BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 1211
                                                                  Page  1

          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 1211 (Padilla)
          As Amended  August 22, 2014
          Majority vote

           SENATE VOTE  :37-0  
           
           UTILITIES & COMMERCE             14-0               GOVERNMENTAL  
          ORGANIZATION     16-0           
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Patterson, Bonilla,       |Ayes:|Hall, Achadjian, Campos,  |
          |     |Buchanan, Ch�vez, Dahle,  |     |Chesbro, Cooley,          |
          |     |Fong, Beth Gaines,        |     |Dababneh, Gray,           |
          |     |Garcia, Roger Hern�ndez,  |     |Roger Hern�ndez, Jones,   |
          |     |Jones, Mullin, Quirk,     |     |Jones-Sawyer, Levine,     |
          |     |Rendon, Skinner           |     |Medina,                   |
          |     |                          |     |V. Manuel P�rez, Salas,   |
          |     |                          |     |Waldron, Wilk             |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      17-0                                        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow,           |     |                          |
          |     |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian  |     |                          |
          |     |Calderon, Campos,         |     |                          |
          |     |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez,  |     |                          |
          |     |Holden, Jones, Linder,    |     |                          |
          |     |Pan, Quirk,               |     |                          |
          |     |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner,    |     |                          |
          |     |Weber                     |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Requires the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to  
          develop a plan and timeline for testing, implementation, and  
          operation of a Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) emergency  
          communication system throughout California, and also requires  
          OES to include NG9-1-1 costs in its annual calculation of the  
          9-1-1 surcharge rate.  Specifically,  this bill  :   

          1)Requires the NG9-1-1 system to incorporate, where consistent  
            with public safety and technologically feasible, shared  








                                                                  SB 1211
                                                                  Page  2

            infrastructure and elements of other public safety and  
            emergency communications networks.

          2)Requires OES, when annually determining the surcharge rate  
            needed to fund the fiscal year's 9-1-1 costs, to include  
            planning, testing, implementation, and operating costs  
            consistent with the established plan and timeline for the  
            NG9-1-1 system.

          3)Requires OES, at least one month before finalizing the  
            surcharge rate, to report a calculation of the proposed 9-1-1  
            surcharge to the Legislature and the 9-1-1 Advisory Board and  
            also post it on its Internet Web site. 

          4)Contains double jointing language to avoid chaptering out of  
            AB 1717 (Perea) of the current legislative session.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:

          1)One-time costs of approximately $250,000 from the State  
            Emergency Telephone Number Account (SETNA) for two years for  
            OES to develop the plan and timeline (State Emergency  
            Telephone Number Account).
          2)Increased cost pressures to implement Next Gen 911 estimated  
            to be $375 million during a five-year transition period, in  
            addition to $510 million to operate the current system (State  
            Emergency Telephone Number Account.)

          3)Ongoing costs to operate the Next Gen 911 system are  
            anticipated to be higher than operating the current system due  
            to increased complexity (State Emergency Telephone Number  
            Account.)

          4)Potential General Fund cost pressures resulting from a  
            structural imbalance in the State Emergency Telephone Number  
            Account.)

          OES annually determines a customer surcharge rate on intrastate  
          voice communication services to provide sufficient revenues to  
          fund the 911 emergency system.  SETNA revenues have been  
          declining over the last eight years because texting and other  
          communication technologies have been replacing intrastate voice  
          service.   









                                                                  SB 1211
                                                                  Page  3

          OES raised the surcharge to the statutory cap of 0.75% last  
          October, but the revenue decline is continuing.  Program costs  
          have exceeded revenues for several years, requiring additional    
                 funds from reserves and a General Fund (GF) loan to cover  
          costs.  Raising the maximum surcharge amount is unlikely to  
          provide a long-term solution due to the decline is use of  
          intrastate phone calls.  The cost of developing a plan under  
          this bill and the ultimate implementation of Next Gen 911 will  
          put additional pressures on the SETNA.  GF revenues may be  
          necessary to cover the costs of the 911 system if the larger  
          structural deficit issues with SETNA are not addressed.

           COMMENTS  :   

          1)Next Generation 9-1-1.  NG9-1-1 is an Internet Protocol  
            (IP)-based two-way communications system that will allow  
            digital information (such as voice, photos, videos, text  
            messages) to flow from the public through the 9-1-1 network  
            and on to emergency responders.  NG9-1-1 will build upon, and  
            eventually replace, the existing 9-1-1 voice system that  
            operates on the legacy switched telephone network.  

             The transition to NG9-1-1 will require significant planning,  
            training, and funding.  The California Technology Agency  
            (predecessor to OES) published a proposed California NG9-1-1  
            Roadmap in December 2010, broadly laying out the actions  
            needed to deploy NG9-1-1. Public stakeholder meetings were  
            conducted in 2011, and the 9-1-1 Branch is now in the midst of  
            several pilot projects.  

             Over the next five years, OES estimates the upgrade to NG9-1-1  
            may cost $375 million on top of the $110 million yearly costs  
            already needed to operate the existing 9-1-1 system.  Due to a  
            50% margin of error in the current estimate, OES states it  
            will refine cost estimates upon completion of the pilot  
            projects in mid-2015.  
           
            This bill would require OES to "develop a plan and timeline  
            for testing, implementation, and operation" of NG9-1-1.  OES  
            is already undertaking these activities without statutory  
            obligations.  Passage of this bill would make these tasks  
            mandatory. 

          2)Including NG9-1-1 costs in the calculation of surcharge rates.  
             This bill requires NG9-1-1 planning and implementation costs  








                                                                  SB 1211
                                                                  Page  4

            to be considered during OES' calculation of the annual 9-1-1  
            surcharge.  The 9-1-1 program (SETNA) revenue has been  
            declining.  It seems unlikely that, even at the maximum  
            allowable surcharge rate of 0.75%, OES will be able to fund  
            the current 9-1-1 operation and the transition to NG9-1-1.   
            However, addressing the larger structural deficit issues with  
            SETNA is beyond the scope of this bill.  

           
           Analysis Prepared by  :    Brandon Gaytan / U. & C. / (916)  
          319-2083 


                                                                FN: 0005378