California Assembly Bill AB1863

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report Pass: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Report Pass: 4/23/26
• Refer: 5/4/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 13916 of, and to add Section 13916.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to fire protection districts.

Summary

AB 1863 would amend California Health and Safety Code provisions governing fire protection districts to create a specific exception to those districts’ general authority to charge service fees. Under current law, district boards may impose fees for services they provide or for enforcing regulations, so long as the fees do not exceed the district’s reasonably incurred costs. This bill would add Section 13916.5 to prohibit a fire protection district from charging a member of the public a fee for using a 911 emergency telephone number or for emergency responders arriving at or otherwise responding to that 911 call, unless emergency services are actually provided. The bill also preserves an exception for prank calls, allowing districts to charge a fee in that circumstance. In effect, the measure narrows local fee authority by carving out 911-related responses from the general fee framework that applies to fire protection districts. The bill is focused on preventing cost recovery from people who call 911 and do not receive billable emergency services, while leaving intact the broader ability of districts to charge fees for other services and enforcement activities.

Impact

AB 1863 would directly amend Section 13916 and add Section 13916.5 to the Health and Safety Code, limiting fire protection district boards’ existing fee-setting authority. It would prohibit fees tied to the mere use of 911 or to responders’ arrival/response unless emergency services are actually provided, while leaving the rest of the district fee statute in place. The practical effect would be to protect callers from being billed for emergency response activity in situations where no emergency services are rendered, and to constrain local districts’ ability to use fee ordinances to recoup those costs.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had some support in committee, passing a 6-0 do pass as amended vote, suggesting broad agreement at that stage. However, it ultimately failed on the Assembly floor, where it was refused passage by a 39-4 vote. That pattern indicates the measure may have been viewed favorably by some lawmakers as a consumer protection or public-safety fairness issue, but not enough members supported it to advance to final passage.

Contention

The main point of contention is whether fire protection districts should be allowed to recover costs associated with 911 responses from the public when emergency services are not ultimately provided. Supporters likely viewed the bill as preventing fees for simply seeking emergency help, while opponents may have been concerned about limiting local revenue tools or about the bill’s treatment of response costs. The prank-call exception suggests an attempt to address abuse of the 911 system, but the bill still restricts fee authority in ordinary emergency-call situations, which is the core policy dispute.