HB0009 establishes a new Maryland 3–1–1 Oversight Board within the Maryland Information Network and creates a statewide 3–1–1 Expansion Program. The board would be responsible for selecting participating counties, setting evaluation criteria, reviewing vendor proposals, coordinating marketing, and developing statewide data standards for 3–1–1 systems. The bill defines key terms such as chatbot, voicebot, and 3–1–1 system, and ties the program to the use of artificial intelligence and geographic information system data to answer nonemergency public-service questions and route requests.
The program begins with a pilot in four counties: two with existing 3–1–1 systems and two without them. By June 30, 2027, the board must establish chatbots in the designated counties, and by December 1, 2028, it must establish voicebots there as well. The bill requires multilingual support, escalation to live agents for complex issues, and the ability for voicebots to transfer calls to 9–1–1, 2–1–1, and 9–8–8 when appropriate. It also requires counties to identify approved information sources and directs vendors to monitor chatbot and voicebot accuracy, with inaccurate source information to be corrected by the relevant agency.
HB0009 would affect Maryland public safety and information-technology law by adding a new subtitle to the Public Safety Article and by incorporating the state’s existing definition of artificial intelligence from the State Finance and Procurement Article. It also requires the board to report to the Governor and General Assembly in 2027 and 2028 on call deflection, user satisfaction, accessibility, cost savings, equity, integration challenges, and call-volume data, and to develop a plan for statewide expansion by July 1, 2028. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of modernization, accessibility, and broader service access, with an emphasis on multilingual and culturally competent public-facing tools. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available context. The bill’s structure suggests a policy interest in using AI to improve efficiency and reduce nonemergency call volume, while still preserving human escalation for more complex or urgent matters.
Potential points of contention include the use of artificial intelligence in public-facing government services, concerns about accuracy and accountability of automated responses, and the cost and feasibility of implementing and expanding the system statewide. Counties with or without existing 3–1–1 systems may also differ in their readiness or willingness to participate, and the bill’s requirements for data standards, vendor selection, and integration with existing emergency and referral systems could raise operational and fiscal questions.
The bill would add a new subtitle to the Public Safety Article establishing a Maryland 3–1–1 Oversight Board and a statewide framework for expanding 3–1–1 nonemergency community information and referral systems. It would also incorporate the state’s statutory definition of artificial intelligence from the State Finance and Procurement Article for use in this program. Counties participating in the pilot would be required to deploy AI-based chatbots and voicebots, follow board-approved standards, and support reporting and evaluation requirements that could influence future statewide implementation.
The available text suggests a generally favorable policy orientation toward modernization, service accessibility, and efficiency in local government communications. The bill emphasizes multilingual access, cultural competence, equity, and escalation to live agents, indicating an intent to improve public service rather than replace human assistance. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s design and stated goals.
Likely areas of contention include whether AI should be used to answer public-service questions, how accurate and reliable automated responses will be, and whether counties can afford and operationally support the required systems. There may also be debate over statewide mandates versus local control, especially for counties with existing 3–1–1 systems or those without the infrastructure to participate. Privacy, vendor oversight, integration with emergency services, and the requirement to route some calls to 9–1–1, 2–1–1, and 9–8–8 could also be disputed.