Sacramento’s controversial “crash tax” will face a repeal vote Tuesday night – which would put the brakes on the ordinance before it ever had the chance to go into effect.

The fire cost recovery ordinance, as it stands, would seek to recover costs of emergency service responses to vehicle accidents in which out-of-town drivers are at fault, billing them anywhere from $495 to more than $2,000, depending on the equipment involved and whether hazardous materials need to be cleaned up.

Originally passed in a 5-4 decision by the Sacramento City Council Jan. 25, it hit a snag March 1 when Councilman Jay Schenirer switched his vote and called for a repeal of the policy during what was expected to be a routine approval of a contract with third-party billing service Fire Recovery USA. 

Schenirer explained his reasons for the switch to oppose the ordinance to The Sacramento Press on Monday.

“I don’t think I ever felt comfortable with the policy itself, but I was willing to vote in the beginning because of the budget situation of the city,” he said. “Looking at it and looking at the level of info that was coming from other cities or fire districts that had adopted it and also looking at data that was coming from our staff, the revenue level didn’t justify the policy.”

He added that “We were looking at decreasing estimates of what the city would reap from it.”

Original estimates in July, when the issue was discussed by the City Council’s Law and Legislation Committee, put the revenue level between $600,000 and $1.3 million.

That was later revised to an estimate of about $300,000, which Fire Recovery USA officials said was a “conservative” estimate.

“I’ve also talked to a lot of constituents,” Schenirer said. “I’ve been on the side of unpopular decisions before, but it was listening to people whose opinions I trust and value – both constituents and people in different levels of policy – that made me change my decision.”

Proponents of the “crash tax” say that billing non-resident drivers for emergency responses ensures that Sacramentans aren’t unfairly footing the bill for services used by people who aren’t paying local property taxes – a large source of Fire Department funding.

Councilwoman Angelique Ashby made an impassioned argument for the ordinance March 1, in which she described how a lack of funding leads to browned-out fire companies – putting some areas in Natomas more than 10 minutes from the closest staffed fire station.

According to fire officials, money garnered from the ordinance could mean fewer fire companies would be browned out.

Opponents, however, say that the policy alienates out-of-towners and could drive business away from the city, and it sets a precedent for charging for other services.

Councilman Darrell Fong said on March 1 that he doesn’t want to see the same policy charged for Police Department services, wherein non-residents would be afraid to call police when they are the victims of crimes.

Sam Sorich, president of Association of California Insurance Companies, (http://www.acicnet.org/weba/home.nsf/main) also said the ordinance would cause insurance rates to go up across the board, and the fees charged by the city likely would not be covered by insurance policies.

The council will vote on the matter Tuesday night. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at City Hall, 915 I St.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.