An act to amend Section 50470 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to housing. add Section 1797.234 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to emergency medical services.
AB 1403 would add a new section to the Health and Safety Code clarifying the authority of county boards of supervisors and local EMS agencies over ambulance services. The bill states that counties, or entities/joint powers agencies designated as local EMS agencies, may provide ambulance service directly through a new county department, assign the duty to an existing county department, contract with cities or other local public agencies, or contract with private ambulance companies. It also declares that certain county or local-agency arrangements are not “exclusive operating areas” and therefore do not trigger the competitive process otherwise required in some EMS contracting situations.
The bill would also require a county board or local EMS agency to adopt a written policy before entering into an emergency ambulance services contract. That policy must address provider requirements such as employment retention, experience serving similar populations and geographies, diversity and equity efforts, financial qualifications like insurance and bonding, and public education/community involvement. Any resulting contract must include wage and benefit parity with comparable regional ambulance employees and staffing levels comparable to prior contracts in that jurisdiction. The bill says these provisions are declaratory of existing law and do not alter the Emergency Medical Services Authority’s powers or a local EMS medical director’s medical control.
In addition to the EMS provisions, AB 1403 makes a nonsubstantive change to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund statute. The housing portion does not appear to change the fund’s core allocation structure or program purposes; it mainly restates existing provisions governing the fund and its use for housing, homelessness, and related local government programs.
The bill’s practical impact would be on county EMS governance and ambulance contracting practices. It would codify and clarify local authority to operate ambulance services directly or through contracts, while imposing minimum policy and contract standards intended to protect workers, ensure provider capability, and address equity and community needs. It would also reinforce that local EMS agencies retain discretion over service delivery models within their jurisdictions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited but appears procedural and neutral rather than contentious. There were no recorded committee transcripts or roll-call votes provided, and the bill’s last action was being filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. The bill’s findings suggest it is framed as a clarification measure, but the contract standards and wage/staffing requirements indicate it could draw interest from counties, ambulance providers, labor groups, and local EMS agencies over how much discretion and cost burden it places on service contracts.
AB 1403 would add Section 1797.234 to the Health and Safety Code, expressly recognizing county boards of supervisors and designated local EMS agencies’ authority to provide ambulance services directly or by contract. It would also specify that certain county/local agency arrangements are not exclusive operating areas and do not require the competitive process used in some EMS contracting contexts. The bill would require written local policies and contract terms covering provider qualifications, retention, equity, insurance/bonding, wages, and staffing, while preserving existing authority of the Emergency Medical Services Authority and local EMS medical directors. Separately, it makes a nonsubstantive amendment to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund statute in Section 50470, leaving the fund’s existing housing allocation framework intact.
The available legislative record shows little direct debate or recorded voting history, so sentiment cannot be measured from committee testimony or floor votes. Based on the bill text, the measure is presented as a clarification of existing law and a reaffirmation of county/local EMS authority, which suggests a generally supportive or at least pragmatic framing. The absence of opposition statements in the provided materials means no clear partisan or stakeholder split is documented here, though the added contract standards imply the bill may have been designed to balance local control with labor and service-quality concerns.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s treatment of county authority versus competitive contracting, and the new requirements imposed on ambulance service contracts. Counties and local EMS agencies may support the clarification of their power to operate ambulance services directly or through local contracts, while private ambulance providers could be concerned about wage, staffing, and policy mandates. Labor interests may favor the employment-retention and comparable-wage provisions, while some local governments may view the written-policy requirements and service standards as limiting flexibility or increasing costs. Another possible issue is the bill’s declaration that these provisions are declaratory of existing law, which could be seen as resolving ambiguity for some stakeholders but as unnecessary or expansive by others.