
          tax.  Cities can impose a sales and use tax rate of up to 1%,  
          credited against the county rate so that the combined rate does  
          not exceed 1%.  The State Board of Equalization (BOE)  
          administers these taxes.  Of the 1% tax, 0.75% is used to  
          support general operations and the remaining 0.25% is designated  
          by statute for county transportation purposes.

          This bill removes card lock systems from the definition of a  
          buying company under existing law, which prohibits card lock  
          systems from entering into agreements that result in the payment  
          of tax revenue to a retailer.  This bill's provisions apply to  
          contracts entered into after May 1, 2014, and become effective  
          January 1, 2015.

          This bill defines "card lock system" as a system where owners of  
          unattended card lock fueling stations form a network whereby  
          customers may purchase fuel at any of the network's  
          participating fueling stations by use of a card issued to the  
          customer, and where prices are not posted at the pump and no  
          receipt is given at the time of delivery.

           Prior legislation  .  AB 451 (Yee, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2005)  
          designated that the point of sale of jet fuel is the point of  
          delivery of that jet fuel to the aircraft.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  No   Local:  
           No

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  5/28/14)

          City of South El Monte (source)
           Cities of Atascadero, Azusa, Baldwin Park, Carson, Downey, El  
            Monte, Huntington Park, Industry, Irwindale, La Mirada, La  
            Puente, Rancho Cucamonga, Rosemead, Upland, and Vacaville

           OPPOSITION  :    (Verified  5/28/14)

          California Independent Oil Marketers Association
          Downs Energy







                                                                     SB 983
                                                                     Page  
          3



           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author:

            The Bradley Burns portion of sales and use tax revenue go to  
            the city where the sales office of the card lock fuel system  
            company is located, instead of cities that actually house the  
            fueling stations.

            The allocation of the Bradley Burns portion of sales and use  
            tax revenue from these transactions pose a problem for local  
            governments with these fueling stations in their jurisdiction  
            because there are a significant number of negative secondary  
            effects associated with their utilization.  The vehicles that  
            utilize these stations are generally semi-trucks, which are  
            heavy in weight, therefore causing substantial wear and tear  
            to city streets as well as traffic congestion and reduced air  
            quality. 

            Vehicles are fueling up in over 1,000 locations in cities  
            throughout the state, but approximately only 30 cities are  
            receiving any of the estimated $137 million in statewide  
            Bradley Burns' portion of tax revenue generated from these  
            transactions.  In a race to find new revenue sources, some  
            cities have become too willing to offer generous rebate  
            packages for these fuel companies to move their sales offices  
            into their city, rebating up to 65% of tax revenue, in some  
            instances, at the expense of other cities that actually  
            maintain the physical presence for these fueling stations.

            Prohibiting these types of agreements ensures that cities will  
            not be able to give away public tax dollars to private oil  
            companies and should eliminate the incentive for card lock  
            fuel companies to be lured away by other cities.

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :    Downs Energy states:

            Even as amended, this measure arbitrarily singles out owners  
            of cardlock facilities from exercising legal and reasonable  
            agreements with local agencies.

            This bill is singling out the cardlock industry for an  
            exception to what a 'buying company' is defined as.  This  
            exception does not make sense as cardlock operators have no  







                                                                     SB 983
                                                                     Page  
          4


            basis to form a buying group.

            The Bradley-Burns sales tax law allocates local sales tax  
            either based on:

             1.   A consolidates sales office (which cardlock operators  
               can do), or
             2.   Creation of a buying company (for large purchasers of  
               taxable commodities, like United Airlines did previously).

            Cardlock operators are NOT large purchasers of taxable  
            commodities, as most all of our purchases are tax-exempt for  
            purpose of resale to those end users who pay the sales tax.  I  
            feel as if this law has not been researched enough in its  
            entirety, and its purpose is retaliatory to the cardlock  
            operators industry.


          AB:k  5/28/14   Senate Floor Analyses 

                           SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                   ****  END  ****