BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 626
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
626 (McGuire)
As Amended April 16, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 36-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Transportation |16-0 |Frazier, Achadjian, | |
| | |Baker, Bloom, Campos, | |
| | |Chu, Daly, Dodd, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Kim, Linder, | |
| | |Medina, Melendez, | |
| | |Nazarian, O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |8-0 |Maienschein, | |
|Government | |Gonzalez, Alejo, | |
| | |Chiu, Cooley, Linder, | |
| | |Mullin, Waldron | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SB 626
Page 2
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District
(SMART) to hire a sworn peace officer and, if additional
officers are needed, to contract with law enforcement agencies
located within Marin or Sonoma County. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes SMART to establish the position of chief of police.
2)Requires that the chief of police, appointed by SMART's Board
of Directors, be a sworn peace officer who meets specified
requirements.
3)Authorizes SMART to contract for additional law enforcement
services from law enforcement agencies within Sonoma and Marin
Counties if additional officers are needed.
EXISTING LAW established the SMART District with a 12-member
board of directors with power to, among other things, own,
operate, manage, and maintain a passenger rail system within the
territory of the district.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS: SMART, is a voter-approved passenger rail and
bicycle-pedestrian pathway project located in Marin and Sonoma
Counties authorized by AB 2224 (Nation), Chapter 341, Statutes
of 2002. At full build out, the SMART system will serve a
70-mile corridor from Larkspur to Cloverdale. The first phase
of the project extending from San Rafael to Santa Rosa is
currently under construction and is expected to be operational
in 2016.
SB 626
Page 3
According to the author, AB 2224 neglected to provide SMART's
Board of Directors with the authority to hire a sworn law
enforcement officer as its Chief of Police. SMART contends that
this position is necessary to provide a safe, secure system for
SMART passengers. They argue that the having a sworn law
enforcement officer on staff will give them direct and equal
participation in public safety-related incidents and/or
investigations that take place on or involve their right-of-way.
This access to sensitive information, which they claim is
afforded more readily to law enforcement officers, would make it
easier for SMART to anticipate potential problems and take
precautionary measures to protect passengers and improve
service. Examples of the types of information the SMART Chief
of Police would obtain include information pertaining to service
disruptions, acts of vandalism, and violence.
To date, there are approximately 250 entities statewide that are
eligible to receive state transit funding and, of these, only
four are statutorily allowed to maintain their own police force.
Others contract with local law enforcement or use private
entities to meet system security needs. This bill provides
SMART with somewhat of a "hybrid authority" in that SMART would
be authorized to hire a single law enforcement officer but needs
for law enforcement officers over and above that single position
would be contracted (from local law enforcement entities).
Committee concerns: The Assembly Transportation Committee has
been unable to substantiate the arguments SMART uses to justify
the need for this bill. For example, SMART makes the argument
that without a sworn officer on staff they will be unable to
obtain sensitive crime scene information from whatever law
enforcement agency is working within SMART's right-of-way.
SMART asserts that this "sensitive" information is only provided
to other sworn law enforcement officers. Non-law enforcement
personnel, SMART argues, would only be able to obtain generic
SB 626
Page 4
information which would be of little value in providing a safe
and secure environment for passengers. Unfortunately, law
enforcement agencies contacted by the committee indicated that
information is not withheld from transit agencies. Further, the
committee was not able to substantiate that other transit
agencies without sworn officers on staff have experienced the
problems SMART foresees.
SMART also asserts that an in-house police officer is necessary
to successfully negotiate contracts for outside law enforcement.
Again, however, there is ample evidence that other transit
agencies have been able to successfully contract for outside law
enforcement and no evidence that the lack of an in-house law
enforcement has been a problem.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion
of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN:
0001338
SB 626
Page 5