BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
4
9
SB 49 (Strickland)
As Amended April 27, 2011
Hearing date: May 3, 2011
Government Code
MK:mc
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: EMERGENCY RESPONSE: FEES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 1004 (Portantino) - 2009, amended out
before bill was heard in Senate
SB 1707 (Aanestad) - Chapter 51, Statutes of 2004
SB 1830 (Aanestad) - failed Senate Public Safety
2004
Support: Association of California Insurance Companies; CalTax;
California Federation of Republican Women; The Personal
Insurance Federation of California a number of
individuals
Opposition:League of California Cities; AFSCME; California State
Firefighters' Association, Inc.; Newberry Springs Fire
Chief; City of Susanville Fire Department; Association
of California Water Agencies (unless amended); Town of
Apple Valley; City of Scotts Valley; City of Moreno
Valley; City of Garden Grove; City of Beverly Hills;
City of Cathedral City; City of Clovis Fire Department;
City of Palm Springs Fire Department; Squaw Valley Fire
Department; National City Fire Department; Stanislaus
Consolidated Fire Protection District; Regional Council
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 2
of Rural Counties; a few individuals
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE LAW PROHIBIT A CITY, COUNTY, ET CETERA, FROM CHARGING A
FEE TO ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF RESIDENCY FOR THE EXPENSE OF AN
EMERGENCY RESPONSE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit cities and counties from
charging non-residents for the cost of an emergency response
unless otherwise authorized by law.
Existing law provides that emergency response s may be recovered
from the driver of a motor vehicle, boat or plane whose
negligent operation of the vehicle resulting in the emergency
response was a result of being under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. (Government Code �� 53150-53156.)
Existing law provides that any person who intentionally enters
into an area that is closed or has been closed to the public by
a competent authority for any reason or who drives a vehicle on
a public street or highway that is temporarily covered by a rise
in water is liable for the cost of emergency response to search
for, rescue that person, and remove any vehicle. (Government
Code � 53159.)
Existing law provides that any person who negligently or in
violation of the law sets a fire or allows a fire to be set, or
allows a fire kindled or attended by him or her to escape onto
any public or private property, is liable for the fire
suppression costs incurred in fighting the fire and for the cost
of providing rescue or emergency medical services, and those
costs shall be a charge against that person. The charge shall
constitute a debt of that person, and is collectible by the
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 3
person, or by the federal, state, county, public, or private
agency, incurring those costs in the same manner as in the case
of an obligation under a contract, expressed or implied.
(Health and Safety Code � 13009.)
Existing law provides that the county board of supervisors may
authorize the sheriff to search and rescue persons who are lost
or are in danger of their lives within or in the immediate
vicinity of the county, and the county or city and county of
residence of a person searched for or rescued by the sheriff
shall pay the county or city and county conducting such search
or rescue all of the reasonable expenses exceeding $100.
(Government Code �� 26614; 26614.5.)
Existing law provides that person is liable for the reasonable
costs of any contents of a vehicle a driver willingly or
negligently permits to be deposited upon a street or highway.
(Vehicle Code ��17300 et seq.)
This bill provides that a city, including a charter city,
county, district, municipal corporation or public authority
shall not, except as otherwise authorized by law, charge a fee
to any person, regardless of residency, for the expense of an
emergency response.
This bill provides that an emergency response includes, but is
not limited to, fire, police or medical response.
This bill provides that it shall not apply to a special district
unless that special district receives revenue from transaction
and use taxes in accordance with specified law.
This bill contains legislative intent language declaring that
the availability and use of emergency response resources
throughout the state is an issue of statewide concern and not a
municipal affair.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 4
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 5
According to the author:
Numerous local entities throughout the state have
enacted some form of fee or tax for costs related to
dispatching an emergency responder. While some
entities charge anyone at fault, others only impose
these fees/taxes on non-residents.
Local entities assert these fees/taxes are simply
reimbursement for services rendered. They also assert
non-residents are benefiting from a community in which
they are not a member. However, residents and
non-residents all contribute to a community; both
generate revenue for the local government entities and
the local businesses.
Public safety is a basic function of government. We
pay taxes for these basic services. To charge an
individual for an accident is nothing more than a
double tax.
2. Ban Charging for Emergency Response Cost
Existing law allows for the recovery of emergency costs when an
intentionally set fire gets out of hand, or a drunken driver
causes an accident, or a person intentionally goes out of bounds
in a wilderness area, or intentionally drives onto a flooded
street.
This bill would prohibit a city, including a charter city,
county district, municipal corporation or public authority from
charging an emergency response fee to any person regardless of
residency for the expense of an emergency response. The
specified fees allowed under existing law would still be
permitted.
This bill does not apply to a special district that is only
funded through property taxes and receives no sales taxes.
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 6
3. Arguments in Support
The author and supporters argue that public safety is a basic
function of government, and it is paid for through sales and use
taxes or sometimes by property taxes. Charging for emergency
response to accidents is an additional tax. Since much money
for emergency services comes at least in part through sales
taxes, it is not paid for just by residents of the city or
county, but also by those who work or do other business there.
The author points to the recent repeal of such a tax by the City
of Roseville and non-implementation of one in Sacramento as an
example of why these fees don't make economic sense for
municipalities.
On February 16, 2011, the City of Roseville repealed
their emergency response fee. They adopted their
ordinance in 2009 and expected to collect $100,000 a
year from the fee/tax. The city collected only
$40,000 in the first 18 months.
On February 25, 2011, Sacramento's emergency response
fee/tax takes effect. Sacramento will charge
non-residents for emergency response services.
Without ever being implemented, the Sacramento City
Council reversed its position and repealed the new
emergency response fee/tax on March 29, 2011.
Unlike the existing fees for accidents where the person at fault
was DUI, or for rescues when a person intentionally goes into a
restricted area, or for clean-up of debris on a freeway, all
emergency response calls don't necessarily involve any
intentional conduct. Accidents can happen because of weather,
road conditions, vehicle malfunctions, as well as simple
negligence. The author and supporters do not believe it is
appropriate to charge emergency response fees in these
situations.
(More)
The bill specifically exempts special districts that only get
fees through property taxes because the author believes that in
those situations it is not a double tax to tax non-residents
because non-residents would not be paying property taxes, as
they may pay sales and similar taxes.
4. Arguments in Opposition
Opponents disagree with the legislative intent in this bill and
believe that the decision to charge the fees prohibited in this
bill is a local issue that should not be decided on a statewide
basis. Specifically, the Fire Department of the City of Clovis
and other cities state:
We need the ability of our local governments to run
our communities as our elected officials deem correct,
not have the State dictate our local fiscal needs. If
the State mandates that local taxpayers now pick up
the bill for some of these services, it may
drastically impact our ability to continue to provide
the quality of services we have provided in the past.
The League of California Cities also believes that this is not
of statewide concern and furthermore argues:
The restrictions are cause for concern on several
levels. First, populations are not static-they move
between jurisdictions for work, shopping, or leisure
and can place high demand in specific areas at peak
times. It is unreasonable to assume a single
jurisdiction should bear the burden of emergency
response duties without collecting reimbursement from
these non-residents who do not contribute to local
property tax or public safety assessments that fund
city services.
Second, SB 49 could set a precedent with negative
consequences for other public agencies including the
state. It is not uncommon for public agencies to
(More)
SB 49 (Strickland)
Page 8
charge different fees based on residency, such as
tuition for state universities or colleges. This bill
would stifle city councils including charter city
councils, in their efforts to make appropriate funding
decisions for their city and potentially spread
similar limitations on all public agencies.
Cathedral City states that this bill:
�I]s cause for concern when looking at statewide
emergency response capabilities. The state's mutual
aid network relies heavily on the participation of
local agencies. But cities like ours would be faced
with a difficult choice of sending personnel and
equipment to our neighbors, or across the state, in
response to catastrophic fires, floods or man-made
disasters, if it meant putting our own residents'
safety at risk.
SHOULD THE LAW PROHIBIT A CITY, COUNTY, ET CETERA, FROM CHARGING
A FEE TO ANY PERSON, REGARDLESS OF RESIDENCY FOR THE EXPENSE OF
AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE?
IS THIS AN ISSUE OF LOCAL OR STATEWIDE CONCERN?
***************