9-1-1 VOTE LEAVES ANGELENOS ON HOLD.

Byline: Joel Fox

WE need a 911 number for taxpayers.

Any time something outrageous, unfair, or bizarre occurs which gives a pain to taxpayers, we can call the taxpayers 911 number for help.

I have an example. It has to do with that other 911 number - the one for police and emergency help.

First, Los Angeles taxpayers are jolted to learn that after approving a $235 million bond in 1992, no progress has been made to improve the beleaguered 911 system, and the promised upgrades may not be completed until 2002. Then, taxpayers are hit by the news that the LAPD wants more money for maintaining and upgrading the 911 system through a utility tax on telephone usage.

It's time to call that taxpayer's 911.The bond, passed as Proposition M in 1992, was to make "immediate improvements" to the 911 emergency response system, according to supporters of the measure. Given the results of a recent survey in which 200,000 calls to the emergency network were not answered promptly, the system definitely needs improvement.

The bond was to pay for new equipment, as well as fund the building of two new communication dispatch centers. It is now 1996 and an important contract for the new communication linkup has yet to be signed. Also, a site for the San Fernando Valley dispatch center has not been chosen.

Voters approved the bond with a 77 percent landslide. Even more voters agreed that the system needed improvement, but did not support the method of financing. Ironically, at the time of the bond vote, some argued that the 911 emergency network should be funded through a tax on telephone bills, just as the LAPD now suggests. General obligation bonds are paid off by property taxpayers. Arguably, a tax on phones is a user's fee. Everyone who uses the telephone network, not just property owners, pays for the emergency system.

Who thought that taxpayers would be asked to pay both ways, by property taxes and utility taxes? Los Angeles residents already pay a 10 percent utility tax on telephone service into the city's general fund; and an additional, approximate three-fourths of one percent to the state's 911 fund.

Los Angeles taxpayers are in bondage. Recent stories have shaken the confidence of voters on how their bond money is being spent. The slow movement on the 911 bond is only the latest disclosure.

Recall the $60 million bond issue to refit a half-dozen city buildings with fire sprinkler systems. This was a general obligation bond passed by the voters in 1989. In approving the bond, the voters were charged additional property taxes to pay for the sprinkler installation in a number of city buildings.

The city took the money, refitted one building with new sprinklers, put some new sprinklers in a couple of other structures, used the rest of the funds to purchase a building for the Personnel Department at more than the building was worth, and declared that it's out of money to finish the full sprinkler installation job. Now city officials believe an additional $30 million is needed to finish the originally promised work.

The taxpayers of Los Angeles have been generous with their money when it comes to paying for capital improvements through general obligation bonds. Besides the 1992 911 bond, three of four bonds passed in 1989, securing the century-old requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass local general obligation bonds.

However, with the recent track record, any future tax or bond requests will be met skeptically by the taxpaying public.City Councilman Mike Feuer suggests establishing a special office to plan bond requests, and to see that bonds which pass are implemented properly. Good for him. Someone needs to mind the store.

However, the authority could be given to a current office holder instead of creating a new appointed office. The controller is elected and is responsible for tracking the proper use of tax dollars. Special responsibility for overseeing bonds should be placed in the controller's hands.

The LAPD proposal to create a tax exclusively for the 911 system is going to come under microscopic examination. Considering the city's record of spending bond money, any new charges will be a hard sell to the taxpayers.

CAPTION(S):

PHOTO

Photo No caption (911 operator)