Sacramento "Crash Tax" BS

TongMan · 02-17-2011, 06:21 PM

Its so freaking absurd that this passed and will be instated comes March. If you are not a resident of Sacramento city and someone rams into you in the city, you will get a bill for being involved in an auto accident. Fair enough right??? Give it a read.

Quote:

Sacramento council approves crash tax for non-city residents
Share

By Ryan Lillis
rlillis@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
Last Modified: Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2011 - 11:39 am
Sacramento's "crash tax" has gotten the green light.

The City Council voted 5-4 on Tuesday night to join a growing list of cities across the state that charge out-of-towners hundreds of dollars when they're in an automobile crash that requires a Fire Department response.

Supporters of the fees say the charges represent a fair piece of the costs that cities incur responding to thousands of wrecks each year. The fees are not taxes, city officials said, because they will not provide the city with revenue beyond what is spent on the Fire Department's response.

City officials said they were hopeful the fees would help avoid some future cuts to the Fire Department.

But critics – including a state senator who has written legislation proposing to ban the fees – describe the programs as "double taxes" levied against out-of-towners whose sales tax contributions already pay for fire service.
Several states, including Florida and Pennsylvania, have outlawed the programs.

The city Fire Department responds to 3,600 accidents a year, city officials said. One-third of those involve drivers who live outside the city.

Under the city's adopted fee scale, nonresidents will be charged $495 if they are involved in a typical incident in the city. Those crashes involve "scene stabilization" by the Fire Department, as well as a cleanup of gasoline or oil.

Crashes in which a helicopter is required to evacuate a victim will run $2,275.

All nonresidents involved in crashes in the city will receive bills for Fire Department service. Insurance companies will in turn determine who was at fault in those wrecks and then who will be on the hook for the fees.

While city officials are counting on insurance companies to pay the bills, Sam Sorich, the president of the Association of California Insurance Companies, said that the "typical auto insurance policy was never intended to cover these fees."

Sacramento Fire Chief Ray Jones told the council that the purpose of the ordinance was "not to secure revenue, but rather to recover reasonable costs" incurred when the department responds to an auto wreck.

Still, Jones said the fees collected through the program would help maintain the department's service levels.

Budget cuts in the past two years have led to two Fire Department rigs getting placed on rolling closures and Jones said the department was "trying to find ways not to have three, four, five."

City officials projected the program will generate between $300,000 and $500,000 each year.

The ordinance debated Tuesday night was similar to one first floated last summer. But after the city attorney's office questioned the legality of only charging nonresidents, a new ordinance was discussed that would have also charged residents for Fire Department response.

That proposal was eventually tossed out in favor of the latest version.

Read more: Sacramento council approves crash tax for non-city residents - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

TongMan · 02-17-2011, 06:22 PM

Roseville adopts same "Crash Tax"

Quote:

'Crash tax' gets tossed in Roseville
Share

By Ed Fletcher
efletcher@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
Last Modified: Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 - 10:01 am
Roseville's City Council unanimously voted Wednesday evening to repeal its "crash tax" - bucking the trend of California cities creating fees for nonresidents involved in traffic accidents.
"We made a mistake," said City Councilman John Allard,who first suggested repealing the tax earlier this month.

Outside the chambers after the vote, the firm hired to collect the fee from nonresidents involved in traffic collisions fumed about not being given a fair shake by the council, being vilified by the media and battling the deep pockets of the insurance industry and the politics it claims are behind the reversal.

Fire Recovery USA, which has an office a block down the street from the council chambers, said it was blindsided by the move to repeal and was railroaded by bad information from insurance companies.

"The taxpayers lost tonight," said Kevin Trost, a company vice president. "The insurance company is laughing all the way to the bank."

He said his firm can collect from insurance companies because insurers are already billing customers.

Trost, a retired Sacramento Fire Department captain, said political ambitions affected the Fire Recovery USA's ability to get a fair shake.

"The council members around this area have political ambitions and to move up they need the backing of the insurance industry," he said.

He made no specific allegations.

Allard is in a crowded field vying for the 4th Assembly District seat that was left open by Ted Gaines' move to the state Senate.

The city staff said the pro- gram didn't generate as much revenue as expected and wasted firefighters' time collecting insurance information.

The program was expected to generate $100,000 annually. In its first 18 months, the new fee brought in $40,000, city officials said.

"It's not about the money," said Mayor Pauline Roccucci.

Councilwoman Carol Garcia said she regretted passing the assessment.

"It just sent the wrong message to our residents and our nonresidents," Garcia said.

Allard said the fee might have caused shoppers to go elsewhere and cost the city more than it collected. The city adopted the "accident cost recovery fee" in February 2009.

The Placer County city was one of the first area entities to adopt the plan and did so to stem the need for cuts to the city's Fire Department, officials said. Somewhere between 60 and 100 cities and fire districts in the state have adopted so-called "crash tax- es."

While Roseville enacted the fee with relatively little hubbub, the city of Sacramento's "crash tax" was met with vitriol.

Business interests said it would dissuade people from spending money in Sacramento. Insurance companies said it would lead to higher rates. And neighboring officials said it would work against regional cooperation.

It doesn't appear the Sacramento program is going to be reversed.

Mayor Kevin Johnson and Councilman Steve Cohn told The Bee they would not re- verse their votes, and other council members who voted for it haven't indicated they would switch.

The state legislation outlawing the practice is awaiting its first public hearing. Senate Bill 49 from Sen. Tony Strickland,R-Moorpark, states "availability and use of emergency response resources throughout the state is an issue of statewide concern and not a municipal affair."

It would not be retroactive and would not invalidate Sacramento's ordinance.

Read more: 'Crash tax' gets tossed in Roseville - Sacramento News - Local and Breaking Sacramento News | Sacramento Bee

Nikon FM · 02-17-2011, 07:14 PM

Does this apply to all the parties involved including the person who is not at fault?

TongMan · 02-17-2011, 07:28 PM

Yes. All parties involved in the accident will be charged the tax whether at fault or not. As long as the Fire Dept was dispatched to the location.

Anatoray · 02-17-2011, 07:59 PM

Strange, it doesn't mention residents paying anything at all. I assume they must already have to pay, so they're not being mentioned in these new charges?

TongMan · 02-17-2011, 08:06 PM

Thats true, if you are a current resident of Sacramento city, you will not be taxed. You will only be taxed if your residency is outside of the city border. For example, if I live in Elk Grove, which is outside the Sacramento city borders, I would have to pay. You can live in the Sacramento county and still have to pay the city taxes.

02-17-2011, 07:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Nikon FM Track Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Snoqualmie WA Posts: 973 Drives: 03 996TT Porsche Rep Power: 607	Does this apply to all the parties involved including the person who is not at fault? __________________ Buddy Revell: "One man's sooner is another man's later"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I guess this will be my "build thread" or..."journal?"... atx370z	atx370z	Member's 370Z Gallery	15	09-15-2010 12:10 PM
"Dancing with the Dealer" with the 40th - hope to be in the "New Owner" section soon	optiontrader	New Forum Member	8	08-03-2010 11:37 PM
"Warning" Carbon Fiber Z emblems "DO NOT FIT"	NXTAZEE	Exterior & Interior	2	12-20-2009 03:49 AM
Break in - drive it "hard" or "be gentle"?	kannibul	Engine & Drivetrain	3	06-06-2009 01:51 AM

02-17-2011, 07:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
TongMan A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NorCal Posts: 1,297 Drives: 2013 Nissan GTR Rep Power: 716	Yes. All parties involved in the accident will be charged the tax whether at fault or not. As long as the Fire Dept was dispatched to the location.

02-17-2011, 07:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
Anatoray Track Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 794 Drives: 09 BLK 370Z Rep Power: 18	Strange, it doesn't mention residents paying anything at all. I assume they must already have to pay, so they're not being mentioned in these new charges?

02-17-2011, 08:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
TongMan A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NorCal Posts: 1,297 Drives: 2013 Nissan GTR Rep Power: 716	Thats true, if you are a current resident of Sacramento city, you will not be taxed. You will only be taxed if your residency is outside of the city border. For example, if I live in Elk Grove, which is outside the Sacramento city borders, I would have to pay. You can live in the Sacramento county and still have to pay the city taxes.