California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: To Executive

SB 1192 — Airports: rental car facility fees.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 642, Statutes of 2010.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law governs contracts between rental car companies and their customers. Existing law authorizes a company that rents passenger vehicles to the public to collect a customer facility charge, which means a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for certain purposes, if specified circumstances apply, including, but not limited to, the collection of the fee is required by an airport operated by a city, a county, a city and county, a joint powers district, or a special district, the fee is calculated on a per contract basis, the fee is a user fee and not a tax, as specified, and the fee is $10 per contract, except as specified. This bill would expand the definition of customer facility charge to include a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for the purpose of financing, designing, constructing, and operating any common-use transportation system, as specified, and for acquiring vehicles for use in that system. This bill would also authorize an alternative fee following a hearing and finding by the airport, as provided, that the customer facility charge will not generate sufficient revenue to finance and operate the consolidated rental car facility and common-use transportation system. The bill would provide for the collection of the alternative fee on a per-day basis, as specified. Existing law provides that a statute that imposes a requirement that a state agency submit a periodic report to the Legislature is inoperative on a date 4 years after the date the first report is due. The bill would, notwithstanding that requirement, also require any airport seeking to collect an alternative customer facility charge to provide reports on an annual basis to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary detailing the total amount of the customer facility charge collected, how the funds are being spent, the amount of and reason for any changes in the airport's budget or financial needs, and whether certain airport concession fees have increased since the prior report, if any. The bill would also require the airport to complete a specified independent audit prior to the initial collection of the customer facility charge, prior to any increase, as specified, and every 3 years after initial collection and any increase, as provided. The bill would require the Controller to review those audits and independently examine and substantiate the necessity for and the amount of the customer facility charge. The bill would require the individual airports being audited to reimburse the Controller's costs. The bill would also require the Controller to report to the Legislature on his or her conclusions, as provided. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1936 of the Civil Code, as proposed by AB 2059, to be operative only if AB 2059 and this bill are both enacted, each bill amends Section 1936 of the Civil Code, and this bill is enacted after AB 2059.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 642, Statutes of 2010.

  2. Approved by Governor.

  3. Enrolled. To Governor at 3:30 p.m.

  4. Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 21. Noes 15. Page 5083.) To enrollment.

  5. In Senate. To unfinished business.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 49. Noes 27. Page 6874.) To Senate.

  7. Read third time. Amended. (Page 6850.)

  8. Read second time. To third reading.

  9. Read second time. Amended. To second reading.

  10. (Heard in committee on August 25.)

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.)

  12. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 6608.)

  13. Re-referred to Com. On JUD. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  14. Assembly Rule 69(d) suspended. (Ayes 49. Noes 27. Page 6491.)

  15. (August amended measure version corrected August 26.)

  16. Read third time. Amended. (Page 6427.) To third reading.

  17. Read second time. To third reading.

  18. Read second time. Amended. To second reading.

  19. (Heard in committee on August 4.)

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.)

  21. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 5989.)

  22. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  23. (Heard in committee on June 29.)

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.)

  25. Hearing postponed by committee.

  26. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  27. To Com. on JUD.

  28. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  29. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 32. Noes 1. Page 3789.) To Assembly.

  30. Read second time. Amended. To third reading.

  31. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 2. Page 3673.)

  32. (Suspense - for vote only).

  33. Set for hearing May 27.

  34. Placed on APPR suspense file.

  35. Set for hearing May 24.

  36. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  37. From committee: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3445.)

  38. From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 3444.) Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  39. Set for hearing May 5 in L. GOV. pending receipt.

  40. Set for hearing May 4.

  41. Hearing postponed by committee.

  42. Set for hearing April 27.

  43. Re-referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. GOV.

  44. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  45. To Com. on RLS.

  46. From print. May be acted upon on or after March 21.

  47. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Oropeza · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Oropeza

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Unfinished Business SB1192 Oropeza

Passed 21 Yea · 15 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 191404
Democratic 2000
Republican 0100
Total 211504
% of votes cast 53%38%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Cogdill — Nay
Florez — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Harman — Nay
Hollingsworth — Nay
Runner — Nay
Negrete — Not Voting
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Nay
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
McLeod — Not Voting
Blakeslee — Nay
Oropeza — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Nay
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Nay
Huff — Nay
Kehoe — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Correa — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

SB 1192 Oropeza Senate Third Reading By FEUER

Passed 58 Yea · 30 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 552801
Democratic 2001
Republican 1200
Total 583002
% of votes cast 64%33%0%2%
How each member voted (90)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Nay
Evans — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Hall — Yea
Charles — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huffman — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Bass — Yea
Block — Yea
Coto — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Bill — Nay
Tom — Nay
Fletcher — Nay
Audra — Nay
Conway — Nay
Fuller — Nay
Cook — Nay
Garrick — Nay
Gilmore — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Anderson — Nay
Knight — Nay
Miller — Nay
Nestande — Nay
Norby — Nay
Silva — Nay
Smyth — Nay
Swanson — Not Voting
Tran — Nay
Villines — Nay
Adams — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Nay
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Nay
Ma — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Eng — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Nay
Yamada — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Strickland, Tony Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 6 Yea · 1 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5103
Total 6103
% of votes cast 60%10%0%30%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Saldana — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Hagman — Not Voting
Knight — Not Voting
Brownley — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Monning — Yea
Tran — Nay
Evans — Not Voting
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 14 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13500
Democratic 1000
Total 14500
% of votes cast 74%26%0%0%
How each member voted (19)
Member Party Vote
Fuentes — Yea
Hall — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Conway — Nay
Harkey — Nay
Miller — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Norby — Nay
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Senate 3rd Reading SB1192 Oropeza

Passed 33 Yea · 1 Nay · 5 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 30105
Democratic 2000
Republican 1000
Total 33105
% of votes cast 85%3%0%13%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Florez — Yea
Cogdill — Yea
Huff — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Liu — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Negrete — Yea
Runner — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Ducheny — Yea
Dutton — Yea
McLeod — Yea
Oropeza — Yea
Price — Yea
Romero — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Hollingsworth — Not Voting
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wiggins — Not Voting
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Aanestad — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Ashburn — Yea
Harman — Not Voting
Leno — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Correa — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
DeSaulnier — Yea
Denham — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 2 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7202
Total 7202
% of votes cast 64%18%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Walters — Not Voting
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Leno — Yea
Price — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Cox — Not Voting
Denham — Nay

Official roll call →

Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Denham — Yea
Leno — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
Price — Not Voting
Cox — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 1192 do?
Existing law governs contracts between rental car companies and their customers. Existing law authorizes a company that rents passenger vehicles to the public to collect a customer facility charge, which means a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for certain purposes, if specified circumstances apply, including, but not limited to, the collection of the fee is required by an airport operated by a city, a county, a city and county, a joint powers district, or a special district, the fee is calculated on a per contract basis, the fee is a user fee and not a tax, as specified, and the fee is $10 per contract, except as specified. This bill would expand the definition of customer facility charge to include a fee that is required by an airport to be collected for the purpose of financing, designing, constructing, and operating any common-use transportation system, as specified, and for acquiring vehicles for use in that system. This bill would also authorize an alternative fee following a hearing and finding by the airport, as provided, that the customer facility charge will not generate sufficient revenue to finance and operate the consolidated rental car facility and common-use transportation system. The bill would provide for the collection of the alternative fee on a per-day basis, as specified. Existing law provides that a statute that imposes a requirement that a state agency submit a periodic report to the Legislature is inoperative on a date 4 years after the date the first report is due. The bill would, notwithstanding that requirement, also require any airport seeking to collect an alternative customer facility charge to provide reports on an annual basis to the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary detailing the total amount of the customer facility charge collected, how the funds are being spent, the amount of and reason for any changes in the airport's budget or financial needs, and whether certain airport concession fees have increased since the prior report, if any. The bill would also require the airport to complete a specified independent audit prior to the initial collection of the customer facility charge, prior to any increase, as specified, and every 3 years after initial collection and any increase, as provided. The bill would require the Controller to review those audits and independently examine and substantiate the necessity for and the amount of the customer facility charge. The bill would require the individual airports being audited to reimburse the Controller's costs. The bill would also require the Controller to report to the Legislature on his or her conclusions, as provided. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1936 of the Civil Code, as proposed by AB 2059, to be operative only if AB 2059 and this bill are both enacted, each bill amends Section 1936 of the Civil Code, and this bill is enacted after AB 2059.
Who sponsors SB 1192?
SB 1192 is sponsored by Oropeza.
What is the current status of SB 1192?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “To Executive” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 1192?
Track SB 1192 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1192

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 1192

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →