AB 1863 amends Section 13916 of the Health and Safety Code and adds Section 13916.5 to prohibit a fire protection district board from charging any member of the public a fee to use a 911 emergency telephone number. The bill preserves the district's general authority to impose cost‑based fees for other services but creates an explicit carve‑out for 911 calls.
This change removes a discrete — sometimes under‑recognized — revenue source for some districts and dispatch operations. Public-safety administrators, finance officers, and local policymakers should assess whether existing ordinances and budgets rely on caller fees or similar charges that will no longer be collectible, and plan for replacements or program reductions accordingly.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds Section 13916.5, which forbids a fire protection district board from charging any member of the public a fee for use of a 911 emergency telephone number. It leaves intact Section 13916's general fee framework for other services, including cost caps and hearing/notice requirements.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California fire protection district boards, district dispatch centers, and entities that have been collecting caller- or access‑related fees tied to 911. Indirectly affects residents, visitors, and local budgets that currently subsidize emergency communications.
Why It Matters
Ensuring free access to 911 changes where jurisdictions must source money for dispatch and enhanced 911 infrastructure. Districts that relied on caller fees will need to identify new revenue streams or cut services, with downstream impacts on local finance and emergency response capacity.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law a district board may impose fees to recover the cost of services it provides, subject to a reasonableness cap and specified public‑notice and hearing procedures. AB 1863 leaves that general architecture in place but inserts a categorical prohibition: a district may not charge a member of the public a fee to use a 911 emergency telephone number.
Practically, the bill targets charges imposed on callers or the public for access to or placement of 911 calls, rather than broader service fees.
The statute is narrowly drafted: it governs fees the district board charges "to any member of the public for use of a 911 emergency telephone number." The bill does not expressly regulate other streams of billing (for example, ambulance transport charges, contractual intergovernmental payments, or carrier‑collected 911 surcharges). That gap means some traditional revenue sources for emergency response remain available while caller‑facing 911 fees are eliminated.Implementation will mostly be administrative: districts must review and, where necessary, rescind or revise ordinances that impose fees covered by the new ban and comply with the notice and hearing requirements already in Section 13916 when changing fee schedules.
The bill does not include a retroactivity clause or an explicit refund mechanism for past collections, leaving open questions about whether previously collected 911‑related fees must be returned or simply discontinued going forward.Because dispatcher operations, E‑911 equipment, and contractual dispatch services are costly, districts that lose caller fee revenue will face three principal choices: identify alternative revenue (special assessments, general fund allocations, parcel taxes, grants), reallocate existing budgets (reducing noncritical programs), or reduce levels of service (staffing, hours, or technology upgrades). Each path has legal, political, and operational implications — for example, converting a fee into an assessment or tax may trigger voter‑approval rules under California law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new Section 13916.5 to the Health and Safety Code that explicitly prohibits a district board from charging any member of the public a fee for use of a 911 emergency telephone number.
Section 13916's existing fee regime — including the cap that fees not exceed reasonable costs and the public notice/hearing process — remains in force for other services and fees.
AB 1863 does not include enforcement provisions, penalty language, or a retroactivity/ refund requirement; it simply declares the prohibition going forward.
The prohibition targets caller or public fees for placing 911 calls and does not by its text alter ambulance transport billing, carrier 911 surcharges, or intergovernmental contract payments for dispatch services.
Affected districts will likely need to replace lost revenue via general fund transfers, voter‑approved assessments/taxes, interagency contracts, grants, or by reducing dispatch/service levels — each option carries legal and political constraints.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Existing fee authority, notice, and limits — retained with exception
Section 13916 continues to authorize district boards to adopt ordinances establishing fee schedules, subject to a cap that fees not exceed the district's reasonable costs and to prescribed notice and hearing requirements (including data disclosure and mailed notice to interested parties). The amendment inserts a cross‑reference that preserves all of these mechanics while signaling that the new Section 13916.5 will carve out one narrow prohibition. Practically, districts still must follow the procedural steps in 13916 whenever they create or change fees unrelated to 911 access.
Ban on charging the public for use of a 911 number
The new section states that, notwithstanding Section 13916, a district board shall not charge a fee to any member of the public for use of a 911 emergency telephone number. The language is categorical and aimed at caller-facing charges; it does not define "use," "member of the public," or specify statutory remedies for violations, which leaves interpretive questions about scope (for instance, text‑to‑911, automated callbacks, or multi‑jurisdiction call handling).
Ordinance review, budget adjustments, and ambiguous remedies
Districts must audit their fee schedules and ordinances to identify any charge that could be characterized as a fee for use of 911 and remove or revise it under the existing Section 13916 process. Because AB 1863 lacks a penalty or refund provision, legal exposure for past collections is uncertain — challengers might seek refunds in court, but the statute does not create a private right of action or administrative enforcement mechanism. Finance officers should also evaluate replacement revenue options and legal constraints (e.g., voter‑approval requirements for new taxes or assessments).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People who call 911 (residents, visitors): They will not face direct fees imposed by fire district boards for placing emergency calls, preserving cost-free access at the point of contact.
- Low‑income and marginalized communities: Eliminating caller fees removes a barrier that could have deterred emergency calls from people worried about immediate out‑of‑pocket charges.
- Consumer and civil‑liberties advocates: The bill strengthens the principle that emergency communications should be freely accessible to the public.
- Statewide emergency communications policy makers: Clear statutory language favoring free 911 access can simplify policy and consistency across districts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Fire protection districts: Districts that previously relied on caller access fees will lose that revenue and must absorb the gap, reallocate resources, or seek replacement funding.
- Local governments and general funds: Cities or counties may need to increase subsidies for dispatch and E‑911 infrastructure if districts cannot cover costs from other sources.
- Property owners and voters: If districts shift funding to parcel taxes, assessments, or special taxes, property owners and local taxpayers will bear the cost and potentially face new ballot measures.
- Emergency service budgets and contracts: Private ambulance companies, regional dispatch centers, or interagency contracts that were funded in part by caller fees may see lower payments and renegotiation pressure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: guarantee free, universal access to emergency communications at the point of contact, or preserve flexible, locally controlled revenue streams that pay for dispatch, staffing, and technology. AB 1863 prioritizes free access but forces districts and local governments to choose between politically difficult revenue shifts or service reductions — a trade‑off with no easy administrative fix.
The bill solves the straightforward policy problem of preventing point‑of‑contact charges for emergency calling but leaves several implementation questions unresolved. Most notably, the statute does not define key terms such as "use" of a 911 number or "member of the public," so disputes over whether a particular charge (for example, a fee tied to a specific technological pathway like text‑to‑911, a callback service, or a remote call relay) falls within the prohibition are likely.
The absence of an express remedy, refund rule, or penalty also creates uncertainty for both districts and callers about whether past collections are recoverable.
There is a second set of tensions around finance and legal form. Districts can attempt to replace lost fee revenue, but California law constrains how local governments raise money: converting a fee into an assessment or tax may trigger voter‑approval thresholds (e.g., Proposition 218), and use of general funds shifts political accountability to local elected officials.
That dynamic creates incentives for creative cost recovery that could be litigated as improper fees or disguised taxes. Finally, the bill does not touch carrier or state 911 surcharges, so some costs will continue to be supported through other mechanisms; the net fiscal effect will vary significantly by district depending on local reliance on caller fees versus other revenue sources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.