BILL ANALYSIS AB 1004 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Anna Marie Caballero, Chair AB 1004 (Portantino) - As Amended: April 23, 2009 SUBJECT : Local government: emergency response. SUMMARY : Limits public agencies from seeking reimbursement for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency to specified incidents if the reimbursement meets specified conditions. Specifically, this bill : 1)Allows public agencies to seek reimbursement for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency in the following incidents: a) Any person who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug, whose negligent operation of a motor vehicle, any boat or vessel, or a civil aircraft caused by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response, and any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately causes any incident resulting in an appropriate emergency response; b) Any person 18 years of age or older who is convicted of making a false police report, and that false police report proximately causes an appropriate emergency response by a public agency; c) Any person who intentionally, knowingly, and willfully enters into any area that is closed or has been closed to the public by competent authority for any reason, or an area that a reasonable person under the circumstances should have known was closed to the public, is liable for the expenses of an emergency response required to search for or rescue that person, or if the person was operating a vehicle, any of his or her passengers, plus the expenses for the removal of any inoperable vehicle or; d) A person who drives a vehicle on a public street or highway that is temporarily covered by a rise in water level, including groundwater or overflow of water, and that AB 1004 Page 2 is barricaded because of flooding. 2)Prohibits a public agency from seeking reimbursement for any expenses of an emergency response if the fee imposed or reimbursement is sought is made absent a finding or assessment of fault and is conditioned upon the residence of the persons involved in the incident or activity that prompted the emergency response. EXISTING LAW allows public agencies to seek reimbursement, under specified circumstances, for the expense of an emergency response by a public agency to the incident. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)The author states the Cities of Roseville, Upland, Forest Hill, Loomis, Pinole, and Nevada City are charging out-of-town drivers who are involved in accidents for the cost of providing varying types of emergency response services. The author also reports that the Cities of Fresno and Modesto are considering enacting similar ordinances. In these cities, when an accident occurs, emergency services dispatchers decide which services to send to the accident scene and later bill nonresident drivers for the cost of the emergency services. The author believes this leaves an individual in the position of being charged for services they did not request and may not have needed. City residents, even those at fault for the accident, are generally not assessed these fees. In many cases, these costs are not covered by the driver's auto insurance, leaving the accident victim with a bill, perhaps in the thousands of dollars. Additionally, the auto insurance companies have indicated that any additional costs associated with the fees will be passed on to all motorists. 2)In their letter of opposition, the City of Roseville counters these arguments, stating that limiting the incidents for which a public agency can seek reimbursement for the expense of emergency response services is too constraining. Currently, AB 1004 Page 3 the City of Roseville transmits bills for several types of emergency response by the fire department, including to persons who are responsible for a significant release of hazardous materials and persons who through negligent action cause a significant fire. Most if not all automobile insurance companies will pay a fire department for emergency services provided at the scene of an accident. The City of Roseville says during 2007 it responded to 408 accidents involving nonresidents, costing the city approximately $100,000. 3)The League of California Cities also says, when cities seek reimbursement for the costs of emergency response services, it is not done to boost revenue but rather to cover costs. For larger emergency responses, such as a hazardous materials cleanup, cities would take a devastating hit to their general funds if cities can no longer seek reimbursement. 4)The Committee may want to consider whether the proposed prohibition on public agencies seeking reimbursement costs in AB 1004 is too broad. The Committee may want to tighten the proposed restriction on public agencies to have the residency of the persons involved in the accident not be considered when making a determination of liability. Otherwise, as the bill is currently drafted, there could be incidents where a public agency could be precluded from seeking legitimate reimbursement costs from a nonresident. 5)Proposed Committee Amendments : On page 2, strike out lines 3 to 10, inclusive, and insert: "Except as provided in Sections 53150, 53151, 53152, 53153.5, and 53159, a public agency, in making a determination of liability for purposes of seeking reimbursement for the expenses of any emergency response, shall not make residency a determining factor." REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Association of CA Insurance Companies AB 1004 Page 4 Opposition CA Fire Chiefs Association CA Professional Firefighters Cities of Orange and Roseville League of CA Cities Regional Council of Rural Counties Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958