Rural fire departments not letting go of 'crash tax' income
Published: Monday, Jun. 6, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
Sacramento and Roseville killed "crash taxes" earlier this year amid political push-back, but small towns and rural fire districts across the region still have the controversial emergency-recovery fees in place.
Fire departments, especially those along the Interstate 80 and Highway 50 corridors, continue to bill out-of-town motorists when crews respond to accidents.
Some fire officials say the fees, which range from about $400 to $2,500, are an important source of extra income in tough times and haven't resulted in political strife, as they did in Sacramento.
Critics in the capital said the fees targeting out-of-towners would hurt business and tourism, and had angered neighboring localities.
But a number of area fire districts have no plans to eliminate them.
"It definitely helps us out," said Bob Stearns, chairman of the struggling Newcastle Fire Protection District's board of directors.
In the past three years, the fees have brought in $9,000 – a useful sum in a district where the fire station is condemned and firefighters sleep in a trailer outside, he said.
Generally only at-fault drivers with insurance are assessed the fees, which are billed by a number of private companies that specialize in the work.
Most fire departments charge the fees only to those who live outside their area.
In some places, including Woodland, residents responsible for the incidents may also be charged for the fire department's costs when responding to accidents, fires, and spills of hazardous materials.
Last week, Yolo County grand jurors issued a report that criticized Woodland's recovery fees – billed through Roseville-based Fire Recovery USA – as unfairly targeting those with insurance.
Grand jurors also called the fees a double tax on residents and said the program brought in only about 20 percent of the $167,000 expected annually.
The grand jury urged that the fee ordinance be repealed.
Woodland City Manager Mark Deven said that's unlikely to happen soon. The city has earned more than grand jurors estimated and considers the fees a valuable contribution for fire services, he said.
"It generates a moderate income," Deven said. "We think any amount of income we can generate is important."
Ultimately, the Woodland City Council will decide how to proceed.
"It's a decision each community has to make about how they feel about the program," Deven said.
Fire Recovery USA's chief financial officer, Rick Benner, said the fees have been unfairly vilified. Insurance companies, which don't like paying them, have misinformed people, he said.
That has led to controversy in urban areas, but not so much in rural communities, he said.
"In most of the smaller areas it doesn't become such an issue," Benner said. "Residents are more in touch with their fire departments and perhaps more aware of the issues facing local government."
The firm takes 17 percent to 25 percent of the fees, Benner said.
More than 60 cities and fire districts in California contract with Fire Recovery USA, company officials said.
In the Sacramento region, more than a dozen jurisdictions impose the fees, according to public records.
In Newcastle, Stearns said the district signed up with Fire Recovery USA in 2009 and earned $8,000 from fees in the first year.
Many of those billed were out-of-town drivers involved in accidents on I-80, he said.
The district spent the proceeds on protective clothing, Stearns said.
The second year it didn't see any gain because many motorists involved in accidents were uninsured, he said. So far this year the effort has brought in an extra $1,000, used for training.
That may not sound like much, but Stearns said the dollars mean something to a struggling department.
The district's budget of $380,000 a year is the lowest in Placer County, and officials hope to pass a special property tax to help fund fire services, Stearns said.
In nearby Loomis, the fees brought in $6,500 last year and no more than $7,000 to $8,000 in prior years, said John Shearer, president of the Loomis Fire Protection District governing board.
Most of the fees came from the department's responses to accidents on I-80.
Shearer said the district may cancel the program because voters overwhelmingly passed a special property assessment to pay for fire services.
The relatively small amounts from the recovery fees are no longer worth the potential political fallout, he said.
Shearer said the recovery fees make sense for districts that are "scratching and clawing" for every dollar, but he said they aren't really fair.
"When you drive around the state," he said, "you expect to be afforded services because you'd afford them to someone else."
Fire departments, especially those along the Interstate 80 and Highway 50 corridors, continue to bill out-of-town motorists when crews respond to accidents.
Some fire officials say the fees, which range from about $400 to $2,500, are an important source of extra income in tough times and haven't resulted in political strife, as they did in Sacramento.
Critics in the capital said the fees targeting out-of-towners would hurt business and tourism, and had angered neighboring localities.
But a number of area fire districts have no plans to eliminate them.
"It definitely helps us out," said Bob Stearns, chairman of the struggling Newcastle Fire Protection District's board of directors.
In the past three years, the fees have brought in $9,000 – a useful sum in a district where the fire station is condemned and firefighters sleep in a trailer outside, he said.
Generally only at-fault drivers with insurance are assessed the fees, which are billed by a number of private companies that specialize in the work.
Most fire departments charge the fees only to those who live outside their area.
In some places, including Woodland, residents responsible for the incidents may also be charged for the fire department's costs when responding to accidents, fires, and spills of hazardous materials.
Last week, Yolo County grand jurors issued a report that criticized Woodland's recovery fees – billed through Roseville-based Fire Recovery USA – as unfairly targeting those with insurance.
Grand jurors also called the fees a double tax on residents and said the program brought in only about 20 percent of the $167,000 expected annually.
The grand jury urged that the fee ordinance be repealed.
Woodland City Manager Mark Deven said that's unlikely to happen soon. The city has earned more than grand jurors estimated and considers the fees a valuable contribution for fire services, he said.
"It generates a moderate income," Deven said. "We think any amount of income we can generate is important."
Ultimately, the Woodland City Council will decide how to proceed.
"It's a decision each community has to make about how they feel about the program," Deven said.
Fire Recovery USA's chief financial officer, Rick Benner, said the fees have been unfairly vilified. Insurance companies, which don't like paying them, have misinformed people, he said.
That has led to controversy in urban areas, but not so much in rural communities, he said.
"In most of the smaller areas it doesn't become such an issue," Benner said. "Residents are more in touch with their fire departments and perhaps more aware of the issues facing local government."
The firm takes 17 percent to 25 percent of the fees, Benner said.
More than 60 cities and fire districts in California contract with Fire Recovery USA, company officials said.
In the Sacramento region, more than a dozen jurisdictions impose the fees, according to public records.
In Newcastle, Stearns said the district signed up with Fire Recovery USA in 2009 and earned $8,000 from fees in the first year.
Many of those billed were out-of-town drivers involved in accidents on I-80, he said.
The district spent the proceeds on protective clothing, Stearns said.
The second year it didn't see any gain because many motorists involved in accidents were uninsured, he said. So far this year the effort has brought in an extra $1,000, used for training.
That may not sound like much, but Stearns said the dollars mean something to a struggling department.
The district's budget of $380,000 a year is the lowest in Placer County, and officials hope to pass a special property tax to help fund fire services, Stearns said.
In nearby Loomis, the fees brought in $6,500 last year and no more than $7,000 to $8,000 in prior years, said John Shearer, president of the Loomis Fire Protection District governing board.
Most of the fees came from the department's responses to accidents on I-80.
Shearer said the district may cancel the program because voters overwhelmingly passed a special property assessment to pay for fire services.
The relatively small amounts from the recovery fees are no longer worth the potential political fallout, he said.
Shearer said the recovery fees make sense for districts that are "scratching and clawing" for every dollar, but he said they aren't really fair.
"When you drive around the state," he said, "you expect to be afforded services because you'd afford them to someone else."
No comments:
Post a Comment