Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers demand oversight for NextGen 9‑1‑1 as Cal OES seeks one‑time CETNA funding
Summary
Cal OES asked the subcommittee for $141.9 million one‑time from the CETNA surcharge to complete a bridge to a statewide NextGen 9‑1‑1 system; LAO and members called for independent technical review, prioritized funding for failing call‑handling equipment, and an audit before committing permanent funds.
Cal OES told the Assembly subcommittee it is requesting $141.9 million one‑time from the State Emergency Telephone Number Account (CETNA) to continue transitioning the state to a unified NextGen 9‑1‑1 architecture and to maintain operations through a bridge contract ahead of a permanent procurement.
"We're committed to moving this vital work forward with urgency and transparency," Eric Swanson, deputy director at Cal OES, said, arguing a statewide architecture will resolve interoperability problems that occurred during the early regional deployments and that the bridge contract stabilizes service ahead of major events such as the 2028 Olympics.
The Legislative Analyst's Office supported stabilizing the system but recommended several modifications: (1) prioritize funding for call‑handling equipment at PSAPs with the oldest or failing systems; (2) require independent, third‑party project oversight (for example, from the Department of Technology); (3) prohibit state funds from being used for a permanent statewide network until an independent technical assessment and audit of OES planning is completed; and (4) fund the state auditor for the assessment and audit (LAO estimated the cost could be a few million dollars).
"We recommend modifying the proposal to require independent oversight and an audit before permanent state funds are committed," Heather Gonzales of the LAO told the committee.
Cal OES and Finance said they are open to increased reporting and independent oversight, and that CETNA — a surcharge on service lines — funds the proposal rather than the general fund. Regional NextGen providers and former first responders in public comment urged an independent audit and argued the regional architecture and existing investments had been functioning in part and deserved full technical review before the state shifts design.
What happens next: Committee members asked OES and Finance to return with more detailed reporting and discussed possible interim legislative language to ensure independent assessment and regular reporting while protecting PSAP operations.
