Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Should city charge at-fault drivers?
by Kathleen Haley, published on November 8, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
Loading images
The Sacramento City Council will decide later this month whether to bill at-fault drivers in collisions requiring an emergency response.
The city has released its draft ordinance for charging fees for emergency services. The fees for emergency responses would charged to all at-fault drivers, including residents and non-residents.
Fire Department responses to car wrecks would include a range of fees. On the low end, the city would charge $435 each time the department responds to an accident. A major wreck, meanwhile, could cost at least $2,000 in fees.
Council members are expected to discuss the ordinance at their Nov. 23 meeting, said special projects manager Mark Prestwich.
City staff has examined the issue for several months. An earlier version of the proposal would have only charged non-residents the fees. Residents were included in the proposed ordinance after City Attorney Eileen Teichert’s office said that focusing solely on non-residents might be deemed discriminatory, according to the city’s report on the ordinance.
Fire Capt. David Dolson noted the department is affected by the tough economy. He said the fees could help the department maintain current service and potentially cover additional levels of service.
“We’re at bare bones right now,” he said.
City Councilman Ray Tretheway indicated he may vote in favor of the ordinance later this month. “I think all of (the council members) are somewhat ambivalent, but also moving toward support,” he said.
Tretheway said he was thinking of the issue in terms of the city’s budget problems and “the need to recover our costs.”
Under the city’s proposal, a third-party billing service would contract with the city to handle the billing paperwork, according to Prestwich. The vendor would bill the at-fault driver’s insurance company for the fees, Prestwich said.
But the insurance industry is opposed to efforts by local governments to charge for fire recovery fees. Various local governments are viewing these emergency services fees as a way to improve their budget situations, argued Janine Gibford, assistant vice president for the American Insurance Association, an industry group with a West Coast office that covers California. This means they’re using insurance companies to help their budgets, she said.
“And we’re not there to fill the hole when the budgets get cut,” she said.
Read the proposed fire cost recovery ordinance here.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
"City Councilman Ray Tretheway indicated he may vote in favor of the ordinance later this month..." NO KIDDING? Tretheway hasn't seen a fee or tax he didn't love.
Y'all shall reap what you sow
Of course, we could privatize the fire department---but---hmmm---maybe, we should---UPS works.
Actually, Charlie, UPS is not working too well anymore according to a friend who works for them. Further when I get two different deliveries in one day and I see the trucks rushing up and down the streets in my neighborhood as many as five times in a day stopping at different businesses and houses when another driver was there an hour or so before, the question arises of why the lack of coordination of deliveries?
As to privatizing fire, it was the inefficiencies, narrow focus and tragedies caused by the original private fire departments long before autos that sparked those key services being transferred to government.
Hypothetical situation. You're in an accident that's 50/50 and it's going to have to go through insurance to get resolved. What if you didn't think you were hurt and declined medical attention but the other driver demanded it for you? If it is decided that it was your fault during arbitration, you'll be billed?
Maybe I didn't read the article thoroughly enough but it seems like there are going to be a lot of people fighting these fines.
also, this could take us down a very slippery slope. if the city is going to charge for emergency respone, what is next? will the police department now charge for the paper a speeding ticket will be written on and the officer's time for pulling you over as well as the traffic violation?
Good questions!
It's unknown at this point how the insurance industry will respond to Sacramento's ordinance, if the City Council approves it. The City Council will consider whether to charge a range of fees to at-fault drivers in collisions requiring emergency response.
City staff wrote the following information about the proposed fees:
Level 1 —Scene stabilization and hazardous materials assessment
Proposed Amount: $435.00
Level 2 — Scene stabilization, hazardous materials assessment, clean up and material used (sorbents) for hazardous fluid clean up and disposal
Proposed Amount: $495.00
Level 3 (Vehicle Fire) — Scene safety, fire suppression,
breathing air, rescue tools, hand tools, hose, tip use, foam,
structure protection, and clean up gasoline or other
automotive fluid
Proposed Amount: $680
Level 4 — Scene stabilization, hazardous materials
assessment, clean up and material used (sorbents) for
hazardous fluid clean up and disposal, and extrication (heavy
rescue tools, ropes, airbags, cribbing, etc.)
Proposed Amount: $1,875.00
Level 5 — Scene stabilization, hazardous materials
assessment, clean up and material used (sorbents) for
hazardous fluid clean up and disposal, and extrication (heavy
rescue tools, ropes, airbags, cribbing etc.) and Air Care
(multi-engine company response, mutual aid, helicopter)
Proposed Amount: $2,275.00
Miscellaneous Fees:
Engine Company per hour rate Proposed Amount: $400.00
Truck Company per hour rate Proposed Amount: $500.00
Miscellaneous Equipment per item Proposed Amount: $300.00
Command and Control unit per hour rate Proposed Amount: $75.00
Since residents have already turned out three on the council, this should at a minimum be deferred to the new council.
This is an example of city staff and the council totally misreading the defeat of Measure B. It also looks like a fee now subject to a two thirds vote.
I don't think that's a situation I'd want to go back to, as I think privatizing public safety services would face the same problems as privatizing the military.