House Bill 386 would increase the annual registration fee for private passenger vehicles by adding a $6.25 surcharge to the existing fee structure. The bill directs the revenue from that surcharge to the Department of Public Safety and specifies that the money must be used to help fund State Highway Patrol salaries. It also preserves the existing reduced fee for certain vehicles given by the federal government to disabled veterans.
In addition to the vehicle fee change, the bill appropriates $40.4 million in recurring General Fund money for each year of the 2025-2027 biennium to provide compensation increases for State Highway Patrol personnel. The bill establishes a new experience-based salary schedule for troopers and sets specific annual salaries for supervisory and command ranks, including sergeant through colonel. The changes would take effect July 1, 2025, and apply to vehicle registrations issued or renewed on or after that date.
HB386 would amend G.S. 20-4.02 and G.S. 20-87 to create a new dedicated vehicle registration surcharge for private passenger vehicles and to route that revenue to the Department of Public Safety for Highway Patrol salaries. It would also add a recurring General Fund appropriation for patrol pay raises and establish statutory salary levels for Highway Patrol employees, directly affecting vehicle owners, the Department of Public Safety, and State Highway Patrol personnel.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to committee, but there were no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a support measure for law enforcement compensation funded partly through a user fee on vehicle registrations. No explicit support or opposition is documented in the supplied materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll-call history.
The main policy issue is the use of a higher vehicle registration fee to finance State Highway Patrol salaries, which could draw concern from motorists and fee-sensitive stakeholders who may object to increasing the cost of vehicle ownership. Another possible point of discussion is the combination of a dedicated fee increase with a separate recurring General Fund appropriation, which may prompt questions about the appropriate funding source for patrol compensation. The bill also preserves a special reduced fee for certain disabled veterans’ vehicles, indicating an exemption that may be relevant to veterans’ advocates.