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