STORYLINE Local Government

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Non-resident drivers to foot emergency bills

by Brandon Darnell, published on January 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Storyline: Local Government RSS Feed

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

Sacramento is seeking to recoup $300,000 - $500,000 per year after the passage of a new fire cost recovery ordinance – commonly referred to as a “crash tax” – Tuesday night.

The City Council voted 5-4 to charge out-of-town drivers who are at fault in auto accidents within city limits to recover expenses related to Fire Department responses.

Drivers could be billed from $435 for a basic “scene stabilization” to more than $2,200 for a “scene stabilization” involving more advanced issues such as hazardous materials and helicopter transportation, according to a staff report.

“I have some very serious legal concerns, and moral concerns about this,” said Councilman Darrell Fong, who joined council members Rob Fong, Sandy Sheedy and Bonnie Pannell in voting against the ordinance.

Darrell Fong raised the question of possible charges for police services in the same vein, saying he is uncomfortable with that as well.

The legality of the ordinance – and a confidential memo produced by the City Attorney’s office – were not openly discussed at the meeting. Deputy City Attorney Matt Ruyak said it constituted attorney/client privilege, despite numerous questions regarding the legality.

Councilwoman Angelique Ashby said declining to discuss the memo is a way to safeguard the city against potential litigation.

“I know it’s uncomfortable,” she said, referring to the decision to charge for services that were previously covered solely by taxes. “Nobody likes anything like this.... There is no free lunch.”

Councilman Steve Cohn echoed Ashby’s sentiments.

“I don’t feel real positive about this either, but what are our choices here?” he asked, adding that the other choice is possibly “browning-out” four more fire stations.

The ordinance is designed to recoup Fire Department costs and prevent further fire station brownouts, according to city officials.

“If a non-resident is involved in a traffic accident or has a fire in their vehicle, they would be billed for the cost of the response,” said Mark Prestwich, special projects manager for the city manager’s office, in a phone interview before the meeting.

The ordinance first came to the City Council Law and Legislation Committee last summer. Proponents of the ordinance claim that city residents are subsidizing emergency response services for out-of-town drivers who do not pay taxes that fund the Fire Department.

Drivers living or owning more than 50 percent of businesses on property in Sacramento will not be charged the fee.

Opponents of the ordinance, including the Sacramento Metro Chamber, argue that charging non-resident drivers would be unfair, and might dissuade businesses from coming to the city.

There was lingering confusion stemming from the first time the ordinance was discussed by the City Council as to whether the cost would be passed to drivers not at fault in collisions.

“Anyone that’s not responsible will not be subject to the ordinance,” Prestwich said, adding that insurance companies will determine which driver or drivers are at fault.

“It’s easily misunderstood, and it’s a confusing issue,” Prestwich said.

Sam Sorich, president of the Association of California Insurance Companies, argued that drivers not at fault would, in fact, still be billed.

“An innocent driver who experiences the trauma of an auto accident could be hit with a bill for hundreds of dollars,” he said.

Speaking during the public comment portion of the discussion, Connie Anderson said she thinks the income from the ordinance would be minimal compared to the hardship endured by the individuals.

“Will Sacramento join 60 other cities in heading toward an ‘each person for themselves’ mentality?” she asked.

Sacramento Fire Chief Ray Jones said the purpose of the bill is not to bring in revenue, but to recover costs associated with non-resident drivers involved in accidents.

When questioned by Rob Fong, Jones said it is possible that if the ordinance were to be found illegal, Sacramento residents could be subject to the charges. He also said there is no “at-fault” language in the ordinance.

Billing will be handled by a third-party company, Fire Recovery USA, which will take about 17 percent of the recovered costs, according to Jones.

At least 60 jurisdictions in California currently have similar ordinances, with most – like Sacramento – billing only non-resident drivers.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

January 26, 2011 | 7:50 AM
This is just another reason for those in the know to avoid Sacramento when shopping or spend any time here.
6 4
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 3:36 PM
Yeah, god forbid only the good drivers come here. The bad drivers are where the money's at!!
2 1
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 8:45 AM
"Beggar thy neighbor" policies are generally bad ideas.
5 1
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 10:49 AM
So now I wonder if the city or the cops will start as a policy calling out the fire dept., and other crews willy-nilly anytime a fender bender or whatever occurs to gin up their revenues. This is such a bad idea...It's one of the reasons why govt. can't charge people for being in jail--there would be too much incentive for abuse and so it will be with this new ordinance. God help us...
4 3
REPLY
edited on  January 28, 2011 | 12:50 PM
Right on Hal.
0 1
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 11:20 AM
Great article. It does make one wonder how can something like this get approved when the majority of people you talk to are outraged. It's just politics as usual. :-(
3 2
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 11:24 AM
Great article. Bad policy!
4 1
REPLY
January 27, 2011 | 11:17 AM
This article was more informative than that which appeared in the Bee.
3 0
REPLY
P W
Author thumbnail
January 26, 2011 | 12:53 PM
All of us will pay for this policy through higher insurance premiums on collision and comprehensive coverages....and rightfully so. This cost is not stopping with the person receiving the services: They will simply give the bill to their insurance carrier, who will, in most cases, pay it (if the person has applicable coverage). Once the trend starts showing significant payments for this type of loss in a given area, those living in that area will see an increase in their premiums. So, either way, taxpayers will pay for this...as we already are now...but now, we'll be paying for it again! Bad policy!
4 1
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 3:29 PM
This isn’t just plain terrible, this is fancy terrible, this is terrible with raisins in it.

3 2
REPLY
January 26, 2011 | 9:55 PM
We are not a world class city but a third-class city.
3 2
REPLY
January 27, 2011 | 11:15 AM
If this type of law is not overturned in court, then expect non-resident surcharges to be added to all city services and fines.
2 1
REPLY
January 27, 2011 | 12:27 PM
I continue to be happy that I voted for Darrell Fong.

Next up: Give 'em hell on the arena, Darrell.
1 1
REPLY
January 30, 2011 | 11:01 AM
Perhaps if the firefighters would get out of the ambulance business, draw down to three persons per engine and finally most of all strip their bloated management ranks then they might have some justification.

What is most disappointing is the city council vote. It appeared with the last election, we would end the era of sycophants on the council....looks like nothing has changed.
1 0
REPLY
edited on  February 1, 2011 | 9:26 AM
Question: is this constitutional? Isn’t this an internal tariff, so to speak? Interstate commerce and all that. Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports..." A "crash tax" comes across as a tariff on one State by another.
Granted, California is a large state, but I could see laws like this playing havoc on the East Coast. Maybe a visitor from Reno can take this to Court.

1 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background