BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 296|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 296
Author: Dodd (D)
Introduced:2/12/15
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/8/15
AYES: Hill, Bates, Berryhill, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez,
Jackson, Mendoza, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/29/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/9/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Weights and measures: inspection: fees
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill extends the authority of the Board of
Supervisors of a county and the State Department of Food and
Agriculture (DFA) to charge fees to recover the costs of the
County Sealer related to the inspection and testing of weighing
and measuring devices, from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires the Sealer of a county to inspect and test weighing
AB 296
Page 2
and measuring devices, as specified, that are used or sold in
the county. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 12210)
2) Requires the Sealer of a county to weigh or measure packages
to determine whether they contain the amount represented, as
provided. (BPC § 12211)
3) Authorizes, until January 1, 2016, the Board of Supervisors
of a county, by ordinance, to charge fees, not to exceed the
county's total cost of actually inspecting or testing
weighing and measuring devices required of the County Sealer,
to recover the costs of the County Sealer to perform these
duties.
(BPC § 12240)
4) Requires, until January 1, 2016, the DFA Secretary to
establish by regulation an annual administrative fee to
recover reasonable administrative and enforcement costs
incurred by the DFA for exercising supervision over and
performing investigations in connection with the activities
performed by Sealers described above, and requires the
administrative fee to be collected for every device
registered with each county office of weights and measures
and paid annually to the DFA. (BPC § 12241)
This bill extends the authority of a County Board of Supervisors
and the DFA to charge fees to recover the County Sealer's costs
related to the inspection and testing of weighing and measuring
devices, from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2019.
AB 296
Page 3
Background
County Sealers. The inspection and testing of weighing and
measuring devices is overseen by a County Sealer of Weights and
Measures. Historically, these Sealers have been responsible for
ensuring that 'equity prevails' in the marketplace and that
consumers reliably get precisely what they paid for. As such,
these Sealers and their offices enforce the laws and regulations
of the state under the general direction and oversight of the
DFA Secretary. In practice, this oversight involves the
inspection and testing of packaged commodities and all
commercially-used weighing and measuring devices.
In order to help pay for the cost of the inspection and testing
program, legislation was passed in 1982 to authorize County
Boards of Supervisors to establish fees for business locations
to partially fund local weights and measures enforcement
programs. That program and the related fee authorization have
been amended many times since then to add new devices to the
registration program and adjust the schedule of maximum fees in
statute. The program now applies to virtually all weighing and
measuring devices used commercially (such as gas pumps, water
meters, grocery scales, taxi meters, etc.), with the exception
of farm milk tanks and grocery store check-out scanners. In
2012-13, the device registration program had expenditures of
$23.1 million statewide.
These fees are the single largest source of revenue for the
county program outside of the County General Fund, and the
authorization has been extended by statute nine separate times
since 1985, mostly recently by AB 1623 (Yamada, Chapter 234,
Statutes of 2012). It is important to note that this same
authorization also permits the DFA to establish by regulation an
administrative fee to recover costs incurred for supervision and
investigation of the same program. However, this bill does not
change any of the "fee caps" for location fees, specific device
fees, and total registration fees, which are usually negotiated
AB 296
Page 4
between the counties and the businesses affected and then
codified in statute. The fee authorization statute is currently
set to expire on January 1, 2016.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Continued DFA administrative fee revenues of approximately
$800,000 annually through the 2018 calendar year ($650,000
deposited into the Food and Agriculture Fund; $150,000
retained at the county level).
Continued county fee revenues of approximately $24 million
annually through the 2018 calendar year. (local funds)
SUPPORT: (Verified7/1/15)
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association
(source)
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco and Mayor Edwin Lee
County of Santa Clara
County of Ventura
Placer County Board of Supervisors
Rural County Representatives of California
OPPOSITION: (Verified7/1/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Rural County
Representatives of California, "County Agriculture Commissioners
and Sealers perform valuable services for county residents and
those within the local agriculture industry. For example, one
of those roles is ensuring that actual weights and sizes are
accurate. Weighing and measuring devices must be inspected in a
timely manner so that consumers are protected against
AB 296
Page 5
unscrupulous business operators.
In order to perform the much-needed services, County Agriculture
Commissioners must recover their costs. Thus, we believe it
appropriate that Boards of Supervisors continue to be able to
adopt fee schedules so that a county's costs can be recovered,
while at the same time balancing the needs of industry with the
protections of consumers."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/9/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brown, Burke, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger
Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey,
Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,
McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting,
Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Brough, Calderon, Chang, Beth
Gaines, O'Donnell
Prepared by:Mark Mendoza / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
7/2/15 14:16:04
**** END ****