Less than a year ago, Denver was all set to charge nonresidents for accidents on state highways within its borders. The fees were included in then-Mayor John Hickenlooper’s budget (estimated annual take: $1.13 million), and the City Council had given them preliminary approval.
But after news stories and commentary raised questions about the policy, council members had second thoughts. They tabled the idea of billing nonresidents several hundred dollars for accidents within city borders.
Among their concerns: What if the “crash tax” set off an escalating series of reprisals, with one jurisdiction after another adopting similar fees in order to balance the scales on behalf of their residents?
For that matter, don’t motorists already pay taxes that go toward emergency services — with an unwritten understanding that any given jurisdiction will treat all accident victims equally rather than worry about where they reside?
In order to prevent such a fee war and preserve equal treatment of accident victims, Rep. Spencer Swalm, R-Centennial, is sponsoring House Bill 1059, which would prohibit local governments from imposing most fees for costs incurred by police, firefighters and other first responders to accidents.
At a recent committee hearing, representatives from two fire-protection districts testified against the bill, noting they don’t charge just for showing up at an accident. But they do charge, they said, for expenses such as cleanup of a spill, extricating someone from a vehicle, accident scene control, and so forth. Yet aren’t these services among those that motorists traditionally have not expected to pay?
Motorists have assumed their taxes already offset such expenses and that there is a reciprocal understanding among jurisdictions that protects them elsewhere too.
Kevin Bommer of the Colorado Municipal League, which also opposes the bill, acknowledged that Swalm “has identified a problem that does exist in other states” but added that the problem “does not exist in Colorado.”
And while he’s correct that it’s not a major problem yet, that’s the point of the bill: to avert the sort of beggar-thy-neighbor policy that has become common in some states.
Remember, Denver nearly enacted such a “crash fee” just last year.
Bommer also maintained the state couldn’t bar home-rule cities from enacting such fees — an argument that we certainly don’t dismiss out of hand. Yet surely when communities impose fees that affect only residents outside of their jurisdictions, it becomes a matter of statewide interest.
Swalm told us he’s willing to carve out an exception for rural areas where emergency-response teams depend on a minimal tax base; he’s also preserving an exception for ambulance or emergency medical services.
Last year, when asked by a Denver Post writer, Hickenlooper indicated he’d be willing to sign a statewide ban on accident fees if he became governor. We hope he gets a chance now to follow through.
