BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
SB 911 - Alpert Hearing Date:
April 22, 2003 S
As Amended: April 3, 2003 FISCAL B
9
1
1
DESCRIPTION
Current law provides for a "911" emergency telephone services
program administered by the Department of General Services'
Telecommunications Division (DGS-TD). This program, funded
through a surcharge on telephone bills, pays for the equipment
and services needed by the local public safety agency to answer
the "911" call.
This bill creates a State 911 Administrative Board (Board) to
oversee DGS-TD's administration. The Board is comprised of nine
voting members appointed by the Governor from specified law
enforcement agencies, with the Chief of DGS-TD's 911 office
serving as a non-voting chair. Board members serve at the
pleasure of the Governor for two-year terms and are limited to
two consecutive terms. The Board meets quarterly in open
session and while board members won't receive compensation, they
will be reimbursed for travel and per diem.
The duties of the Board, as established by this bill , are to:
1)Develop, approve and implement the policies, practices, and
procedures for the state's 911 program;
2)Develop, approve, and implement technical and operations
standards for the state's 911 program consistent with the
National Emergency Number Association standards;
3)Develop, approve, and implement the duties, responsibilities,
and training standards for county coordinators and 911
managers;
4)Review and approve all proposed budget, funding, and
reimbursement decisions related to the 911 program;
5)Review and approve all proposed projects and studies conducted
or funded by the state's 911 program.
BACKGROUND
Since its inception in the mid-1970's, DGS's Telecommunications
Division (DGS-TD) has administered the state's 911 program.
This includes evaluating local 911 systems, reviewing,
approving, and reimbursing local public safety agencies for the
necessary and reasonable costs associated with the planning,
implementation, and maintenance of a state-approved 911 system.
The state 911 program is funded through a surcharge on telephone
service. That surcharge is statutorily capped at 0.75% of a
customer's phone bill, but right now is set at 0.72% by DGS-TD
and hasn't been increased since 1995. The surcharge raises
about $130 million annually, with about half of the money going
to pay for database services, where the incoming 911 call is
identified with a telephone number and street address. One
quarter goes to pay for carrying the telephone call, and one
quarter pays for the telephones and computers housed in the
public safety dispatch centers.
As cellular telephone location information becomes available,
the 911 system will need to be upgraded. The California Highway
Patrol (CHP) is the first responder for most all cellular 911
calls. Funds have been reserved to pay for the CHP upgrades.
COMMENTS
1.Is DGS-TD Being Stingy Or Is It Just Doing Its Job? DGS-TD is
a control agency charged with guarding a limited number of
dollars set aside to pay for 911 service in California. It's
responsible for the economical and lawful use of public funds
- a responsibility that at times can collide with a public
safety agency's charge to deliver essential public services
with those 911 dollars. It's that collision that's given rise
to this measure.
Various public safety organizations have begun to question the
effectiveness of DGS-TD's administration of the 911 program,
citing There are four primary concerns:
v DGS-TD doesn't consider input from the public
safety agencies;
v There is no way to appeal a DGS-TD decision;
v DGS-TD's formula for determining the number of
911 workstations it will pay for significantly
understates the actual number of workstations
required;
v DGS-TD unreasonable limits the amount it will
pay per 911 workstation.
DGS has created a California Emergency Services Advisory Board
to promote communication between public safety agencies and
DGS-TD, but public safety agencies don't believe the Board
gives their input sufficient weight. The author and committee
may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate to
create an advisory board whose members are selected by the
public safety agencies themselves, instead of simply giving
those agencies control over the 911 funding decisions as this
bill does.
1.We Don't Like Your Decision, So We'll Appeal It To Ourselves.
This measure creates a commission comprised of 911
professionals to oversee the 911 program and all funding
decisions and is loosely modeled on approaches at the Board of
Corrections (BOC) and the Peace Officers Standards and
Training (POST) Commission.
While public safety agency representatives do make up the
majority of both the BOC and POST (as they would on the Board
created by this bill), there is a crucial difference in that
BOC and POST don't control the amount of money they have to
disburse. By contrast, the Board created by this bill would
have some degree of control because the Board would be
authorized to establish the telephone surcharge level (up to
the 0.75% statutory cap) for the 911 fund. As noted in the
"Background" section, the current surcharge is 0.72%. By
creating a Board comprised exclusively of public safety agency
representatives and allowing it to set the surcharge level,
this bill eliminates the useful tension in current law
(DGS-TD's fiduciary role vs. the public safety agency service
provider role) and replaces it with an inherent conflict by
making the public safety agency both the taxpayer fiduciary
and the essential service provider. The author and committee
may wish to consider whether this is appropriate. In light of
the valid concern that there is no formal appeals process for
DGS-TD decisions, the author and committee may wish to
consider whether it would be more appropriate to create such a
process using DGS's existing Office of Administrative
Hearings.
2.The Legislature Tied DGS-TD's Hands. The public safety
agencies believe DGS-TD, which pays for the 911 workstations,
has created a "one size fits all" formula that seriously
underestimates the number of workstations required to meet
public safety needs. They're concerned that unless DGS-TD's
formula is revised, local governments will have to foot the
bill for the remaining workstations.
In one specific case involving the San Diego Police Department
(SDPD), DGS-TD is only willing to pay for about half the
number of workstations SDPD believes it needs. DGS-TD
responds it previously didn't independently determine the
proper number of workstations, but now that it has actual 911
call volumes, it is making an independent determination.
DGS-TD is statutorily limited to only paying for equipment
used to deal with 911 calls. Obviously, responding to non-911
calls is a public safety duty, but paying for the equipment to
handle those calls with 911 funds is not legally permitted.
The author and committee may wish to consider whether it would
be more appropriate to, instead of shifting control of all
funding decisions to the public safety agencies, allow DGS-TD
to approve requests to use 911 money to pay for equipment that
isn't directly related to provide 911 service. Such was the
approach of a bill last year, AB 2569 (Cardoza), which was
defeated in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
3.The Legislature Tied The Public Safety Agencies' Hands.
DGS-TD has taken bids for 911 workstations and received ten
qualified responses. It will provide local agencies with
funding for up to the cost of the 5th least expensive bid and
if a public safety agency chooses one of the other five
vendors, the local agency will have to make up the cost
difference.
DGS-TD's effort to drive down the cost of workstations is
consistent with legislation unanimously approved and signed
into law in 1996. AB 3462 (Takasugi), Chapter 746, Statutes
of 1996, was sponsored by DGS because prior to its enactment,
local agencies had every incentive to "gold plate" their
equipment requests and no incentive to keep costs down since
they would get fully reimbursed from the 911 fund. Handing
control over the 911 fund to the public safety agencies, as
this bill proposes to do, effectively side-steps this
seven-year-old contracting reform. The author and committee
may wish to consider whether this is appropriate.
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Support:
Arroyo Grande Fire Department
San Diego Police Department
Oppose:
None on file
Randy Chinn
SB 911 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 22, 2003