BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2151
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2151 (Wagner)
As Amended May 13, 2014
Majority vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, | | |
| |Bradford, Gordon, | | |
| |Melendez, Mullin, Rendon, | | |
| |Waldron | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Allows counties to seek reimbursement from residents
age 16 or older for search and rescue costs under specified
conditions. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, whenever a county or city and county is billed
for a search or rescue of one
of its residents who is 16 years of age or older by another
county or city and county, the county or city and county
receiving the bill may in turn seek reimbursement for the
actual costs incurred, including, but not limited to, the cost
of operating vehicles or aircraft, the salaries of employees,
and the cost of providing emergency medical services, from
that resident if the need for the search or rescue
necessitated the use of extraordinary methods and any of the
following was a contributing factor to the need for the search
or rescue:
a) Any act in violation of any federal or state law or
local ordinance; or,
b) Any act or omission by the person searched for or
rescued that shows wanton and reckless misconduct in
disregard for his or her safety.
2)Prohibits the county or city and county from collecting
charges from those persons who the county or city and county
determine are unable to pay.
3)Provides that, when a person 16 years of age or older living
within a county or city and county is searched for or rescued,
AB 2151
Page 2
that person shall pay the county or city and county conducting
the search or rescue for the actual cost incurred for the
search or rescue, including, but not limited to, the cost of
operating vehicles or aircraft, the salaries of employees, and
the cost of providing emergency medical services, within 30
days after being billed for those charges pursuant to 1)
above.
4)Provides that a county or a city and county must adopt an
ordinance in order to exercise this bill's authority to seek
reimbursement for search and rescue costs as specified above.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the board of supervisors of a county may
authorize the sheriff to search for and rescue persons who are
lost or are in danger of their lives within or in the
immediate vicinity of the county, and that the expense
incurred by the sheriff in the performance of those duties are
a proper county charge.
2)Requires the county or city and county of residence of a
person searched for or rescued by a sheriff to pay to the
county or city and county conducting the search or rescue all
of the reasonable search or rescue expenses in excess of $100
within 30 days after the submission of a claim.
3)Provides that any person whose intentionally wrongful conduct
proximately causes an incident resulting in an appropriate
emergency response is liable for the expenses of an emergency
response by a public agency to the incident, up to $12,000 per
incident. "Intentionally wrongful conduct" means conduct
intended to injure another person or property.
4)Provides that any person who is under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage or any drug, or the combined influence of
an alcoholic beverage and any drug, whose negligent operation
of a motor vehicle, boat or vessel, or civil aircraft caused
by that influence proximately causes any incident resulting in
an appropriate emergency response is liable for the expense of
an emergency response by a public agency to the incident.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
AB 2151
Page 3
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill. This bill allows counties to seek
reimbursement for costs incurred in search and rescue efforts
by billing any resident age 16 or older, who must pay within
30 days, if the need for a search for, or rescue of, that
person necessitated the use of extraordinary methods and
either of the following was a contributing factor to the need
for the search or rescue:
a) Any act in violation of any federal or state law or
local ordinance; or,
b) Any act or omission by the person searched for or
rescued that shows wanton and reckless misconduct in
disregard for his or her safety.
A county is not allowed to collect charges from a person who
the county determines is unable to pay. A county must adopt
an ordinance in order to exercise this bill's authority to
seek reimbursement for search and rescue costs. This bill is
sponsored by Orange County.
2)Author's statement. According to the author, "California law
does not allow a county to recover the actual cost of search
or rescue of a resident who is 16 years of age or older if the
need for the search or rescue of that resident was
necessitated by the use of extraordinary methods and if any of
the following was a contributing factor to the need for the
search or rescue: (1) any act in violation of any federal or
state law or local ordinance; or (2) 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 proposal would allow the County to recover the actual
cost of extraordinary search or rescue efforts from a resident
who is 16 years of age or older and whose act in violation of
any federal or state law or local ordinance, or any act or
omission that shows wanton and reckless misconduct in
disregard for their safety, was a contributing factor to the
need for the County's search or rescue or for another county's
search or rescue of that resident."
3)Background. According to Orange County, the sponsor of this
AB 2151
Page 4
measure, "In March, 2013, Nicholas Cendoya and Kyndall Jack
became lost while hiking in Trabuco Canyon, resulting in an
extensive search that cost the responding agencies a total of
over $160,000? For the Orange County agencies, the Orange
County Sheriff's Department's costs were $32,273.23; the
Orange County Fire Authority's costs were $55,000; and Orange
County Parks' costs were $6,421. The hikers admitted to being
under the influence of drugs when they became disoriented and
lost their way. Methamphetamine was recovered from Cendoya's
backpack in a car that the two hikers drove to the location.
"The bill is modeled after former Government Code Sections
26614.6 and 26614.7? Under former Government Code Section
26614.6, whenever a county or city and county was billed for a
search or rescue of one of its residents 16 years of age or
older by another county or city and county, the county or city
and county receiving the bill could in turn seek reimbursement
for the actual cost incurred from that resident if the need
for the search or rescue necessitated the use of extraordinary
methods and was caused by any of the following: (1) Any
intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or state
law or local ordinance; or (2) Any act or omission by the
person searched for or rescued that shows wanton and reckless
misconduct in disregard for his or her safety.
"Under former Government Code Section 26614.7, a county or a
city and county could bill the search and rescue costs, up to
$5,000, to a resident 16 years of age or older if the need for
that resident's search or rescue necessitated the use of
extraordinary methods and was caused by any of the following:
(1) Any intentional act in knowing violation of any federal or
state law or local ordinance; or (2) 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
statutes sunset on January 1, 1999. The reason for the sunset
is not given in the legislative analyses.
"Existing Government Code Section 26614.5 provides:
The county or city and county of residence of a person
searched for or rescued by the sheriff under the
authority of Section 26614 shall pay to the county or
city and county conducting such search or rescue, in
any case where the expenses thereof exceed one hundred
AB 2151
Page 5
dollars ($100), all of the reasonable expenses in
excess of one hundred dollars ($100) of such search or
rescue within 30 days after the submission of a claim
therefor by the county or city and county conducting
the search or rescue and the county or city and county
conducting the search or rescue shall bear the
remaining expense.
"If Cendoya and Jack's search and rescue had occurred in
another county, and Orange County had been billed for that
search and rescue, Orange County would be legally obligated to
pay the other county for the search and rescue. There is no
legal authority for a county or city and county of residence
to then recover such costs from the person searched for or
rescued. This dichotomy in the law is fundamentally unfair to
the taxpayers of a county whose residents become lost and need
to be searched for and rescued as a result of their own acts
in violation of the law or acts that show wanton and reckless
misconduct in disregard for their own safety.
"It is also difficult in these strained economic times for
counties to bear the financial burden of the search and rescue
of a resident when the county later learns the resident became
lost because he or she acted in violation of the law or with
wanton or reckless misconduct in disregard for his or her own
safety. Counties should have the ability to recover these
costs from the person searched for and rescued."
4)Policy considerations. This bill presents a number of policy
considerations:
a) Liability cap. Existing law limits liability for any
person whose intentionally wrongful conduct proximately
causes an incident resulting in an appropriate emergency
response to $12,000 per incident. The provisions of prior
law this bill seeks to reinstate also contained a cap of
$5,000. This bill contains no cap on the amount a person
subject to the bill's provisions would have to pay a
county.
b) Intent, knowledge and cause. Prior law on which this
bill is based specified "any intentional act in knowing
violation" of any state or federal law or local ordinance.
Prior law also specified that the need for a search or
AB 2151
Page 6
rescue "was caused by" any of the statute's specified
violations. Existing law also relies on intent and
proximate cause. This bill does not stipulate intent,
knowledge or cause, but instead uses broader language
stating that any of the specified violations are "a
contributing factor to" the need for the search and rescue.
c) Age. This bill would allow charges against anyone age
16 and above, with no explanation for this age limit aside
from referring to the now-sunsetted provisions of prior
law.
d) County determination. This bill allows the county to
determine whether a person subject to its provisions is
able to pay for search and rescue costs, even though the
county would have a financial interest in doing so.
e) Terminology and definitions. The use of the phrase
"extraordinary methods" is not defined in the bill or in
current law. The bill also does not specify who would
determine: what "extraordinary methods" constitutes; what
"wanton and reckless misconduct" encompasses; or, whether a
federal or state law or local ordinance has been violated.
To address concerns regarding implementation and to ensure
transparency and public awareness of the bill's requirements,
the Legislature may wish to consider requiring a county to
adopt an ordinance in order to exercise this bill's
authorizations.
5)Arguments in support. Rural County Representatives of
California (RCRC), in support, write, "RCRC believes it is
good fiscal policy to provide a county with the option of
seeking reimbursement for conducting search and rescue
services when the individual is found to have violated federal
or state laws or local county ordinances and subsequently
needed these services."
6)Arguments in opposition. None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0003416
AB 2151
Page 7