BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 626
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
626 (McGuire)
As Amended August 20, 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, Gonzalez, | |
|Government | |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: None
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).
Transportation Committee staff concerns: The 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 information
which would be of little value in providing a safe and secure
SB 626
Page 4
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:
0001317