Bill Text: CA AB1168 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Emergency medical services (EMS): prehospital EMS.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Vetoed) 2024-09-28 - Vetoed by Governor. [AB1168 Detail]
Download: California-2023-AB1168-Amended.html
Amended
IN
Senate
July 13, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Senate
July 05, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Senate
July 03, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
May 26, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
May 01, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
April 19, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
April 13, 2023 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 16, 2023 |
Introduced by Assembly Member Bennett |
February 16, 2023 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
Digest Key
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YESBill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Local governments’ provision, directly or by contract, administration, and regulation of prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) is a matter of public safety and critical to the public peace, health, and safety of the State of California. Recognizing that the state’s communities have diverse needs and resources, local control over the types, levels, and availability of these services is a longstanding tradition in California that the Legislature intends to retain.
(b)This division is designed to encourage coordination and planning among local governments within
county or regional EMS systems in order to achieve the most effective prehospital EMS on a countywide or regionwide basis.
(c)One of the ways in which local governments coordinate, plan, and achieve the most effective countywide or regionwide EMS and leverage their combined resources to carry out their prescribed functions under this division is through agreements for the joint exercise of powers under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code.
(d)City of Oxnard v. County of Ventura (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1010 has created confusion and concern among the state’s local governments regarding the utility and desirability of entering into joint powers arrangements for EMS purposes because the decision held, in part, that a city was
ineligible for, and did not have the right to administer emergency ambulance services within its territorial jurisdiction under, Section 1797.201 because the city delegated to a county the administration of those services through a joint exercise of powers agreement, which the parties had entered into nearly a decade before the enactment of this chapter.
(e)In enacting Section 1797.232, it is the intent of the Legislature to clarify the effect of agreements for the joint exercise of powers regarding prehospital EMS under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code on the rights, obligations,
and authorities of counties, local EMS agencies, cities, fire districts, and EMS providers under the EMS act and to preserve the utility and desirability of those agreements for EMS purposes.
(f)This section and Section 1797.232 do not authorize the substantial impairment of contractual obligations of an agreement to provide services within an exclusive operating area under Sections 1797.85 and 1797.224.