|
|
 |
|
Would ‘crash tax’ be fairCity Council expected to introduce bill creating fees for non-residents in accidentsPeter Marcus, DDN Staff WriterMonday, June 21, 2010 | |
The Denver City Council today is expected to introduce a proposed ordinance that would create a so-called “crash tax” for at-fault non-residents involved in an accident on state highways within city limits.
The controversial proposal already received initial backing by the City Council when it backed the mayor’s 2010 budget last year. The fee was included as part of Mayor John Hickenlooper’s plan to balance the city budget. The fee is estimated to raise $1.13 million annually.
Critics say it is unfair to charge non-residents a fee simply for causing an accident on state highways within city limits. Critics point out that non-residents already pay taxes to the city for things like working inside the city and for purchasing items within the city. They say non-residents passing through the city should be afforded emergency services without a fee just like residents are afforded those services.
Proponents, however, say the proposal would assist in balancing the budget and raising revenue.
The mayor’s office said on Friday that it supports the proposal as part of the budget plan.
“We support it. This ordinance follows through on part of the 2010 budget presented to and approved by City Council last year,” said Hickenlooper’s spokesman, Eric Brown.
At 3:30 p.m. on Friday, Brown was unable to put the Denver Daily News in touch with the mayor directly to discuss the proposal because it was too late in the day.
Some question how non-residents will view the mayor’s support for the proposed ordinance. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, is running a gubernatorial campaign, and some wonder whether come election time voters outside of Denver will lash out at the mayor for supporting such a fee.
“It’s going to be hard for Hickenlooper to run outside of Denver knowing that if any future state constituents get into an accident in Denver that they’re going to have to pay,” said Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian Independence Institute and a critic of the proposed ordinance.
Caldara also points out that Denver benefits from cities and counties outside of Denver through financial contributions to infrastructure that predominantly benefit Denver because the infrastructure lies within the city. He points to the FasTracks light rail expansion project as an example, pointing out that much of the project leads to downtown Denver.
“The City and County of Denver takes from outlying cities and counties all the time …” said Caldara. “The tax revenue, the head tax of people who live outside of Denver but who pay the taxes because their bosses were stupid enough to put an office in Denver — none of those things count when somebody hits them with a car.”
The ordinance would allow the Denver Fire Department to collect a fee from at-fault non-resident drivers involved in an accident that requires an emergency response by the fire department on state highways within the city. Fees would be based upon the “cost of the incident response,” according to the proposal.
There are no set fees in the proposed ordinance, but the fee could not “exceed the actual cost to provide such services.”
Fire officials estimate that an average response cost is anywhere from $300 to $400.
In 2008, five states banned accident response fees, and in 2009, three more states followed suit. Recently, Alabama passed a law prohibiting accident response fees.
Only three known governments charge accident response fees in Colorado, including Foothills Fire District in Jefferson County, North Washington Fire District in Adams County, and the South Adams Fire District.
Fire Marshall Ron LaPenna with South Adams Fire said that in calendar year 2009 the district gave out a total of 376 invoices, which would have totaled $78,100. But the district only collected on 140 of those invoices, netting $26,600.
The Foothills Fire District experienced a sharp dropoff in accident response fees from one calendar year to the next. In 2008, Foothills Fire collected $64,515 for accident responses. In 2009, that revenue dropped off by more than half as the district only collected $29,199.
The Denver Fire Department officially supports the proposal. But concerns have been raised that it might turn into a public relations nightmare for the department if non-residents start getting hit with high fees. Fire departments usually enjoy high public support. But requiring taxpayers to pay fees to the department could shift that sentiment.
The fire department itself would be responsible for collecting the fees, which could also lead to collection and staffing issues.
Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, the only Council member who rejected the mayor’s proposed budget last year, said she probably won’t call the bill out today because the Council will be holding a marathon special meeting and public hearing beginning at 1 p.m. to discuss the city’s new proposed zoning code. She also points out that the proposal received initial approval last year when the budget passed.
Faatz is more interested in hearing from the mayor directly on the proposal, especially considering his bid for governor.
“He billed it into his budget, so is the mayor not out there defending this proposal?” asked Faatz. “At this point, it’s certainly incumbent on the mayor himself, not his spokesman, but the mayor himself to be talking about why this is an important move for the city.”
Caldara wonders whether the proposal might lead to other such taxes for non-residents.
“Where do you stop with this? Are the city lights only to be used by the residents of Denver and those people who are driving through better wear shades at night?” quipped Caldara. “We’ve got an expectation when we go through Denver that government there will take care of us if we get into an accident.”
Todd Shepherd contributed to this story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
