BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
DEBRA BOWEN, CHAIRWOMAN
AB 2837 - Hertzberg
Hearing Date: June 27, 2000 A
As Amended: June 20, 2000 FISCAL B
2
8
3
7
DESCRIPTION
Current law provides for a "911" Emergency Telephone
Service system, which is financed by a surcharge on all
residential and business telephone bills, and caps that
surcharge at 0.75% of a customer's telephone bill.
Current law provides for a pilot program to test a "311"
non-emergency telephone system.
This bill authorizes local public agencies to establish a
"311" non-emergency telephone system within their
jurisdictions.
This bill allows local public agencies to pay for such a
system by increasing the existing 911 surcharge on the
telephone bills in their local jurisdiction by an
unspecified amount.
This bill requires the Communications Division of the
Department of General Services (DGS) to help local public
agencies create "311" implementation plans, gives the
Division the authority to disapprove plans, and requires
the Division to administer the "311" program.
BACKGROUND
As most people are aware, "911" is the number for emergency
telephone service. This service was created in 1976 and
paid for by a surcharge (statutorily capped at 0.75%) on
each telephone bill.
The number of calls to "911" has grown faster that the
number of operators needed to answer those calls. In Los
Angeles, it's been reported that 5% of all "911" calls went
unanswered and 27% of the calls took ten or more seconds to
answer. In the San Francisco Bay Area, 23% of "911" calls
made by cellular telephones went unanswered.
A significant number of "911" calls are for non-emergency
purposes - estimates on just how many calls are of a
non-emergency variety range from as low as 20% to as high
as 95%. Here in Sacramento, officials estimate between 50%
and 80% of "911" calls aren't true emergencies. Current
law makes it a misdemeanor to use the "911" system for
anything other than reporting emergencies, though this has
obviously not been a successful deterrent.
One idea for relieving the pressure on the "911" system is
to provide an alternate means of contacting public safety
agencies for non-emergency purposes. In 1996, President
Clinton called for the creation of a nationwide
non-emergency telephone service similar to "911." In 1997,
the Federal Communications Commission ordered that "311"
service be made available for that purpose and in that same
year, the Legislature passed AB 1198 (Hertzberg), Chapter
887, Statutes or 1997, which created a "311" pilot program
in San Jose. Under the pilot, a "311" number was tested
against an attempt to educate the public about an existing
7-digit non-emergency public assistance number.
Last year, a final draft report on the results of the pilot
program found that both approaches improved "911" response
and that the "311" program was the more effective of the
two approaches. Under the "311" program, the average "911"
answer time decreased by 26%, and the number of
non-emergency calls to "911" decreased by 63%.
QUESTIONS
1.Should local public agencies be authorized to create a
"311" non-emergency number within their jurisdiction?
2.Will allowing each "public agency" to create such a
system inadvertently lead to consumer confusion and would
the public be better served by limiting the creation of
such a system to a citywide, countywide, or statewide
basis?
3.Is it appropriate to allow a local agency to raise the
existing surcharge on the telephone bills of customers in
their jurisdiction in order to pay for the "311" system?
If so, should the amount of that surcharge be capped?
COMMENTS
1)Mandatory Statewide Application vs. Voluntary Local
Application . Conceptually, this bill replicates the
statewide "911" program on a voluntary basis for "311"
non-emergency services with the hope that the response
time for true emergency "911" calls will increase by
diverting non-emergency calls to "311."
One of the benefits of the "911" system is that it's
universal - no matter where you go in California, the
service exists. Allowing local jurisdictions to
establish a "311" non-emergency system will have the
benefit - as the San Jose pilot program demonstrated - of
diverting non-emergency phone calls away from the "911"
system. However, if the system is adopted in
checkerboard fashion by local agenices, it could be
argued that the benefit won't be as great to the system
(or the people who truly need emergency help) as it would
if it were a universal system similar to the "911"
system.
Furthermore, if one of the goals of the program is to get
people to associate "311" with non-emergency public
safety calls in the same way they associate "911" with
emergency calls and "411" with information calls, one
could argue that allowing local agencies to adopt a "311"
system in a piecemeal fashion may inadvertently confuse
telephone users.
While making the system a statewide entity could solve
that problem, it could create other problems, such as
imposing a mandate on local governments in rural areas
that aren't being overwhelmed with "911" calls to the
degree where they need to create a separate "311" system.
Creating a statewide system but making it "optional" for
local governments to take part solves the problem of how
to best identify and bill telephone users, but if every
local agency doesn't opt into the system, the system will
have both checkerboard service and some people paying for
the system won't have access to its benefits.
2)Narrowing The Universe To Cities Or Counties . As noted
above, the bill allows "public agencies" to create their
own "311" non-emergency system, instead of relying on a
locally elected city council or board of supervisors.
This raises several logistical questions.
The first is whether a person who is served by a county
sheriff and an independently elected fire district could
be forced to pay two surcharges to fund two different
"311" non-emergency systems.
The second is the issue of telephone billing complexity,
because each telephone customer would need to be matched
to a public safety agency for the purpose of assessing
the surcharge and that public safety agency may not
mirror city boundaries or utility service territories.
The third is the issue of "economies of scale." If three
neighboring public agencies set up three different "311"
non-emergency systems, that would arguably not be as cost
efficient as if they were to band together and create one
system that all of them could share. While the bill puts
the DGS Division of Telecommunications in charge of
setting standards and arbitrating disputes, allowing each
individual agency the ability to set up its own system
will undoubtedly lead to conflicts.
Given the potential for checkerboarding, the potential
that a person could pay to fund more than one "311"
system, the complexities associated with billing, and the
potential that economies of scale may not be realized,
the author and Committee may wish to consider whether the
creation of a "311" non-emergency system should be
limited to a citywide basis (which would limit the
potential number of systems to 450+) or a countywide
basis (which would limit the potential number of systems
to 58).
3)Should The Surcharge Be Capped? If a local public agency
elects to create a "311" program, the bill allows a
surcharge to be assessed on the intrastate
telecommunications service bill of every person within
the jurisdiction of the public agency. The surcharge
authorized by this bill would be on top of a 0.75%
surcharge for "911" service, but the amount a public
agency can charge isn't capped. The author and Committee
may wish to consider whether imposing a cap on the
surcharge that could be established under this bill is
appropriate.
4)The Attorney General . Page 6, Lines 1-7 of the bill give
the Attorney General the ability to commence judicial
proceedings to enforce compliance by any public agency or
public utility providing telephone service with the
provisions of this article. It's unclear why this power
is necessary or what circumstance the author envisions
arising that would trigger the need for the Attorney
General to exercise the authority granted by this
section.
5)Technically Speaking . There are a variety of technical
issues that the author and committee may wish to resolve:
a) Page 2, Line 3. The word "is" should be inserted
after the word "system."
b) Page 3, Lines 11-12 and Page 6, Line 20. These
sections refer to the creation of a "Statewide
Nonemergency Telephone System," yet as noted earlier,
this bill, while creating a optional system for local
agencies throughout the state to use, doesn't create a
"statewide system."
c) Page 5, Lines 27-39. The bill clearly gives local
agencies the ability to create "311" systems, yet this
section of the bill requires cities and counties that
adopt "311" systems to file notices of their final plans
with adjacent cities and counties. If the author limits
the creation of "311" systems to cities and/or counties,
this section is adequate. However, if each local agency
within a city or a county can create a "311" plan, this
section should be amended to ensure that such local
agencies notify the city and/or county in which they're
located.
d) Page 9, Line 38. A sentence should be added to
clarify that approval for cost recovery of the
incremental costs for the "311" system should go through
the same process as incremental costs for the "911"
system.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Governmental Organization Committee(11-0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (14-7)
Assembly Floor (63-14)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriff's Association
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Oppose:
State Board of Equalization
Randy Chinn
AB 2837 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 27, 2000