Agenda Item 9
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Essie McGuire, Senior Legislative
Action: Expedited Bill 17-12, Fire and Rescue Service
Services - Reimbursement
Public Safety Committee recommendation:
do not enact Bill 17-12 (2-1,
Councilmember Eirich dissenting).
the Bill is enacted, adopt Executive and Committee
amendments included in Committee redraft (3-0).
Expedited Bill 17-12, Fire and Rescue Service
Emergency Medical Services
Reimbursement, sponsored by the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was
introduced on April 24, 2012. A public hearing was held on May 8 and a Public Safety
Committee worksession was held on May 11.
Introduced Bill Expedited Bill 17-12 would authorize the County to impose and collect
a reimbursement to recover costs generated by providing emergency medical services transports.
This Bill is essentially identical in all material respects to Bill 13-10, which the Council enacted
on May 19, 2010, but the voters rejected in a referendum in November 2010 (see ballot and
petition language on ©55-56).
Executive amendments On May 8 the Executive submitted an amended Bill. (See the
Executive's explanatory memo on ©59-60.) The Executive's amendments clarify, but do not
substantially change, the central elements of the introduced Bill. They also add provisions that
would authorize the Executive to conduct an outreach and infonnation campaign to publicize the
reimbursement program, and would create a Patient Advocate position in the Office of Consumer
Public hearing testimony Attached on © 18-54 are selected representative public
hearing testimony and related letters, including two from regional advisory boards which
endorsed this BilL Much of the testimony at the May 8 hearing repeated viewpoints about this
fee which the Council has heard many times before.
The most notable new testimony came
IMuch of the testimony from opponents of this Bill centered on the theme of "Respect the Voters", which would
treat as binding on the Council and Executive, for some unknown period of time, the 2010 voters' rejection of the
previous EMST fee law. In Council staff's view, this argument carries weight but should not be conclusive. There
is no legal bar to the Council enacting a similar, or even identical, law post-referendum. Presumably, no one would