BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 896| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 896 Author: Wagner (R) Amended: 8/18/15 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 7/15/15 AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Lara, Moorlach, Pavley NO VOTE RECORDED: Hernandez ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 5/28/15 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: Counties: search or rescue: costs SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill allows counties to seek reimbursement from residents age 16 or older for search and rescue costs under specified conditions. Senate Floor Amendments of 8/18/15 require that a person's actions leading to the emergency must have resulted in a criminal conviction in order to be billed by a county for his or her search or rescue, rather than a violation of the law, and not simply "wanton and reckless misconduct." ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Allows a county board of supervisors to authorize the sheriff to search for and rescue persons who are lost or are in danger AB 896 Page 2 of their lives within or in the immediate vicinity of the county. 2)Permits the county or city and county that performed the search and rescue to bill the county or city and county of residence of the person searched for or rescued for all the reasonable expenses exceeding $100. 3)Authorizes public agencies to recover up to $12,000 from the driver of a motor vehicle, boat, or plane under the influence of alcohol or drugs whose negligent operation of the vehicle resulted in an emergency response. 4)Makes any person who intentionally enters into an area that is closed to the public resulting in a search and rescue liable for search and rescue costs up to $12,000. 5)Allows counties and public agencies to charge a person who negligently or in violation of the law sets a fire or allows a fire to be set, for the cost of providing rescue or emergency medical services. This bill: 1)Allows a county or city and county that is billed by another county or city and county, for a search and rescue of one of its residents who is 16 years or age or older, to seek reimbursement from that resident for the actual costs incurred, if the need for the search or rescue necessitated the use of extraordinary methods and was caused by any act in knowing violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance that results in a criminal conviction. 2)Requires a person 16 years of age or older living within a county or city and county, who is searched for or rescued, to pay the county or city and county conducting the search or rescue for the actual cost incurred within 30 days, of the need for the search and rescue necessitated the use of extraordinary methods and was caused an act in knowing violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance that results in a criminal conviction. 3)Prohibits the county or city and county from collecting charges from those persons who the county or city and county AB 896 Page 3 determine are unable to pay. 4)Prohibits a county or city and county from billing a resident more than $12,000, adjusted annually for inflation as determined by the Department of Industrial Relations, for a search or rescue, unless the search or rescue is was caused by an act that resulted in a felony conviction of that resident under federal or state law. 5)Provides that a county or a city and county may only seek reimbursement as authorized by the bill if the board of supervisors adopts an ordinance consistent with this bill. Background From 1995 to 1999, state law allowed a county or city and county that is billed by another county or city and county for a search and rescue of one of its residents who is 16 years of age or older to seek reimbursement from that resident for the cost incurred by the county. The law also required a person 16 years of age or older living within a county or city and county who is searched for or rescued to pay the county or city and county for the actual cost incurred for the search or rescue within 30 days after being billed for those charges. In order to recover the costs, the need for the search and rescue had to necessitate the use of extraordinary methods and be caused by one of the following factors: Any intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or state law or local ordinance. Any act or omission by the person searched for or rescued that shows wanton and reckless misconduct in disregard for his or her safety. The law prohibited the county or city and county from collecting charges from those persons who the county or city and county determined were unable to pay. The city and county also could not bill a resident more than $5,000 for a search and rescue. According to the courts, "wanton misconduct is intentional wrongful conduct, done either with a knowledge that serious injury to another will probably result, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the possible results." The courts have found that three essential elements must be present to raise a AB 896 Page 4 negligent act to the level of willful or wanton misconduct: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of the peril to be apprehended, (2) actual or constructive knowledge that injury is a probable, as opposed to a possible, result of the danger, and (3) conscious failure to act to avoid the peril. Some local officials want to reinstate the statutory authority to allow counties to recover costs of search and rescue from residents that break the law and raise the liability cap from $5,000 to $12,000. Comments 1)Purpose of the bill. In 2013, two teenagers became lost while hiking in Orange County, resulting in an extensive search that cost the responding agencies more than $160,000. The hikers later admitted to being under the influence of drugs, which led them to become disoriented and lost. Counties find it difficult to bear the financial burdens of extraordinary search and rescue costs. AB 896 would hold individuals who break the law accountable for the costs of an extraordinary search and rescue effort to aid them. 2)Stuck with the bill. Several states use methods other than billing their citizens to recoup some of their search and rescue costs. For example, Colorado and New Hampshire offer voluntary "hike safe" cards to hikers, ranging in price from $3-25 per year per person, the revenue from which is used to help offset state agencies' search and rescue costs. In New Hampshire, which enacted a law similar to AB 896 in 1999, "hike safe" cardholders are indemnified from liability for any search and rescue costs brought about by their own negligence. As of last month, New Hampshire had sold approximately 1,400 "hike safe" cards, which generated about $36,000 in revenue. While indemnifying irresponsible hiking may be controversial, recovering search and rescue costs from hikers after the fact can prove difficult and time consuming for counties. Furthermore, the prospect of being billed thousands of dollars after being rescued could deter people in need from calling for help. It is unclear that billing hikers for their own search and rescue after the fact is an optimal way to of offset counties' search and rescue costs. Prior Legislation AB 896 Page 5 This bill is virtually identical to AB 2151 (Wagner, 2014), which the Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed on June 18, 2014. Governor Brown eventually vetoed AB 2151, citing the bill's "vague language that may create an incentive for counties to abuse the authority" granted by the bill, and the fact that "current law already allows counties to recover costs for search and rescue through a civil lawsuit if they can prove 'gross negligence' on behalf of the rescued individual." In his veto message, the Governor expressed concern that charging individuals up to $12,000 without filing a civil suit could deprive citizens of their right to due process. This bill is indistinguishable from the legislation the Governor vetoed. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:NoLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/15) California State Sheriff's Association Rural County Representatives of California OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/15) None received ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 5/28/15 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, AB 896 Page 6 Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins NOES: Gonzalez NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Burke, Eduardo Garcia, Grove, Mayes, Weber Prepared by:Toren Lewis / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119 8/19/15 20:42:52 *** END ****