BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1004
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1004 (Portantino)
As Amended May 4, 2009
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 4-0 APPROPRIATIONS 15-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Caballero, Knight, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Arambula, Duvall | |Ammiano, |
| | | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Harkey, John A. Perez, |
| | | |Price, Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Audra Strickland, |
| | | |Torlakson |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits a public agency, in making a determination
of liability for purposes of seeking reimbursement for the
expenses of any emergency response, from making residency a
determining factor.
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no direct state costs.
COMMENTS : 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.
AB 1004
Page 2
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.
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, 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.
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.
The Legislature may want to consider whether the proposed
prohibition on public agencies seeking reimbursement costs in
this bill is too broad. The Legislature 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0001032
AB 1004
Page 3