EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 
 
ON STATE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF  
911 AND ENHANCED 911 FEES AND CHARGES 
 
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2015 TO DECEMBER 31, 2015 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Submitted Pursuant to 
Public Law No. 110-283 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Tom Wheeler, Chairman 
 
December 30, 2016 
  
2 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Heading Paragraph # 
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 2 
III. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3 
IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 
A. Summary of Reporting Methodology .............................................................................................. 6 
B. Overview of State 911 Systems ....................................................................................................... 8 
C. Description of Authority Enabling Establishment of 911/E911 Funding Mechanism .................. 13 
D. Description of State Authority that Determines How 911/E911 Fees are Spent ........................... 18 
E. Description of Uses of State 911 Fees ........................................................................................... 20 
F. Description of 911/E911 Fees Collected ....................................................................................... 24 
G. Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Use ................................................................. 29 
H. Oversight and Auditing of 911/E911 Fees ..................................................................................... 43 
I. Description of Next Generation 911 Services and Expenditures ................................................... 46 
J. Cybersecurity Expenditures ..........................................................................................................  50 
K. Measuring Effective Utilization of 911/E911 Fees ........................................................................ 53 
L. Public Comments on 2015 Seventh Annual Report ....................................................................... 56 
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE 2016 EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT ............................ 64 
Appendix A – Summary of State and Other Jurisdiction Responses Regarding 2015 Collections 
Appendix B – Overview of Total State and Other Jurisdiction 911 Fees – 2009 – 2016 
Appendix C – Information Collection Questionnaire 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
1. The Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Commission),1 hereby submits 
this Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and 
Charges, as mandated by the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 
911 Act)2 and as prepared by the staff in the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau).3  
This is the eighth annual report on the collection and distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) fees 
and charges by the states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, and tribal authorities, and covers the 
period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.  This report also reflects the second annual collection of 
new data elements relating to the number of 911 call centers and telecommunicators, 911 call volumes, 
911 expenditure categories, implementation of Next Generation 911, and cybersecurity for 911 systems. 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                     
1 See 47 U.S.C. § 155(a) (stating, inter alia, that “[i]t shall be [the Chairman’s] duty . . . to represent the Commission 
in all matters relating to legislation and legislative reports”). 
2 New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) 
(NET 911 Act). 
3 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.191(k) (providing delegated authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to 
develop responses to legislative inquiries). 
3 
 
II. KEY FINDINGS  
 
2. Forty-nine states,4 the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the 
United States Virgin Islands responded to this year’s data request.  The following is a compilation of 
key findings based on the responses: 
 
? In calendar year 2015, states and other reporting jurisdictions collected 911/E911 fees or 
charges totaling $2,631,705,008.98.   
 
? Fees and charges collected on a per-state basis ranged from a low of $1,297,671.00 by the US 
Virgin Islands to a high of $239,800,218.00 by Pennsylvania. 
 
? Twenty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands 
reported collecting 911/E911 fees at the state level, six reported collecting fees at the local 
level, and sixteen states collected fees at both the state and local level. 
 
? The Bureau identified eight states and Puerto Rico as diverting or transferring 911/E911 fees 
for purposes other than 911/E911. 
 
o Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia used a portion of 
their 911/E911 funds to support non-911 related public safety programs.   
 
o Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico used a portion of 
their 911/E911 funds for either non-public safety or unspecified uses.  
  
o The total amount of 911/E911 funds diverted by all reporting jurisdictions in calendar 
year 2015 was $220,281,586.82, or approximately 8.4 percent of total 911/E911 fees 
collected. 
 
? Thirty-six states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported spending 911/E911 
funds on Next Generation 911 (NG911) programs in calendar year 2015.  The total amount of 
reported NG911 expenditures from 911/E911 fees was $164,817,664.55, or approximately 
6.26 percent of total 911/E911 fees collected.   
 
? Thirteen states and Puerto Rico reported having deployed state-wide Emergency Services IP 
Networks (ESInets).  Fifteen states reported having regional ESInets within the state, and ten 
states reported local-level ESInets. 
 
? Forty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported on deployment of text-to-
911.  Collectively, respondents reported 553 PSAPs as being text-capable as of the end of 
2015, and projected that an additional 844 PSAPs would be text-capable by the end of 2016. 
 
? While almost every state collects 911 fees from in-state subscribers, nineteen states and 
American Samoa reported that they lack authority to audit service providers to verify that the 
collected fees accurately reflect the number of in-state subscribers served by the provider.  Of 
the states that have audit authority, eight conducted audits in 2015. 
 
? On the topic of cybersecurity preparedness for Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), 
                                                     
4 Missouri was the only state that did not respond to this year’s data request. 
4 
 
thirty-eight states, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands indicated that they 
spent no 911 funds in 2015 on 911–related cybersecurity programs for PSAPs.  Nine states 
and the District of Columbia stated that they had made cybersecurity-related expenditures. 
 
 
III. BACKGROUND 
 
3. Section 101 of the NET 911 Act added a new section 6(f)(2) to the Wireless 
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (Wireless 911 Act), which provides: 
 
To ensure efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the collection and expenditure of a 
fee or charge for the support or implementation of 9-1-1 or enhanced 9-1-1 services, the 
Commission shall submit a report within 1 year after the date of enactment of the New and 
Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, and annually thereafter, to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives detailing the status in each State of the 
collection and distribution of such fees or charges, and including findings on the amount of 
revenues obligated or expended by each State or political subdivision thereof for any purpose 
other than the purpose for which any such fees or charges are specified. 
 
4. Information Request and Responses.  In April 2016, the Bureau sent questionnaires to the 
Governor of each state and territory and the Mayor of the District of Columbia requesting information 
on 911 fee collection and expenditure for calendar year 2015.5  The Bureau received responsive 
information from 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 
Islands.6  The Bureau did not receive responses from Missouri, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands. 
 
                                                     
5 See Appendix C - Annual Collection of Information Related to the Collection and Use of 911 and E911 Fees by 
States and Other Jurisdictions (FCC Questionnaire). This year’s data collection incorporates recommendations made 
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its April 2013 report on state collection and use of 911 funds.   
See Government Accountability Office, “Most States Used 911 Funds for Intended Purposes, but FCC Could 
Improve Its Reporting on States’ Use of Funds,” GAO-13-376 (Apr. 2013) (GAO Report).  GAO prepared this 
report pursuant to a directive in the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012.  See Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 158 (2012).  Consistent with GAO’s recommendation, 
and in order to improve the collection and analysis of data in its annual reports, the Bureau modified its information 
collection authorization under the Paperwork Reduction Act to include closed-ended questions in the annual 
information request.  Additionally, the Bureau provided responders with electronic forms that can be filled out and 
returned by e-mail to ease the information collection burden.  The expanded information collection was approved by 
the Office of Management and Budget in April 2015.  See Letter from Dominic J. Mancini, Acting Deputy 
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, to Walter Boswell, 
Certifying Official, FCC, OMB Control Number 201501-3060-021 (Mar. 25, 2015).  In previous years, the Bureau 
has sent questionnaires to the regional offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), but these offices have either 
failed to respond, indicated they have no responsive information, or requested that they not be contacted.  
Accordingly, the Bureau did not include the BIA regional offices in this year’s data collection.   
6 Copies of reports from all responding jurisdictions are available on the FCC web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov/fcc.gov/general/8th-annual-911-fee-report-state-filings.  Of the 49 responding states, Nevada 
and Ohio did not collect the information at the state level but coordinated a response by select Nevada and Ohio 
counties.  Rhode Island, New York, and Wyoming responded to the data request but did not use the supplied 
questionnaire, instead providing their own response format.  Missouri did not respond to the request.  American 
Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands used the supplied questionnaire.  The 
Commission did not receive responses from Guam or Northern Mariana Islands. 
5 
 
IV. DISCUSSION 
 
5. This Report describes how states and other entities collected 911/E911 funds in calendar 
year 2015, how much they collected, and how they oversaw the expenditure of these funds.7  The 
Report describes the extent to which states diverted or transferred collected 911/E911 funds to funds or 
programs other than those that support or implement 911/E911 services.  The report also examines the 
collection and expenditure of funds on NG911 and cybersecurity programs. 
 
A. Summary of Reporting Methodology  
 
6. Section 6(f)(1) of the Act affirms the ability of “[a] State, political subdivision thereof, 
Indian tribe, or village or regional corporation serving a region established pursuant to the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended …” to collect fees or charges “[applicable] to commercial 
mobile services or IP-enabled voice services … for the support or implementation of 9-1-1 or enhanced 
9-1-1 services, provided that the fee or charge is obligated or expended only in support of 9-1-1 and 
enhanced 9-1-1 services, or enhancements of such services, as specified in the provision of State or 
local law adopting the fee or charge.”8  Section 6(f)(2) further requires the Commission to obtain 
information “detailing the status in each State of the collection and distribution of such fees or charges, 
and including findings on the amount of revenues obligated or expended by each State or political 
subdivision thereof for any purpose other than the purpose for which any such fees or charges are 
specified.”9 
 
7. Given the NET 911 Act’s reference to state and local 911 fee statutes, our state-by-state 
analysis of 911/E911 fee expenditures in this report is determined by the applicable statute governing 
the collection and expenditure of 911/E911 fees within each state.  States determine how 911/E911 fee 
revenues are to be spent, therefore, individual state definitions of what constitute permissible 
expenditures may vary.  The Bureau’s information collection questionnaire asks each state to confirm 
whether it has spent 911/E911 funds solely for purposes permitted under the particular state’s 911 
funding statute, and also requests information on what uses are deemed permissible under the state’s 
statute and how such uses support 911 or E911 service.  Although some state statutes expressly 
authorize the diversion or transfer of collected 911/E911 fees, the Bureau reviews the reported 
expenditures to determine whether such diversions or transfers are not “in support of 9-1-1 and 
enhanced 9-1-1 services, or enhancements of such services” within the meaning of the NET 911 Act.  
The report on 911/E911 fee diversion in Section G below is consistent with this interpretation. 
 
B. Overview of State 911 Systems  
 
8. To provide a broader context for the information provided on collection and use of 911 
fees, the data collection sought information about the total number of Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs) that receive funding derived from the collection of 911 fees, the number of active 
telecommunicators funded through the collection of 911 fees, the total number and type of 911 calls the 
state or jurisdiction received, and an estimate of the total cost to provide 911/E911 service.10  
                                                     
7 Our analysis includes states that collect and distribute fees over the course of a fiscal year as opposed to the 
calendar year covered by our reports. 
8 NET 911 Act at §6(f)(1). 
9 Id. at §6(f)(2).  Emphasis added. 
10 FCC Questionnaire at 2-3. 
6 
 
9. Number and Type of PSAPs.  The questionnaire requested that states “provide the total 
number of active [Primary and Secondary PSAPs]11 in your state or jurisdiction that receive funding 
derived from the collection of 911/E911 fees during the annual period ending December 31, 2015.”  
Table 1 shows that 47 states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US 
Virgin Islands responded to this request, reporting a total of 4,671 Primary PSAPs and 778 Secondary 
PSAPs, for a total of 5,449 PSAPs dependent on funding derived from the collection of 911 fees.12  We 
note that because the Bureau’s data request focused on PSAPs that receive funding from 911 fees, the 
reported data does not necessarily include PSAPs that are funded through sources other than 911 fees.  
American Samoa reports that there is a single primary PSAP in the territory housed in the Department 
of Public Safety, but that it is not funded through the collection of 911 fees.13  Michigan states that there 
are five secondary PSAPs in the state, but that they are all operated by private EMS services and 
receive no direct funding through the fees and surcharges described in its filing.14   
 
Table 1 - Number and Types of PSAPS of Reporting Jurisdictions 
 
 State 
Number of PSAPs 
Total 
Primary 
Total 
Secondary 
Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
AK 38 5 43     
AL 118 0 118     
AR 102 29  131     
AZ 76 10 86     
CA 399 51 450     
CO 91 8 99     
CT 110 0 110     
DE 8 1 9     
FL 154 52 206     
GA 135 23 158     
HI 5 3 8     
IA 114 0 114     
ID 46 2 48     
IL 253 25 278     
IN 91 28 119     
KS 117 0 117     
KY 115 40 155     
                                                     
11 A Primary PSAP is one to which 911 calls are routed directly from the 911 Control Office.  A Secondary PSAP is 
one to which 911 calls are transferred from a Primary PSAP.  See National Emergency Number Association, Master 
Glossary of 9-1-1 Terminology (NENA Master Glossary), July 29, 2014, at 118, 126, available at 
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/Standards/NENA-ADM-000.18-2014_2014072.pdf . 
12 New Jersey did not respond to this portion of the questionnaire. 
13 American Samoa Response at 3.  The PSAP is operated as a unit of the Department of Public Safety Police 
Services Bureau and funded under the DPS annual operations budget. 
14 Michigan Response at 2. 
7 
 
 State 
Number of PSAPs 
Total 
Primary 
Total 
Secondary 
Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
LA 57 50 107     
MA 249 81 330     
MD 24 52 76     
ME 26 0 26     
MI 145 0 145     
MN 99 5 104     
MS 103 30 133     
MT 53 0 53     
NC 119 6 125     
ND 22 0 22     
NE 71 0 71     
NH 2 0 2     
NJ       X   
NM 45 2 47     
NV 12 3 15     
NY 134 50 184 
 
  
OH 143 60 203     
OK 133 
 
133     
OR 43 14 57     
PA 69 0 69     
RI 1 1 2     
SC 80 0 80     
SD 29 0 29     
TN 140 30 170     
TX 490 64 554     
UT 32 4 36     
VA 121 40 161     
VT 6 0 6     
WA 54 9 63     
WI 139 0 139     
WV 52 0 52     
WY     
  
X 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 1 0 1     
DC 1 0 1     
PR 2 0 2     
USVI 2 0 2     
Total 4,671 778 5,449 1 1 
8 
 
 
 
10. Number of Telecommunicators.  Respondents were asked to provide the total number 
of active telecommunicators15 in each state or territory that were funded through the collection of 
911/E911 fees during the annual period ending December 31, 2015.  As detailed in Table 2, forty-six 
states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands responded to 
this data request.  Twenty-seven states, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands reported a total of 30,664 
full time telecommunicators and 2,360 part-time telecommunicators that are funded through the 
collection of 911 fees.  Eleven states reported they do not know how telecommunicators are funded, 
seven states and the District of Columbia reported they are not funded by 911 fees, and three states did 
not respond to the question.  American Samoa reported eight telecommunicators, but they are not 
funded by 911 fees. 
 
 
Table 2 – Total Telecommunicators Funded by 911 Fees 
 
State 
Number of Telecommunicators Funded by 911 Fees 
Full Time 
Part 
Time 
Unknown 
Not 
Funded 
NR 
AK 270 10       
AL     X     
AR 1,018 187       
AZ       X   
CA       X   
CO 481 11       
CT         X 
DE  253  3   
 
  
FL 2,260 271       
GA     X     
HI 236         
IA     X     
ID     X     
IL 3,428 N/A       
IN 1,401 257       
KS 1,071 125       
KY 1,238 270       
LA     X     
MA 5,000         
                                                     
15 A telecommunicator, also known as a call taker or a dispatcher, is a person employed by a PSAP who is qualified 
to answer incoming emergency telephone calls and/or who provides for the appropriate emergency response either 
directly or through communication with the appropriate PSAP.  See NENA Master Glossary at 137. 
9 
 
State 
Number of Telecommunicators Funded by 911 Fees 
Full Time 
Part 
Time 
Unknown 
Not 
Funded 
NR 
MD 1,417 94       
ME       X   
MI 1,978 282       
MN     X     
MS 1,365         
MT     X     
NC       X   
ND 230         
NE 590 101       
NH 74 12       
NJ       X   
NM       X   
NV 71 4       
NY         X 
OH 661 108       
OK     X     
OR 854         
PA 2,097 267       
RI 30         
SC         X 
SD 282 30       
TN     X     
TX 880 19       
UT 790 80       
VA 1,043         
VT 76 31       
WA 1,052 94       
WI     X     
WV 566 107       
WY     X      
Other Jurisdictions  
AS 8   
 
    
DC       X   
PR 162         
USVI 35         
Total 30,917 2,363 11 7 3 
 
 
10 
 
11. Number of 911/E911 Calls.  The questionnaire asked respondents to provide an estimate 
of the total number of 911 calls the state or jurisdiction received for the annual period ending December 
31, 2015.  Forty-four states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 
Islands reported a cumulative total of 253,844,538 calls of all types during 2015.16  This represents an 
increase of 29.4 percent in reported call volume over 2014, although this difference is largely 
attributable to the increased number of states and territories that reported data this year compared to last 
year.17  Of the total reported calls, 156,031,576 calls came from wireless phones, representing 
approximately 61.5 percent of the total reported call volume, as compared to 2014, when wireless calls 
comprised approximately 69.2 percent of reported call volume.  However, this likely understates the 
percentage of wireless 911 calls because a number of states reported total 911 calls but did not break 
out service categories separately.18  Table 3 provides specific call volume information provided by each 
state or other jurisdiction for each service type.  In addition, the Bureau has included an estimate of 
annual 911 calls on a per capita basis in each reporting state and jurisdiction. 
 
 
Table 3 – Total 911 Calls by Service Type 
 
State 
 Type of Service Estimated Annual 
911 Calls Per 
Capita19 Wireline Wireless VoIP Other Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
AK 66,917 337,349 Unknown Unknown 404,266    .57 
AL20 Unknown 1,387,805 Unknown Unknown 1,387,805 
 
  .29 
AR21 276,035 2,038,786 Unknown Unknown 2,314,821    .79 
AZ 945,863 
(includes VoIP) 
4,235,749 -- 
No 
Response 
5,181,612 
 
  .81 
CA 4,254,595 22,741,803 948,995 
1,167,832 
(Types Not 
Specified) 
29,113,225 
 
  .78 
CO 475,394 5,895,735 171,642 -- 6,542,771 
 
  1.30 
                                                     
16 Five states stated they did not have access to this information. 
17 In the 2015 Report, 911 call volume data was provided by 38 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, 
and the Navajo Nation. 
18 Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands 
reported total 911 call volumes but did not provide service category subtotals. 
19 Bureau estimate based on United States 2010 Census data for each jurisdiction. 
20 According to Alabama, with respect to wireline, VoIP, and “Other” call types, "[t]hese statistics are maintained at 
the local emergency communications districts and are not readily available to the state office. Alabama completed 
their wireless aggregation project in December 2014, which allows for all wireless calls in the state to be routed 
through the Alabama Next Generation Emergency Network (ANGEN); therefore, we are only able to provide 
wireless statistics for our state. Based on incomplete reporting from local districts, wireless calls account for 
approximately 80% to 85% of the 911 calls in the State of Alabama."  Alabama Response at 3. 
21 Arkansas reported that prior to 2016 (for calendar year 2015), “AT&T provided call studies to the PSAPs.  
Because many of the PSAPs were not pulling call studies from their 911 systems regularly, they were unaware that 
their systems were not working.  As a result some of the reported stats were estimated based on the surrounding 
month’s data and the previous year’s data for the same reporting period.” Arkansas Response at 3. 
11 
 
State 
 Type of Service Estimated Annual 
911 Calls Per 
Capita19 Wireline Wireless VoIP Other Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
CT 358,275 1,873,491 126,105 -- 2,357,871  
 
.66 
DE 729,780 553,367 -- -- 1,283,156  
 
1.43 
FL 2,446,096 19,070,052 461,144 230,873 22,208,165    1.18 
GA -- -- -- -- -- X 
 
-- 
HI 320,449 1,020,565 49,429 --  1,390,443    1.02 
IA Unknown 827,205 Unknown -- 827,205    .27 
ID22 Not Specified 662,938    .42 
IL 7,551,211 7,117,806 N/A -- 14,669,017    1.14 
IN 1,219,984 3,787,054 89,691 148,555 5,245,284    .81 
KS 727,672 1,498,473 27,831 142,467 2,396,443    .84 
KY 656,664 2,831,848 -- -- 3,488,512    .80 
LA 
? Types not specified 
? 45 of 64 parishes reporting 
4,633,500 
 
  1.02 
MA 864,767 
(includes VoIP) 
3,032,090  --  -- 3,896,857    .60 
MD 1,429,626 
(includes VoIP) 
3,728,697 -- -- 5,158,323    .89 
ME 138,583 396,511 49,734 --  584,828    .44 
MI 1,403,077 5,248,738 342,312 2,81423 6,996,941 
 
  .71 
MN 703,295 2,143,558 52,074 80,676 2,979,603    .56 
MS Not Specified 2,792,209    .94 
MT -- -- -- -- -- X 
 
-- 
NC 1,425,695 5,730,754 558,161 -- 7,714,610    .81 
ND 69,190 255,386 1,618 -- 326,194    .48 
NE 241,207 839,010 -- -- 1,080,21724    .59 
NH 72,885 354,330 48,627 15,60025 491,442 
 
  .37 
NJ Not Specified 7,850,000  
 
.89 
NM 285,751 1,187,718 21,604 3,976 1,499,04926    .73 
                                                     
22 Reported that "30 of 46 PSAPs Responded and not all PSAPs are tracking or were able to pull the requested data 
for the state report.  662,938 total number of 911 calls delivered for 30 responding PSAPs.  Not all could break out 
the different types.  Consequently, those reported a total number."  Idaho Response at 3. 
23 Michigan reported that 98 percent of PSAPs reported call volumes and included in “Other” are text-to-911 calls.  
Michigan Response at 4. 
24 Nebraska entered 1,080,297 for its total.  Nebraska Response at 2. 
25 “Other” includes 15,261 Administrative Line calls and 339 texts-to-911.  New Hampshire Response at 3. 
26 New Mexico entered 1,495,107 for its total.  New Mexico Response at 3. 
12 
 
State 
 Type of Service Estimated Annual 
911 Calls Per 
Capita19 Wireline Wireless VoIP Other Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
NV27 540,676 1,159,970 10,541 1,961,285 3,766,680 
 
  1.39 
NY Not Specified 29,417,934  
 
1.52 
OH 1,015,705 5,563,016 260,039 191,772 7,030,532    .61 
OK -- -- -- -- -- X 
 
-- 
OR 319,200 1,315,320 82,189 30,570 1,747,279    .46 
PA 2,480,207 6,495,406 418,886 --  9,394,499    .74 
RI Not Specified28 514,926 
 
  .49 
SC 1,430,675 
(includes VoIP) 
4,292,025 -- -- 5,722,700    1.24 
SD Unknown Unknown Unknown -- 332,64529 
 
  .41 
TN Unknown 3,120,000 Unknown Unknown 3,120,000    .49 
TX 2,980,196 24,917,198 878,125 229,58130 29,005,100 
 
  1.15 
UT 98,500 904,773 31,483 19,312 1,054,068    .38 
VA 1,146,214 3,341,374 -- -- 4,487,588    .56 
VT 41,826 139,926 18,366 6,283 206,401    .33 
WA 999,536 4,906,647 360,298 -- 6,266,481    .93 
WI31 -- -- -- -- -- X 
 
-- 
WV 988,876 667,704 76,430 259,201 1,992,211    1.08 
WY -- -- -- -- -- X 
 
-- 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 6,000 52,320 -- -- 58,320  
 
1.05 
                                                     
27 Cumulative numbers for each call type include totals provided by Boulder City, Carson City, Las Vegas Fire & 
Rescue, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, and the counties of Douglas, Elko, Esmeralda, Lander, Nye, Sparks, 
Storey and Washoe. 
28 Rhode Island reported that of the “514,926 incoming 911 calls at its Primary (manned) PSAP, 75 percent were 
wireless.” 
29 South Dakota stated that “total 911 calls is the only information we are able to collect from our PSAPs at this 
time, because every PSAP has a different CPE and some of their systems do not allow them to pull call counts by 
service type. However as part of the statewide NG911 project, we are deploying a statewide hosted CPE. Once the 
CPE is deployed in all the PSAPs the state will have access to all of the call data. This is expected to take until 
March of 2017. Calendar year 2018 is expected to be the first full year with all PSAPs on the hosted CPE and 
therefore the call counts will be available by service type."  South Dakota Response at 3. 
30 “Other” total includes Multi-line Telephone Systems, telematics, and text to 911 calls.  Texas Response at 3. 
31 Wisconsin reported that its “county and municipal governments operate and administer the 911 system and all 
public safety answering points (PSAPs).   County and municipal governments do not report to any state agency the 
number of staff employed, the total cost to provide 911 service, or a statistical summary of the 911 service 
provided.”  Wisconsin Response at 4. 
13 
 
State 
 Type of Service Estimated Annual 
911 Calls Per 
Capita19 Wireline Wireless VoIP Other Total Unknown 
No 
Response 
DC 442,917 1,022,017 -- -- 1,464,934    2.42 
PR Not Specified 2,571,660    .69 
USVI Not Specified 213,282    2 
Totals 39,153,539 156,031,576 5,085,324 4,876,992 253,844,538 5 0 
 
 
12. Cost to Provide 911/E911 Service in Jurisdiction.  The questionnaire asked 
respondents to provide an estimate of the total cost to provide 911 service during the annual period 
ending December 31, 2015, regardless of whether such costs are supported by 911 fees or other funding 
sources.  As detailed in Table 4, forty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin 
Islands provided cost estimates totaling $3,368,446,067.70.  Table 4 also includes the Bureau’s estimate 
of reported costs on a per capita basis for each reporting state and jurisdiction.  Nine states and 
American Samoa did not provide cost estimates, with many of the respondents noting that they lacked 
authority to collect 911 cost data from local jurisdictions.  Some states that did submit estimates 
qualified their cost figures by noting that they had only partial information regarding the total cost to 
provide 911 service.32 
 
Table 4 – Estimated Cost to Provide 911 Service 
 
State 
Total Estimated 
Cost to Provide 
911 Service 
Explanation, if any, About Figure Provided or Why 
Estimation Could not be Provided 
Estimated Annual 
Per Capita 911 
Cost33 
AK $12,837,113.68   $18.07 
AL $112,163,211.00 
"This figure is for total expenditures as provided by an 
independent auditors’ report for fiscal period October 1, 
2014 through September 30, 2015." 
$23.47 
AR $55,055,078.00 
 
$17.17 
AZ $17,630,018.90 
 
$2.76 
CA $87,954,600.00 
 
$2.36 
CO $102,256,610.00 
Amount is "(extrapolated based on partial survey 
responses from local 911 Authorities). We believe this 
number is an under-estimate due to some 911 Authorities 
reporting only the portion of costs paid for by 911 
surcharge revenues, not total costs." 
$20.33 
CT $28,625,819.44 
 
$8.01 
                                                     
32 States lacking complete information include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, 
Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia. 
33 Bureau estimate based on United States 2010 Census data for each jurisdiction. 
14 
 
State 
Total Estimated 
Cost to Provide 
911 Service 
Explanation, if any, About Figure Provided or Why 
Estimation Could not be Provided 
Estimated Annual 
Per Capita 911 
Cost33 
DE $100,000,000.00 
 
$111.37 
FL $210,240,763.10 
 
$11.18 
GA Unknown 
"There is no 9-1-1 authority established in the State of 
Georgia. There is also no central tracking mechanism in 
place to compile a total of fees imposed or collected by 
local government. " 
-- 
HI Unknown 
"Each county has their own cost accounting system which 
the E911 Board has no authority over.  Their system is not 
set up to capture expenses associated with 911/E911 
service only.  As a result, the counties must perform this 
task manually which creates other problems such as 
accuracy and time constraints. We will undergo an effort 
to work with the PSAPs to assist in accomplishing the task 
through modifications of their cost accounting system. 
Hopefully the matter will be resolved by this time next 
year." 
-- 
IA $143,193,597.97 
 
$47.00 
ID Unknown 
"Unknown at aggregated State Level; The cost of 
providing 911 services is kept at each of the jurisdictional 
levels and requests can be made for that data; however it 
is incomplete.  The cost responses were not broken out 
sufficiently to give a solid number and only 30 of 46 
PSAPs responded to the request with some responses as 
“unknown”.  Due to some responses being intermingled 
with 911 costs paid by the 911 fees and personnel costs 
that were paid for by General Funds, not all responses 
could be calculated and not all jurisdictions reported on 
the survey that was sent out to gather the information." 
-- 
IL $140,583,131.00 
"Last year we were able to include the City of Chicago at 
a total of $263,503,493.00.  The City’s 2015 Audit has not 
been finalized and they were not able to provide this 
information.  So the number above is for the entire State 
excluding Chicago." 
$10.96 
IN $164,000,000.00 
 
$25.29 
KS $69,487,521.92 
"The amount provided in question 3 above contains 
estimates of personnel costs only for some PSAPs who did 
not provide this data upon request. The estimated amounts 
contained within the total are low, so actual cost of 911 is 
higher than shown." 
$24.35 
15 
 
State 
Total Estimated 
Cost to Provide 
911 Service 
Explanation, if any, About Figure Provided or Why 
Estimation Could not be Provided 
Estimated Annual 
Per Capita 911 
Cost33 
KY $91,576,465.00 
"Centralized data collection is new to the CMRS Board so 
data collection in incomplete and is not always reliable.  
The total does not include state general funds dollars 
budgeted to the Kentucky State Police (KSP).  KSP 
budgets are not designed to break out ‘911 costs’ which 
we estimate to be $8 million in state general fund dollars." 
$21.10 
LA Unknown 
"Currently Louisiana does not have a body that receives a 
centralized report.  This was changed in Act 665 of 2016 
Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature." 
-- 
MA $28,184,862.00 
"The estimated amount (based upon the amount contracted 
for Fiscal Year 2016) to provide E911 service is: 
$28,184,862.  This estimated amount includes the costs 
associated with the legacy E911 service provider 
contracts, MassGIS, and the mobile PSAP.  This estimated 
amount does not include costs associated with Next 
Generation 911, grant programs, training programs, 
disability access programs, public education, 
administrative costs, or other costs for the administration 
and programs of the State 911 Department." 
$4.30 
MD $93,091,148.75 
"FY 2015 (July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015) as reported by 
annual county audits." 
$16.12 
ME $6,311,588.00 
"State Share Only; the State of Maine provides for a 
statewide 911 system.  The cost above is limited to the 
services we provide.  We do not collect information on the 
local costs of PSAPs not funded through the E911 
surcharge." 
$4.75 
MI $249,337,283.18 
"1) Expenses reported by PSAPs: $240,529,770.46. 
2) The total reported technical costs for network 
collections by landline telephone companies for 911 
network and delivery costs in 2015: $7,028,674 (figure 
does not include Baraga County). 
3) $1,778,838.72 for calendar year 2015 for the cost of 
wireless 911 delivery was reimbursed to landline service 
providers (AT&T, Frontier, and Peninsula Fiber Network) 
under the Michigan Public Service Commission’s Docket 
U-14000." 
$25.23 
MN $26,190,951.58 
"This includes NG911 specific expenditures, and the 
allocation provided to the PSAPs towards their eligible 
use expenses." 
$4.94 
MS $35,494,712.00 
 
$11.96 
MT $13,000,000.00 
"The State of Montana distributes approximately $13 
million total annually to wireless telecommunications 
providers, local and tribal governments for support of 
911/E911 services. These funds do not cover all of the 
costs of providing 911/E911 services.  Additional costs 
$13.14 
16 
 
State 
Total Estimated 
Cost to Provide 
911 Service 
Explanation, if any, About Figure Provided or Why 
Estimation Could not be Provided 
Estimated Annual 
Per Capita 911 
Cost33 
are incurred by providers, local and tribal governments 
and these costs are not reported to the State of Montana." 
NC $109,413,320.00 
 
$11.47 
ND $16,029,376.00 
 
$23.83 
NE Unknown 
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC) has 
oversight over Wireless 911 only.  An annual allocation of 
wireless 911 surcharge revenue is distributed to the 
PSAPs.  The PSC does not have information regarding the 
costs to run the PSAPs at this time." 
-- 
NH $15,503,339.03   $11.78 
NJ $14,000,000.00 
"The State of New Jersey funds the statewide enhanced 9-
1-1 infrastructure at an annual cost of approximately 
$14M, the operational, equipment and personnel costs are 
the responsibility of the PSAP and not reported to the 
State 9-1-1 Office." 
$1.59 
NM $12,871,714.00   $6.25 
NV $15,431,414.00 
Number is based on individual responses of Boulder City, 
Carson City, Las Vegas Fire & Rescue, Las Vegas Metro 
Police Department, and the counties of Douglas, Elko, 
Esmeralda, Lander, Nye, Sparks, Storey and Washoe. 
$5.71 
NY  No Response   -- 
OH $147,579,296.16 
"This is based on responses from 80 of Ohio's 88 
counties." 
$12.79 
OK Unknown 
 
-- 
OR $126,781,435.00 "42 of 43 PSAPs reporting." $33.09 
PA $333,226,588.00   $26.23 
RI $5,160,147.59 Amount based on FY 2015 Operating Budget $4.90 
SC $65,000,000.00 “Estimated” $14.05 
SD $24,292,661.00   $29.84 
TN $85,000,000.00   $13.39 
TX $232,792,528.76 
"Amount equals total 772 ECD wireline/wireless/prepaid 
wireless revenues collected; for the state 9-1-1 program 
appropriated wireline/wireless/prepaid wireless and (9-1-1 
only) equalization surcharge, and for the municipal ECDs 
a total cost estimate." 
$9.26 
UT $50,000,000.00   $18.09 
17 
 
State 
Total Estimated 
Cost to Provide 
911 Service 
Explanation, if any, About Figure Provided or Why 
Estimation Could not be Provided 
Estimated Annual 
Per Capita 911 
Cost33 
VA $111,600,179.00 
"The only costs that we track directly at the state level are 
local PSAP personnel costs and payments made on behalf 
of the localities for wireless trunks and services.  The total 
amount for these items is $111,600,179." 
$13.95 
VT $4,604,830.00   $7.36 
WA $108,612,280.00 
"Based on 115% of statewide total E911 excise taxes 
collected." 
$16.15 
WI Unknown 
"In Wisconsin, county and municipal governments operate 
and administer the 911 system and all public safety 
answering points (PSAPs).  County and municipal 
governments do not report to any state agency the number 
of staff employed, the total cost to provide 911 service, or 
a statistical summary of the 911 service provided." 
-- 
WV $53,261,290.00 "11 out of 52 PSAPs did not provide data." $28.74 
WY Unknown 
“According to Title 16, Chapter 9 of the Wyoming State 
Statutes for the Emergency Telephone Service Act, 
Wyoming does not assign over-sight responsibility to a 
state-level agency for 911 services.” 
-- 
Other Jurisdictions  
AS  Not Specified 
"The PSAP is operated as a unit of DPS Police Services 
Bureau and funded under the DPS annual operations 
budget."  American Samoa did not provide a dollar figure. 
-- 
DC $41,607,447.00   $69.15 
PR $9,947,332.64   $2.67 
USVI $3,516,414.00   $33.05 
 Total $3,368,446,067.70 
Average State Per Capita Expenditure $18.57 
National Per Capita Expenditure34 $10.97 
 
 
C. Description of Authority Enabling Establishment of 911/E911 Funding Mechanism  
 
13. Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands 
affirmed that their state or jurisdiction has established a funding mechanism designated for or imposed 
for the purposes of 911 or E911 support or implementation.35  Oklahoma and American Samoa reported 
                                                     
34 Does not include Missouri, Guam, or Northern Marianas Islands. 
35 Nevada and Wyoming did not respond to the question.   
18 
 
that they have not established a funding mechanism. 
 
14. Of those states that have an established funding mechanism, Table 5 identifies twelve 
states that enlarged or altered their funding mechanism during calendar year 2015.  Arkansas amended 
the amount apportioned to PSAPs.36  Six of them – Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, 
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee - altered the amount of the fee they collect.  North Dakota and Oregon 
added pre-paid wireless service to the categories of services required to contribute.37  North Carolina 
amended its state statute to require the state 911 Board to allocate 10 percent of total service charges to 
the state’s Next Generation 911 Reserve Fund.38  
 
Table 5 – States That Amended or Enlarged 911 Funding Mechanism 
 
State Description 
AR 
“Yes.  During the 2015 Legislative session, ACT919 was passed increasing the amount to be used 
exclusively for training and all related costs under A.C.A. § 12-10-325.  The amount was increased from 
$120,000 to $200,000 thus reducing the quarterly distribution amount to the PSAPs by $80,000.  There 
were no other alterations to the funding mechanism.” 
IL 
"Senate Bill 96 amended the Emergency Telephone Safety Act and the Wireless Emergency Telephone 
Safety Act merging the requirements of both Acts into the Emergency Telephone  
System Act in July 2015. It also amended the Pre-paid Wireless Act. 
 
Summary of amendments to the Emergency Telephone System Act: 
 
? Transferred the oversight of local 9-1-1 systems from the Illinois Commerce Commission to 
the Illinois State Police effective January 1, 2016. 
? Established the Office of Statewide 911 Administrator as a division of the Department of State 
Police (ISP) effective January 1, 2016. The Administrator is responsible for  
developing, implementing, and overseeing a uniform statewide 911 system for all areas of the 
State outside the City of Chicago.  The Administrator will be appointed by the Governor with 
the advice and consent of the Senate.  First term expires January 1, 2017 and then on a two 
year cycle thereafter. 
? Created a 9-1-1 Advisory Board effective on July 1, 2015 with 2 and 3 year terms. 
? Established a uniform monthly surcharge of $.87 effective January 1, 2016 for wireline,  
VoIP and wireless connections; this surcharge is collected and disbursed by the State.   
Where multi voice grade communication channels are connected through a PBX or Centrex 
service, a 5 [sic] surcharge per network connection will apply.  (Same as today.) 
? Wireline and VoIP 9-1-1 surcharges which were managed and set by the local governments 
were eliminated. 
? Established the distribution formula for the $.87 surcharge effective January 1, 2016: 
o $0.013 to counties under 100,000 population 
o $0.033 transferred to Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund until June 30, 2017. 
Thereafter, the amount transferred to the Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund is 
                                                     
36 Arkansas Response at 8. 
37 North Dakota Response at 4; Oregon Response at 4.   
38 North Carolina Response at 4. 
19 
 
State Description 
reduced each year until June 30, 2021, when transfers to that fund end. 
o $0.007 cover ISP administrative costs 
o After the disbursements listed above, all remaining funds in the Statewide 911 Fund 
shall be disbursed in the following priority order: 
o Monthly payment to 9-1-1 authorities that imposed surcharges under section 15.3 on 
October 1, 2014 of an amount equal to the average monthly wireline and VOIP 
surcharge revenue for the most recent 12-month reported to the Department for 
October 1, 2014 filing. 
o Monthly payment to counties that did not collect a wireline surcharge of an amount 
equal to population multiplied by .37 multiplied by the rate of $0.69.  Counties that do 
not provide E911 will not receive funds until the service is provided. 
o Monthly payment to counties without E911 service but have a 911 surcharge as of 
December 31, 2015 in an amount equal to their population multiplied by .37 by their 
surcharge rate established by referendum. 
o All 911 network costs for systems outside of the City of Chicago, to be paid directly to 
vendors. 
o All expenses incurred by Administrator and Advisory Board associated with the NG 
911 RFP and contract. 
o Disbursement of Annual Grants for consolidations under section 15.4a, 15.4b and for 
NG9-1-1 expenses up to: 
? 2016 = $12.5 million 
? 2017 = $12.5 million 
? 2018 = $13.5 million 
? 2019 = $14.5 million 
? 2020 = $15.5 million 
? 2021 = $16.2 million 
? 2022 = $23.1 million 
o 2023 and each year thereafter $ 17 million. 
o All remaining funds shall be distributed to appropriate 911 authority taking wireless 
911 based on the postal zip code of billing addresses of subscribers of wireless carriers. 
? Extended Chicago’s authority to impose a local surcharge of $3.90 until July 1, 2017. 
• Provided that the 911 surcharge shall not be applied to the lifeline subsidized portion of the 
service. 
? Allows each telecommunication carrier (non-wireless) to deduct 3% of gross amount of 
surcharge collected to reimburse for expense of accounting and collecting surcharge. Wireless 
carriers will be allowed to do the same beginning July 1, 2022. 
? Remittance of surcharge within 30 days of collection for deposit into the Statewide 911 Fund. 
? Wireless carriers may still recover 911 service costs that are not reimbursed through the 
Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund through a direct charge to their respective customers. 
? Required 9-1-1 systems who must consolidate to file a consolidation plan or waiver to 
consolidation by July 1, 2016 with the ISP. 
? Required 9-1-1 systems to have the consolidation plan implemented by July 1, 2017. 
? The Emergency Telephone Systems Act sunsets on June 30, 2017 
 
Summary of amendments to the Pre-Paid Wireless Act: 
 
? Increased the 911 pre-paid wireless surcharge to 3% for the State and 9% for Chicago, 
20 
 
State Description 
effective on October 1, 2015.  Chicago’s rate will then drop to 7% effective July 1, 2017. 
KS 
"The 911 Coordinating Council was empowered, under the initial legislation to increase the 911 fee up to 
$0.60 per device. The Council exercised this authority in 2015, with the increase taking effect on October 
1, 2015." 
KY 
"Not at the state level (major changes coming in 2016/2017); at the local level Kenton, Campbell and 
Garrard/Lincoln attempted to amend their local funding mechanism, repealing traditional landline fees 
and enacting ordinances that asses and collect an annual 911 fee on property (Kenton, Campbell) and on 
the monthly water utility bills (Garrard/Lincoln). Kentucky Supreme Court has now upheld the 
constitutionality of these ordinances. Kenton and Campbell are in effect, the Garrard and Lincoln 
ordinance is not yet in effect, awaiting final lower court action." 
NC 
"N.C.G.S. 143B-1404 was amended by SL 2015-261 requiring the 911 Board to allocate ten percent 
(10%) of the total service charges to the Next Generation 911 Reserve Fund. That reserve fund is 
administered as provided in N.C.G.S. 143B-1407(e).  The allocation required by the new law became 
effective January 1, 2016." 
ND 
"Yes, Chapter 57-40.6 of the North Dakota Century Code was amended during the 63rd Legislative 
Assembly (2013-2014) to include a funding mechanism for fee collection of pre-paid wireless service at 
the “point of sale” (57-40.6-14).  This legislation became effective January 1, 2014." 
NH "Effective October 2015 the Enhanced 9-1-1 surcharge was increased to $0.75 per month" 
OR "Amended statute to allow Prepaid Wireless to be collected from a retail Point of Sale." 
PA 
"Pennsylvania Act 12 of 2015 (Act 12) amended Chapter 53, Emergency Telephone Service, of Title 35 
of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (Chapter 53) by establishing a new funding program for public 
safety answering points (PSAPs) across the Commonwealth, effective August 1, 2015. The new funding 
program includes a uniform 911 surcharge fee of $1.65, a uniform 911 Fund for collecting surcharges, 
and updated procedures related to remitting and distributing surcharge revenues.  Act 12 was signed into 
law on June 29, 2015 and took effect August 1, 2015." 
TN 
"The 911 Funding Modernization and IP Transition Act, which created a new funding mechanism for 
911 in Tennessee, took effect January 1, 2015. It provides a uniform 911surcharge of $1.16 on all 
telecommunications devices in the state that are capable of reaching a PSAP by dialing 9-1-1." 
 
15. The questionnaire asked states to describe the type of authority arrangement for the 
21 
 
collection of 911 fees, specifically whether 911/E911 funds are collected by the state (or equivalent 
jurisdiction), by local jurisdictions, or by a combination of the two.  As described in Table 6 below, 27 
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands reported that they collect all 
911 fees on a statewide basis, with the collected funds administered by the state.39 
 
Table 6 – Authority to Collect 911/E911 Fees 
 
Type of Collection 
Number of 
States/Jurisdictions 
State Collection 30 
Local Authority 6 
Hybrid 16 
 
 
16. Six states - Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Wyoming - reported 
that 911 fee collection occurs exclusively at the local level, although in some cases such local collection 
is authorized by state statute.  Georgia states that “landline and post-paid wireless 9-1-1 fees are 
remitted directly to local governments by the service providers.40  Similarly, Mississippi stated that “all 
funds collected by service providers are awarded directly to the counties.”41   
 
17. Sixteen states reported using a hybrid approach to 911 fee collection, in which state and 
local governing bodies share authority over fee collection from customers.42  For example, South 
Carolina reported that “46 counties and 4 municipalities receive a quarterly distribution of a portion of 
the wireless surcharge based on total wireless call volume for that time period, which must be used 
specifically for 911 or E911 purposes.  An additional amount of the wireless surcharge is available for 
reimbursement to these counties and municipalities for upgrading, acquiring, maintaining, 
programming, and installing necessary data, hardware and software to comply with certain FCC 
requirements.”43  Ohio stated that “state funding is collected by the Ohio Department of Taxation and 
disbursed to the 88 counties.”44 
 
D. Description of State Authority that Determines How 911/E911 Fees are Spent  
 
18. The Bureau requested that states and jurisdictions identify the entity that has authority to 
approve the expenditure of funds collected for 911 purposes.  As detailed in Table 7, fourteen states, the 
                                                     
39 States include Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia. 
40 Georgia Response at 4. 
41 Mississippi Response at 4. 
42 This category includes Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New 
York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. 
43 South Carolina Response at 4-5. 
44 Ohio Response at 4. 
22 
 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands indicated that a state entity has authority 
to approve expenditure of 911 fees.  Nine states described authority resting exclusively with local 
entities.  The majority of responding states – twenty-three - indicated the authority is shared between 
state and local authorities.   
 
19. The Bureau also sought information on whether states have established a funding 
mechanism that mandates how collected funds may be used.  As indicated in Table 7, states that 
responded ‘no’ to this question typically cede control of how 911 funds are spent to local jurisdictions.  
Forty-two states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands responded that they 
have a mechanism mandating how 911 fees may be spent, whereas seven states and American Samoa 
indicated they have no such mechanism.   
 
Table 7 – State Authority for Approval of 911 Fee Expenditures 
 
State 
State, Local, or Combined Authority to Approve 
Expenditures State Funding Mechanism Mandating How 
Funds Can be Used 
State Local Both 
AK   X   No 
AL     X Yes 
AR     X   Yes 
AZ X     Yes 
CA X     Yes 
CO   X   Yes 
CT X     Yes 
DE     X Yes 
FL     X Yes 
GA   X   No 
HI X     Yes 
IA     X Yes 
ID   X   No 
IL   X   Yes 
IN     X Yes 
KS     X Yes 
KY     X Yes 
LA   X   Yes 
MA X     Yes 
MD X     Yes 
ME X     Yes 
MI     X Yes 
MN X     Yes 
MS   X   No 
23 
 
State 
State, Local, or Combined Authority to Approve 
Expenditures State Funding Mechanism Mandating How 
Funds Can be Used 
State Local Both 
MT     X Yes 
NC X     Yes 
ND   X   Yes 
NE     X Yes 
NH X     Yes 
NJ X     Yes 
NM X     Yes 
NV   X   No 
NY      X  Yes 
OH     X Yes 
OK   X     No 
OR     X Yes 
PA     X Yes 
RI X     Yes 
SC     X Yes 
SD     X Yes 
TN     X Yes 
TX     X Yes 
UT     X Yes 
VA     X Yes 
VT X      Yes 
WA     X Yes 
WI Not Applicable - LECs Bill and Keep Yes 
WV     X Yes 
WY    X   No  
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 911 Fees Not Collected No 
DC X     Yes 
PR X     Yes 
USVI X     Yes 
Totals 
State Local Both Yes No 
17 9 23 45 8 
 
 
 
 
24 
 
E. Description of Uses of State 911 Fees  
 
20. The Bureau asked responding states to provide a statement identifying with specificity 
“all activities, programs, and organizations for whose benefit your state, or political subdivision thereof, 
has obligated or expended funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes and how these activities, programs, 
and organizations support 911 and E911 services or enhancements of such services.”  Forty six states, 
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands provided a description as requested.45  
 
21.  Alabama stated that all “funds collected for 911 or E911 have been received by the 88 
Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs) in the State of Alabama and have been used to support 
the activities of those 911 districts by providing funding to maintain, and in some cases enhance, the 
911 service provided to their populous.”46  According to Michigan, state 911 fee are distributed to 
multiple entities, including $150,000 annually to the Treasury for its administration of the fund; 82.5 
percent to the counties to fund 911 operations; 7.75 percent to pay the 911 service providers for the 
delivery of wireless calls to the PSAPs; 6 percent for PSAP training funds; 1.88 percent to the Michigan 
State Police PSAPs; and 1.87 percent to fund the State 911 Office.47  Some states pointed out that funds 
are managed solely at the local level.  Colorado stated that “a comprehensive list [of activities] cannot 
be provided by the state, as spending authority rests in the hands of 58 separate local 911 Authorities, 
and each may spend funds as they see fit within the authority of CRS § 29-11-104.”48   
 
22. The Bureau also requested that states identify whether their 911 fee collections were 
authorized to be used for specific expenditure categories, including (1) operating costs for customer 
premises equipment (CPE), computer aided dispatch (CAD) equipment and building and facilities; (2) 
personnel costs (telecommunicator salaries and training); (3) administrative costs associated with 
program administration and travel expenses; and (4) dispatch costs, including reimbursements to other 
law enforcement entities providing dispatch services and lease, purchase, and maintenance of radio 
dispatch networks.  State responses to this data request are compiled in Table 8. 
 
? Most responding states indicated that 911 funds could be used to cover operating expenses 
for CPE (46 states), CAD (36 states), and buildings and facilities (29 states).   
 
? With respect to personnel costs, thirty-one states reported applying 911 funds to salaries and 
forty-two states reported applying funds to training. 
 
? Most states also applied 911 funds to administrative costs, with forty-one covering program 
administration and thirty-nine applying funds to travel expenses. 
 
? As reported last year, fewer states reported applying 911 fees to dispatch-related costs.  
Nineteen states reported using 911 fees to reimburse other law enforcement entities providing 
dispatch service, while twenty-eight states reported that they used 911 funds to lease, 
purchase, or otherwise maintain radio dispatch networks. 
 
 
                                                     
45 Nevada did not respond to this question. 
46 Alabama Response at 7. 
47 Michigan Response at 7. 
48 Colorado Response at 7.  See also Idaho Response at 6; Louisiana Response at 6; Mississippi Response at 7. 
25 
 
Table 8 – Allowed Uses of Collected Fees 
 
  Operating Costs Personnel Costs Administrative Costs Dispatch Costs 
State 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of CPE 
(hardware 
and 
software) 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of CAD 
(hardware 
and 
software) 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Building 
and 
Facilities 
Salaries Training 
Program 
Administration 
Travel 
Expenses 
Reimbursement 
to Other Law 
Enforcement 
Providing 
Dispatch 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Radio 
Dispatch 
Networks 
AK Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
AL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
AR Yes Yes  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
AZ Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No 
CA Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
CO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
CT Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
DE Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No 
FL Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
GA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Unknown Yes 
HI Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes 
IA Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
ID Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No 
IL Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
IN Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
KS Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
KY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
LA Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
MD Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
ME Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
MI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
MN Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
MS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
MT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
NC Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
ND Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
NE Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
NJ No No No No No Yes No No No 
NM Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No 
NV Varies by County 
NY Did Not Respond to Question 
26 
 
  Operating Costs Personnel Costs Administrative Costs Dispatch Costs 
State 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of CPE 
(hardware 
and 
software) 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of CAD 
(hardware 
and 
software) 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Building 
and 
Facilities 
Salaries Training 
Program 
Administration 
Travel 
Expenses 
Reimbursement 
to Other Law 
Enforcement 
Providing 
Dispatch 
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Radio 
Dispatch 
Networks 
OH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 
OK  Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes  No 
OR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
PA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
RI Did Not Respond to Question 
SC Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
SD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
TN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
TX Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 
VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
VT Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No 
WA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 
WI No No No No No No No No No 
WV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 
WY Did Not Respond to Question 
Other Jurisdictions    
AS Did Not Respond to Question 
   
DC Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes 
   
PR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
   
USVI Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes 
   
 
23. The Bureau requested information related to the use of 911 funds to support state grant 
programs.  Nineteen states reported that they paid for grants through the use of collected 911 fees, and 
twenty-eight said they did not.49  Table 9 provides responding states’ descriptions of their grant 
programs. 
  
                                                     
49 Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and American Samoa did not respond to 
this question. 
27 
 
 
Table 9 – State Grants or Grant Programs 
 
State 
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the 
purpose of grant 
AL 
"A total of $110,800.00 was granted to an individual district based on the demonstration of need for 
purchase of GIS data management and map based computer aided dispatch systems. Grant funds are 
only available from the state office’s administrative 1% and during this time frame only $150,000.00 
was available." 
CT "Capital expense grants and transition grants for the purpose of consolidation PSAPs." 
IA 
"The State did not have any external grants available during this time frame. The state operated an 
E911 Carryover Grant as detailed in Code of Iowa 34A. From January 1, 2015-December 31, 2015, 
$100,000 was available per PSAP to local county service boards and no match was required. For the 
entire year, approval of the grant money was made by the E911 Program Manager and the E911 
Communications Council for PSAP improvements." 
ID 
“Pursuant to Idaho Code §31-4803, a county must get voter approval to institute an emergency 
communications fee in an amount no greater than one dollar ($1.00) per month per “telephone line”. 
The Act has been amended in recent years to include assessing the fee on both wireless and Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) service and now uses the term “access line” to indicate that all technology 
that is able to provide dial tone to access 9-1-1 is mandated to collect the fee. 
 
In 2008, the Idaho Legislature promulgated the implementation of an Enhanced Emergency 
Communications Grant Fee that was signed into law by the Governor and became Idaho Code §31-
4819. This additional fee can be imposed by the boards of commissioners of Idaho counties in the 
amount of $0.25 per month per access line to be contributed to the Enhanced Emergency 
Communications Grant Fund. The funds are distributed via a grant process governed by the IECC. 
Thirty-eight Idaho counties have begun assessing the enhanced fee.” 
KS 
“The Council has used the grant funds, which are derived from the 1.20% fee placed on prepaid 
wireless sales, to fund projects that are of statewide benefit, rather than making individual PSAP 
grants. These projects to date are the statewide GIS Enhancement Project, Statewide digital 
orthoimagery, consulting services for NG911, planning and implementation, and statewide NG911 
program management. 
 
Council operating expenses are also paid from the state grant fund. The grant funds are also utilized to 
pay nonrecurring costs for the statewide ESInet and call handling system and for recurring costs for 
the ESInet.” 
28 
 
State 
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the 
purpose of grant 
MA 
“The State 911 Department has developed and administers grant programs to assist PSAPs and 
regional emergency communication centers, or RECCs, in providing enhanced 911 service and to 
foster the development of regional PSAPs, regional secondary PSAPs, and RECCs.    
 
M.G.L. Chapter 6A, Section 18B(i) requires that the State 911 Department fund the following grant 
programs: the PSAP and Regional Emergency Communications Center Training Grant (“Training 
Grant”); the PSAP and Regional Emergency Communication Center Support Grant (“Support Grant”); 
the Regional PSAP and Regional Emergency Communication Center Incentive Grant (“Incentive 
Grant”); the Wireless State Police PSAP Grant; and the Regional and Regional Secondary PSAP and 
Regional Emergency Communications Center Development Grant (“Development Grant”).  See 
MG.L. Chapter 6A, Sections 18B(i)(1)-(5).  
 
The statute also permits the State 911 Department to introduce new grants associated with providing 
enhanced 911 service in the Commonwealth. See MG.L. Chapter 6A, Section 18B(f).   
 
As permitted by the statute, in 2011, the State 911 Department introduced a new grant, the Emergency 
Medical Dispatch (“EMD”) Grant.  The statute provides that the State 911 Commission shall approve 
all formulas, percentages, guidelines, or other mechanisms used to distribute these grants.  See M.G.L. 
Chapter 6A, Section 18B(a).   
 
The eligibility requirements, purpose, use of funding, including categories of use of funds, application 
process, grant review and selection process, and grant reimbursement process for each of these grants 
are set forth in the Grant Guidelines that are approved by the State 911 Commission.  These Grant 
Guidelines are available on the State 911 Department website at www.mass.gov/e911.”  
MD “9-1-1 Trust Fund monies are distributed for enhancements to county 9-1-1 service.” 
MN 
"According to Minn. Stat. §403.113, a portion of the fee collected must be used to fund 
implementation, operation, maintenance, enhancement, and expansion of enhanced 911 service, 
including acquisition of necessary equipment and the costs of the commissioner to administer the 
program. 
 
In CY2015 a total of $13,664,000 in funding was allocated to MN PSAPs using the funding 
mechanism described above." 
29 
 
State 
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the 
purpose of grant 
NC 
"Burke County: PSAP Consolidation with Sheriff’s Dept., Morganton Police, Valdese Fire 
Stanley County: Install a 911 Network with Brunswick and Haywood County 
Rockingham County: PSAP Consolidation Rockingham Sheriff, Eden Police, Reidsville Police,   
Madison PD, Mayodan Police, Stoneville Police, Rockingham Fire, Rockingham EMS, Rockingham 
Co Rescue Squad 
Brunswick County: PSAP Consolidation Brunswick and Oak Island 
Lenoir County:  PSAP Consolidation Lenoir Co and Jones Co for all law enforcement, EMS and fire 
depts within each county 
Gates County: PSAP Equipment Upgrade 
Henderson County: PSAP Relocation 
Hertford County:  PSAP Consolidation Hertford Co, Murfreesboro PD & Ahoskie PD 
Orange County:  PSAP Equipment Upgrade 
Swain County: 911 Equipment Enhancement/Replacement Program 
Caldwell County: PSAP Upgrade and create a backup PSAP 
Dare County:  PSAP Consolidation with Tyrell County 
Haywood County: PSAP Consolidation with Sheriff’s Dept. and upgrade PSAP Equipment 
Swain-Jackson County:  Create Regional PSAP Connectivity 
E-CATS: Emergency Call Tracking System (call answering statistics) 
Ortho Project Image 14: Image 14 Northern Piedmont 26 Counties (Orthoimagery Mapping) 
Ortho Project Image 15 Image 15 Southern Piedmont 24 Counties (Orthoimagery Mapping)" 
NE 
"Within the 911-SAM cost model for wireless funds, the PSC established a WSP grant fund.  The 
details of which can be found on pages 11 and 12 of the following linked order.  This grant fund is 
being phased out and will no longer be available in the 2017-2018 fiscal year.  
http://psc.nebraska.gov/orders/ntips/911-019.PI-118.14.pdf." 
NM 
"Grants to local government pay for E-911 equipment and maintenance, generators, dispatch consoles, 
recorders, dispatch software, GIS equipment and training, 911 training, 911 and Data Networks, 
Network termination equipment, such as routers, firewalls and switches." 
NY 
"The Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (DHSES) supports the following grant 
programs through the $75 million appropriation: 
 
1. $45 million for Round V of the State Interoperable Communications grant program; 
2. $10 million for the PSAP grant program 
3. $20 million in capital and targeted grants.” 
30 
 
State 
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the 
purpose of grant 
TN 
“The TECB offered ECDs non-recurring (one-time) funding and reimbursements for the purchase of 
essential equipment and other items up to the following amounts: 
 
• $50,000 for Geographic Information System (“GIS”) Mapping Systems 
• $40,000 for Controllers 
• $450,000 for Essential Equipment 
• $5,000 for Master Clocks 
• $150,000 to each ECD that Consolidates (to a maximum of 3 ECDs) 
• $1,000 to Train Dispatcher Trainers 
• $100,000 to Cover Uninsured Catastrophic Event Losses 
 
The TECB also made $25 million available to ECDs for CPE equipment used to connect them to the 
state-wide NG911 platform the state is deploying to modernize Tennessee’s 911 infrastructure. The 
funding plan provided each ECD with a base amount of $120,000 plus an additional amount 
determined by the district’s population. 
 
As of January, 2015, the TECB ceased these funding programs due to the new funding law. However, 
the TECB is still distributing funds from the essential and necessary equipment fund until the funding 
is exhausted.” 
TX 
"The state 9-1-1 program administered by CSEC provides grants of legislatively appropriated 9-1-1 
and equalization surcharge funds to 23 RPCs for the specific purpose of providing 9-1-1 service in 
each RPC’s region. CSEC provides grants of appropriated surcharge revenues to six Regional Poison 
Control Center host hospitals to partially fund the state Poison Control Program. (Equalization 
surcharge revenue is also appropriated to UTMB-Galveston, the Department of State Health Services, 
and TTUHSC to fund emergency medical dispatch services, county and regional emergency medical 
services and trauma care, and a telemedicine medical services pilot program, respectively.)" 
UT 
"Grants for CPE equipment were paid through the use of collected 911/E911 fees from the statewide 
$0.09 fee (9 cent fund) directed to the Utah 911 Advisory Committee. 
 
Grants for consulting services regarding a CAD study were paid from the statewide Computer Aided 
Dispatch $0.06 fee (6 cent fund). 
 
Grants for CAD functional elements were paid from the statewide Computer Aided Dispatch $0.06 fee 
(6 cent fund)." 
VA 
"The PSAP Grant Program is a multi-million dollar grant program administered by the Virginia E-911 
Services Board.  The primary purpose of this program is to financially assist Virginia primary PSAPs 
with the purchase of equipment and services that support Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG-91-1) and 
Enhanced (E)-911.  Any Virginia primary PSAP that supports wireless E-911 is eligible to apply for 
and receive these funds either as an individual applicant or as part of a shared services project." 
31 
 
State 
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the 
purpose of grant 
WA 
"The state provides operational funding grants to smaller counties that do not collect sufficient local 
911 excise tax revenues to support a basic level 911 program.  These grants provide for salaries, 
equipment, maintenance, and training funds." 
WV 
"One million ($1,000,000.00) dollars per year is awarded by the Public Service Commission of West 
Virginia as grants for the construction of cell towers, pursuant to WV Code §24-6-6b" 
 
 
F. Description of 911/E911 Fees Collected  
 
24. In order to provide an overview of the sources of 911 fees, the questionnaire directed 
respondents to describe the amount of fees or charges imposed for the implementation and support of 
911 and E911 services and to distinguish between state and local fees for each service type (wireline, 
wireless, prepaid wireless, VoIP, and other services).  Table 10 provides an overview of the number of 
states and localities that levy a fee on each service type. 
 
Table 10 – Summary of State and Local Authorities That Levy 911 Fees 
 
Service Type State Local Both 
No 
Response or 
No Fee 
Wireline 26 16 5 5 
Wireless 36 5 5 3 
Prepaid 36 1 3 7 
VoIP 25 10 6 6 
Other 6 1 0 29 
 
 
25. Table 11 details the fees that each reporting state and jurisdiction levied on wireline, 
wireless, prepaid, VoIP and other services during calendar year 2015. 
 
  
32 
 
 
 
Table 11 – State Description of Service Type and Associated Fees 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
AK 
Wireline Up to 2.00 per phone   X     
Wireless Up to 2.00 per phone X       
Prepaid N/A         
VoIP N/A         
Other         X 
AL 
Wireline $1.75 X       
Wireless $1.75 X       
Prepaid $1.75 X       
VoIP $1.75 X       
Other $1.75 X       
AR 
Wireline 
Amount up to five 
percent (5%) or for any 
counties with a 
population fewer than 
27,500 the amount may 
be up to twelve percent 
(12%) of the tariff rate 
(Note: Four Arkansas 
Counties have not levied 
the wireline surcharge.) 
  X 
  
  
Wireless $0.65 X       
Prepaid $0.65 per transaction X       
VoIP $0.65 X       
Other         X 
AZ 
Wireline 
$0.20 per month each 
activated wire service 
account 
X   
  
  
Wireless 
$0.20 per month each 
activated wireless 
service account 
X   
  
  
33 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Prepaid 
.80 of one percent from 
the retail sale of wireless 
services. Retailer can 
retain 3% prior to 
submittal 
X   
  
  
VoIP 
$0.20 per month each 
activated wire service 
account 
X   
  
  
Other None       X 
CA 
Wireline $0.75 of 1% X       
Wireless $0.75 of 1% X       
Prepaid $0.75 of 1% X       
VoIP $0.75 of 1% X       
Other N/A       X 
CO 
Wireline $0.43 to $1.75   X     
Wireless $0.43 to $1.75   X     
Prepaid 
1.4% of retail sales of 
minutes 
X       
VoIP $0.43 to $1.75   X     
Other None       X 
CT 
Wireline $0.51 per access line X       
Wireless $0.51 per access line X       
Prepaid $0.51 per access line X       
VoIP $0.51 per access line X       
Other         X 
DE 
Wireline $0.60 per line X       
Wireless $0.60 per line X       
Prepaid $0.60 per line X       
VoIP $0.60 per line X       
34 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Other         X 
FL 
Wireline 
$0.40 cents per month 
The fee applies 
uniformly and is 
imposed throughout the 
state, except for three 
counties that, before July 
1, 2007, had adopted an 
ordinance or resolution 
establishing a fee less 
than the previous fee of 
$0.50 per month, per 
access line. 
X       
Wireless $0.40 per month X       
Prepaid $0.40 per month X       
VoIP $0.40 per month X       
Other         X 
GA 
Wireline $1.50 per month   X     
Wireless $1.00 per month   X     
Prepaid $0.75 per transaction   X     
VoIP $1.50 per month   X     
Other         X 
HI 
Wireline $0.27 per user per month     
Hawaiian Telcom 
Bill and Keep 
  
Wireless $0.66 per user month X       
Prepaid None       X 
VoIP $0.66 per user month X       
Other         X 
IA 
Wireline $1.00 per line per month         
Wireless $1.00 per line per month         
Prepaid $0.51 per transaction         
35 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP $1.00 per line per month Nomadic VoIP 
Static 
VoIP 
    
Other         X 
ID 
Wireline $1.00 or $1.25 
If collecting $1.00, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations 
 
If collecting $1.25, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations and $0.25 to Grant Fund 
  
Wireless $1.00 or $1.25 
If collecting $1.00, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations 
 
If collecting $1.25, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations and $0.25 to Grant Fund 
  
Prepaid 2.5% at point of sale 
99% to local 
 
1% to ECC Operations 
  
VoIP $1.00 or $1.25 
If collecting $1.00, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations 
 
If collecting $1.25, $0.99 to local, $0.01 to 
ECC Operations and $0.25 to Grant Fund 
  
Other          X 
IL 
Wireline 
Fee ranges from $0.30 to 
$5.00 
  X     
Wireless $0.73 X       
Prepaid 
1.5% per retail 
transaction 
X       
VoIP 
Fee ranges from $0.30 to 
$5.00 
  X     
Other         X 
IN 
Wireline $1.00 X       
Wireless $1.00 X       
36 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Prepaid $1.00 per transaction X       
VoIP $1.00 X       
Other         X 
KS 
Wireline 
$0.60 per subscriber 
account 
X       
Wireless 
$0.60 per subscriber 
account 
X       
Prepaid 
$0.60 per subscriber 
account 
X       
VoIP 
$0.60 per subscriber 
account 
X       
Other 
$0.60 per subscriber 
account 
X       
KY 
Wireline 
$0.32 to $4.00 
(varies by county) 
  X     
Wireless $0.70 X       
Prepaid 
Impose $0.70 per 
transaction, but collect 
$0.30 per transaction 
X       
VoIP 
$0.32 to $4.00 
(varies by county) 
  X     
Other 
Campbell County: $45 
annual fee per occupied 
residence or business  
 
Kenton County: $60 
annual fee per real-estate 
parcel 
  X     
LA 
Wireline 
Up to 5% of Tariff Rate 
on Exchange Service 
  X     
Wireless 
$0.85 for all Parishes 
except for Caddo County 
is $1.00 and Jefferson/St. 
Bernard is $1.26 
  X     
Prepaid 2% at point of sale X       
37 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP NR   X     
Other         X 
MA 
Wireline 
$0.75 cents per month 
through 6/30/15 
$1.25 per month 
effective 7/1/15 
X       
Wireless 
$0.75 cents per month 
through 6/30/15 
$1.25 per month 
effective 7/1/16 
X       
Prepaid 
$0.75 cents per month 
through 6/30/15 
$1.25 per month 
effective 7/1/17 
X       
VoIP 
$0.75 cents per month 
through 6/30/15 
$1.25 per month 
effective 7/1/18 
X       
Other         X 
MD 
Wireline $1.00     
$0.25 to State 
Trust Fund 
 
$0.75 to county 
  
Wireless $1.00     
$0.25 to State 
Trust Fund 
 
$0.75 to county 
  
Prepaid $1.00     
$0.25 to State 
Trust Fund 
 
$0.75 to county 
  
VoIP $1.00     
$0.25 to State 
Trust Fund 
 
$0.75 to county 
  
Other         X 
ME 
Wireline $0.45 X       
Wireless $0.45 X       
38 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Prepaid $0.45 X       
VoIP $0.45 X       
Other         X 
MI 
Wireline 
$0.19 (state) 
 
$0.20 to $3.00 (local) 
X X     
Wireless 
$0.19 (state) 
 
$0.20 to $3.00 (local) 
X X     
Prepaid 1.92% per transaction         
VoIP 
$0.19 (state) 
 
$0.20 to $3.00 (local) 
X X     
Other         X 
MN 
Wireline $0.78 X       
Wireless $0.78 X       
Prepaid $0.78 X       
VoIP $0.78 X       
Other         X 
MS 
Wireline 
$1.00 per residential line 
 
$2.00 per commercial 
line 
  X     
Wireless N/A       X 
Prepaid N/A       X 
VoIP $1.00 per line   X     
Other         X 
MT 
Wireline $1.00 X       
Wireless $1.00 X       
Prepaid None       X 
39 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP None       X 
Other         X 
NC 
Wireline $0.60 X       
Wireless $0.60 X       
Prepaid $0.60 X       
VoIP $0.60 X       
Other         X 
ND 
Wireline $1.00-$1.50   X     
Wireless $1.00-$1.50   X     
Prepaid 
2% of gross receipts at 
point of sale 
X       
VoIP $1.00-$1.50   X     
Other         X 
NE 
Wireline $0.50 to $1.00 per line   X     
Wireless $0.45 X       
Prepaid 1% of transaction X       
VoIP $0.50 to $1.00 per line   X     
Other         X 
NH 
Wireline $0.75 X       
Wireless $0.75 X       
Prepaid $0.75 X       
VoIP $0.75 X       
Other         X 
NJ 
Wireline $0.90 per month X       
Wireless $0.90 per month X       
Prepaid None       X 
40 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP $0.90 per month X       
Other         X 
NM 
Wireline $0.51 per line per month X       
Wireless $0.51 per line per month X       
Prepaid None         
VoIP None         
Other         X 
NV 
Wireline 
$0.25 or greater per line 
(varies by county) 
  X 
  
  
Wireless 
$0.25 or greater per line 
(varies by county) 
  X 
  
  
Prepaid None       X 
VoIP 
$0.25 or greater per line 
(varies by county) 
    
  
  
Other          X 
NY 
Wireline 
$0.35 to $1.00 per month 
per access line 
    X   
Wireless 
State: $1.20 per month 
per device 
 
Local: $0.30 per month 
per device 
    X   
Prepaid None       X 
VoIP 
$0.25 or greater per line 
(varies by county) 
  X     
Other         X 
OH 
Wireline           
Wireless $0.25 per month X       
Prepaid .05% at point of sale X       
41 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP           
Other           
OK 
Wireline 
Percentage of bill 
[Not Specified] 
  X      
Wireless $0.50  X       
Prepaid $0.50    X     
VoIP         X 
Other         X 
OR 
Wireline $0.75 X       
Wireless $0.75 X       
Prepaid $0.75 X       
VoIP $0.75 X       
Other         X 
PA 
Wireline 
$1.00 - $1.50 through 
7/31/2015 
 
$1.65 effective 8/1/2015 
    
"67 counties and 
2 cities 
(Allentown and 
Bethlehem) 
All funds are 
remitted to the 
Commonwealth 
effective 
8/1/2015.” 
  
Wireless 
$1.00 through 7/31/2015 
 
$1.65 effective 8/1/2015 
X       
Prepaid 
$1.00 through 7/31/2015 
 
$1.65 effective 8/1/2015 
X       
VoIP 
$1.00 - $1.50 through 
7/31/2015 
 
$1.65 effective 8/1/2015 
    
“Funds are 
remitted to either 
the State 
Treasurer or the 
67 Counties and 
2 cities 
(Allentown & 
  
42 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Bethlehem). 
All funds are 
remitted to the 
Commonwealth 
effective 
8/1/2015.” 
Other         X 
RI 
Wireline $1.00 per access line X       
Wireless $1.26 per line X       
Prepaid 
2.5% per retail 
transaction 
X       
VoIP $1.26 per line X       
Other         X 
SC 
Wireline $0.45 - $1.00   X     
Wireless $0.62 X       
Prepaid $0.62 X       
VoIP $0.45 - $1.00   X     
Other         X 
SD 
Wireline $1.25 per line X       
Wireless $1.25 per line X       
Prepaid 2% at point of sale X       
VoIP $1.25 per line X       
Other         X 
TN 
Wireline $1.16 per line X       
Wireless $1.16 per line X       
Prepaid $1.16 per line X       
VoIP $1.16 per line X       
Other $1.16 per line X     X 
43 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
TX 
Wireline 
State 9-1-1 Program 
(CSEC/RPC): 
 
The wireline fee is set by 
CSEC at $0.50 per 
access line/per month 
(the rate is capped by 
statute at $0.50). 
 
Emergency 
Communications 
Districts: 
 
Residential: $0.20 - 
$1.44 per local exchange 
access line/month. 
 
Business: $0.46 - $5.40 
per access line/month, 
up to a 100 line 
maximum in most ECD 
service areas. 
 
Business Trunk: $0.74 to 
$5.40." 
“In the state 9-1-1 program area 
(CSEC/RPCs), wireline fees are collected and 
remitted to the Texas Comptroller of Public 
Accounts (Texas Comptroller) and deposited 
into a general revenue dedicated account 
(GRD).  
 
Funds in the GRD are appropriated by the 
Texas Legislature to CSEC on a biennial 
basis to fund 9-1-1 service in the state 9-1-1 
program.  
 
In ECD (statutory and municipal) service 
areas, wireline fees are set by each ECD; and 
collected and remitted directly to the ECD.” 
  
Wireless $0.50 per line X       
Prepaid 2% of purchase price X       
44 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP 
State 9-1-1 Program 
(CSEC/RPC): 
The wireline fee is set by 
CSEC at $0.50 per 
access line/per month 
(the rate is capped by 
statute at $0.50). 
 
Emergency 
Communications 
Districts: 
 
Residential: $0.20 - 
$1.44 per local exchange 
access line/month. 
 
Business: $0.46 - $5.40 
per access line/month, 
up to a 100 line 
maximum in most ECD 
service areas. 
 
Business Trunk: $0.74 to 
$5.40." 
“In the state 9-1-1 program area 
(CSEC/RPCs), wireline fees are collected and 
remitted to the Texas Comptroller of Public 
Accounts (Texas Comptroller) and deposited 
into a general revenue dedicated account 
(GRD). Funds in the GRD are appropriated 
by the Texas Legislature to CSEC on a 
biennial basis to fund 9-1-1 service in the 
state 9-1-1 program. In ECD (statutory and 
municipal) service areas, wireline fees are set 
by each ECD; and collected and remitted 
directly to the ECD.” 
  
Other 
State equalization 
surcharge: $0.06/month 
per local exchange 
access line access line or 
wireless 
telecommunications 
connection (excluding 
connections that 
constitute prepaid 
wireless 
telecommunications 
service). 
X   
  
  
UT 
Wireline $0.76 X       
Wireless $0.76 X       
Prepaid 1.9% at point of sale X       
VoIP $0.76 X       
Other $0.76 X       
VA Wireline $0.75 X       
45 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
Wireless $0.75 X       
Prepaid $0.50 X       
VoIP $0.75 X       
Other         X 
VT 
Wireline 
2% customer 
telecommunications 
charges 
X       
Wireless 
2% customer 
telecommunications 
charges 
X       
Prepaid 
2% customer 
telecommunications 
charges 
X       
VoIP Voluntary X       
Other         X 
WA 
Wireline 
State:  $0.25 per line 
 
County: $0.70 per line 
    X   
Wireless 
State:  $0.25 per line 
 
County: $0.70 per line 
    X   
Prepaid 
State:  $0.25 per line 
 
County: $0.70 per line 
    X   
VoIP 
State:  $0.25 per line 
 
County: $0.70 per line 
    X   
Other         X 
46 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
WI 
Wireline Varies by county Participating local exchange carriers   
Wireless None       X 
Prepaid None       X 
VoIP None       X 
Other         X 
WV 
Wireline Varies by county   X     
Wireless $3.00 per line X       
Prepaid 6% at point of sale X       
VoIP Varies by county   X     
Other         X 
WY 
Wireline 
Did Not Respond to the 
Question 
        
Wireless         
Prepaid         
VoIP         
Other         
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 
Wireline “N/A”         
Wireless “N/A”         
Prepaid “N/A”         
VoIP “N/A”         
Other “N/A”         
DC 
Wireline $0.76 per line X       
Wireless $0.76 per line X       
Prepaid 
2% at the retail point of 
sale and sales made over 
Internet 
X   
  
  
47 
 
 
State 
Service Type and Fee Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
Type Fee State Local Combo or Other None 
VoIP $0.76 per line X       
Other 
Centrex $0.62 
 
PBX Trunks $4.96 per 
Trunk 
X   
  
  
PR 
Wireline 
$0.50 per residential line 
 
$1.00 per commercial 
line 
X   
  
  
Wireless 
$0.50 per residential line 
 
$1.00 per commercial 
line 
X   
  
  
Prepaid $0.50 X       
VoIP None       X 
Other         X 
USVI 
Wireline $1.00 X       
Wireless $1.00 X       
Prepaid $1.00 X       
VoIP $1.00 X       
Other         X 
 
 
26. The questionnaire asked states to report the total amount collected pursuant to the 
assessed fees or charges by service type, including wireline, wireless, VoIP, prepaid wireless, and any 
other service-based fees.  Table 12 shows that, in total, states and other jurisdictions reported collecting 
approximately $2,631,705,008.98 in 911 fees or related charges for calendar year 2015.  Table 12 also 
includes the Bureau’s estimate of annual fee collections on a per capita basis for each reporting state 
and jurisdiction.  Although 911 fees are typically collected on a per customer basis rather than a per 
capita basis, the per capita estimate nonetheless provides a useful benchmark for comparing fee 
collections and expenditures across states and other jurisdictions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
Table 12– Total Amount Collected in 911 Fees by Service Type 
 
State Wireline Wireless VoIP Prepaid Other  Total  
Estimated 
Amount 
Collected 
Annually 
Per 
Capita
50
 
AK $4,194,179.23 $8,642,934.45 -- -- -- $12,837,113.68 $18.07 
AL $19,019,481.88 $64,603,268.94 -- $32,817,352.51 -- $116,440,103.36 $24.36 
AR $7,390,852.50 $15,564,456.33 
Included in Wireline 
and Wireless 
$4,030,246.16 -- $26,985,554.99 $9.25 
AZ $17,035,154.00 $2,152,519.00 $39,549.00 $19,227,222.00  $3.01 
CA Not Specified  $87,838,234.00  $2.36 
CO
51
 $11,217,995.00 $32,949,356.00 $5,495,091.00 $3,070,289.00 -- $52,732,731.00 $10.49 
CT Not Specified  $32,564,308.00 $9.11 
DE Not Specified  $8,159,730.03
52
 $9.09 
FL $19,945,141.00 $63,967,822.00 $17,763,020.00 $6,550,974.00 -- $108,226,957.00 $5.76 
GA Unknown  Unknown  Unknown  
 
$17,659,037.41 
(GA Fiscal 
Year 7/1/14-
6/30/15)  
-- $17,659,037.41 $1.82 
HI $802,130.87 $8,469,123.00 $965,779.00 
 
-- $10,237,032.00 $7.53 
IA $12,390,169.00 $26,124,016.75 
 
$2,033,581.44 -- $40,547,767.19 $13.31 
                                                     
50 Bureau estimate based on United States 2010 Census data for each jurisdiction. 
51 Colorado reported that its wireline, wireless, and VoIP fee collections are “extrapolated based on partial survey 
responses from local 911 Authorities.”  Further, it stated that “updated figures for 2015 are unavailable. This figure 
is carried forward from the 2015 NET 911 Act Report, reporting 2014 collection data.”  Colorado Response at 10. 
52 Delaware did not provide a total amount collected.  For purposes of overall analysis, the Bureau uses the amount 
Delaware reported it collected during the 2014 annual period. 
49 
 
State Wireline Wireless VoIP Prepaid Other  Total  
Estimated 
Amount 
Collected 
Annually 
Per 
Capita
50
 
ID $17,244,632.00 $1,593,302.58 
$2,128,681.86 
(based on $.25 
grant monies 
collected and 
used for local 
grants) 
$20,952,378.70 $13.37 
IL $32,545,952.00 $57,045,443.00 $5,908,954.00 
Included in 
wireless 
-- $95,500,349.00  $7.44 
IN $9,339,826.53 $52,195,417.60 $8,816,671.16 $8,756,942.56 -- $79,108,857.85 $12.20 
KS $19,359,085.98 $1,462,888.26 -- $20,821,974.24 $7.30 
KY $27,500,000.00 $22,500,000.00 Included in Wireline $3,500,000.00 Unknown  $53,500,000.00 $12.33 
LA Unknown 
$36,500,000.00  
(est.) 
Unknown 
$6,250,000.00 
(est.) 
Unknown  $42,750,000.00 $9.43 
MA $12,172,463.18 $57,321,691.93 $18,884,801.41 $7,129,816.88 -- $95,508,773.40 $14.59 
MD $21,141,813.46 $26,668,465.67 N/A $5,504,127.19 -- $53,314,406.32 $9.23 
ME 
$2,117,604.00 
(estimated) 
$4,089,167.00 
(estimated) 
$1,095,313.00 
(estimated) 
$1,100,389.00 -- $8,402,473.00 $6.33 
MI 
State:  $20,176,396.60 
 
Counties: $64,755,058.00 
State:  
$8,402,028.16 
 
Counties: N/A 
-- $93,333,482.76  $9.44 
MN $17,722,783.10 $37,149,738.61 $2,567,266.25 $4,671,070.27 -- $62,110,858.23 $11.71 
MS  Not Specified   $26,510,538.00 $8.93 
MT  Not Specified   $13,000,000.00 $13.14 
NC $14,640,345.46 $45,536,147.06 $11,033,117.77 $9,925,767.02 -- $81,135,377.32 $8.51 
ND $9,998,322.00 N/A $339,585.00 -- $10,337,907.00 $15.37 
50 
 
State Wireline Wireless VoIP Prepaid Other  Total  
Estimated 
Amount 
Collected 
Annually 
Per 
Capita
50
 
NE $5,858,112.66 $7,012,329.84 Unknown $1,030,005.04 -- $13,900,447.54 $7.61 
NH $2,335,953.27 $7,541,818.47 $2,439,645.81 $0.00 -- $12,317,417.55 $9.36 
NJ Not Specified $122,632,000.00 $13.95 
NM Not Specified $11,146,012.00 $5.41 
NV 
Washoe Co.: 
$515,482.00 
(includes 
VoIP) 
Washoe Co.: 
$1,032,455.00 
(includes 
Prepaid) 
    
Washoe Co.: 
$43,430.00 
(reseller) 
$1,591,367.00 
$3.78 
(Washoe 
County) 
NY Did Not Provide $185,262,082.0053 $9.56 
OH 
Reporting 
Counties: 
$2,868,057.42 
State: 
$25,000,000.00 
(estimate 
includes 
prepaid) 
 
Reporting 
Counties: 
$5,093,094.44 
 Reporting 
Counties: 
$628.00 
Reporting 
Counties: 
$473.72 
  
 $40,382,365.16 $3.50 
OK Unknown -- -- 
OR Not Specified $39,470,386.00 $10.30 
PA $49,661,957.00 $127,605,219.00 $37,891,894.00 $24,641,148.00  -- $239,800,218.00 $18.88 
RI $4,901,092.54 $10,558,468.90 Included in wireline $885,802.37 -- $16,345,363.80  $15.53 
SC 
$11,160,000.00 
(estimated) 
$21,381,001.22 
Included in wireline 
figure 
$6,513,281.27 --  $39,054,282.49 $8.44 
SD $3,999,727.00 $8,007,712.00 $55,247.00 $1,031,016.00 -- $13,093,702.00 $16.08 
TN Not Specified $78,729,854.00 $12.41 
                                                     
53 In its response, New York did not provide information on total fees collected.  However, the New York State 
Department of Taxation and Finance reports that in 2015 the state collected approximately $185,262,082 from the 
state’s Public Safety Communications Surcharge.  See New York State, Department of Taxation and Finance, Fiscal 
Year Tax Collections: 2015-2016, at https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2015-16_Collections/Table%202.pdf. 
51 
 
State Wireline Wireless VoIP Prepaid Other  Total  
Estimated 
Amount 
Collected 
Annually 
Per 
Capita
50
 
TX $69,900,837.00 $108,963,296.00 Included in wireline $24,885,131.00 $19,189,471.00 $222,938,735.00 $8.87 
UT $8,085,555.00 $18,866,295.00 Included in Wireless $179,022.00 -- $27,130,872.00 $9.82 
VA $27,525,822.93 $57,905,783.16 Unknown 
Included in 
wireless 
-- $85,431,606.09 $10.68 
VT Unknown $6,256,658.0054 $10.00 
WA 
$4,000,070.00 
(State) 
 
$11,395,554.00 
(Counties)  
$15,382,384.00 
(State) 
 
$42,511,827.00 
(Counties) 
$3,079,479.00 
(State) 
 
$8,616,974.00 
(Counties) 
$2,551,640.00 
(State) 
 
$6,905,032.00 
(Counties) 
-- $94,445,461.00 -- 
WI  Unknown  -- -- 
WV $19,405,563.00 $35,810,340.00 Included in wireline $1,433,419.00 
 
$56,649,322.00 $30.57 
WY Unknown    
Other Jurisdictions   
AS Not Applicable -- -- 
DC $2,236,576.13 $5,342,986.04 $1,420,166.40 $630,587.93 
Centrex: 
$1,485,025.24 
 
PBX Trunks: 
$1,0730,889.60 
$12,189,231.34 $20.26 
PR Not Specified $21,896,788.53 $5.88 
USVI Not Specified $1,297,671.00 $12.20 
Total:  $2,631,705,008.98 
Average State Amount Collected Per Capita $10.55 
National Amount Collected Per Capita $8.58 
                                                     
54 In its filing, Vermont states that the agent in charge of the Vermont Universal Fund did not provide it with the 
total amount collected from the state’s 2% Universal Service Fee on telecommunications service providers.  See 
Vermont Response at 11.  In 2015 the Vermont Universal Fund collected approximately $6,256,658 from 
telecommunications carriers, a portion of which is directed to fund the annual statewide 911 service budget.  See 
Independent Auditors’ Report, Vermont Universal Service Fund Financial Statements, Years Ended June 30, 2015 
and 2014, at http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Telecom/USF/Vermont%20Universal.pdf.  
52 
 
 
27. States were asked whether any 911/E911 Fees were combined with any federal, state or 
local funds, grants, special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services.  Of the 53 responding jurisdictions listed in Table 13, 22 states, the District 
of Columbia, and the US Virgin Islands reported combining collected fees with other funds or grants to 
support 911 services and 25 report they did not.   
 
Table 13 – States Reporting Whether 911 Fees Are Combined with  
Federal, State or Local Funds or Grants, Special Collections, or General Budget Appropriations 
 
Responses regarding combination of collected fees with any federal, state or local funds, grants, 
special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services. 
State Yes No No Response 
If Yes, description of federal, state or local funds combined 
with 911/E911 fees 
AK   X     
AL X     
"Any funds that support 911 are either obtained or contributed at 
the local level, but not in the form of an additional 911 fee, as that 
is prohibited by law. Rather, additional funding may be in the 
form of a contract with responder agencies or some other locally 
obtained funding from grants, the county/municipality they serve, 
etc. Also, this additional funding is self-reported by the local 
district and not all districts report. The most recent submission for 
fiscal year ending 2015 was provided by 69 of the 88 districts and 
reports $8,949,358.75 from county/municipal funding, 
$28,244.04 from federal grants, and $2,201.23 from state grants." 
AR   X     
AZ   X   N/A 
CA   X     
CO X     
"911 surcharge funds are combined with local funds regularly 
across the state to fund the provision of 911 service. 911 
surcharge funds are generally not sufficient to fully fund 911 
services, and the difference is made up by city and county 
governments." 
CT   X   N/A 
DE   X   N/A 
FL X     
"Emergency Communications Number E911 System Fund 
Interest: $667,136 
 
County General Revenues:  $95,378,141 
 
Annualized state and rural county grant expenditures:  
$9,647,064" 
GA X     Unknown 
53 
 
Responses regarding combination of collected fees with any federal, state or local funds, grants, 
special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services. 
State Yes No No Response 
If Yes, description of federal, state or local funds combined 
with 911/E911 fees 
HI X     
"The fees collected to support 911/E911/NG911 are insufficient 
to entirely support those services offered by the PSAPs. The 
amounts of federal, state, local funds, etc. that were combined 
with fees collected were not disclosed." 
IA X     
"In addition to surcharge funding, local PSAPs are often also 
provided funds through county general fund appropriations, 
support from Sheriff Office funds, city general funds, and 
emergency management grants. These costs are broken down in 
the answer to question 5 of this section." 
ID   X   "No fees combined at the State level." 
IL   X     
IN X     
"On average, the 911 fee pays for 38% of operating costs at the 
local level. Local government relies upon other sources of 
funding to make up the difference. Those funds come from one or 
more of the following: property taxes, local option income tax, 
county adjusted gross income tax, casino funds, other." 
KS X     
"Local general fund monies are used extensively to fund 911 in 
Kansas. These funds are derived from property taxes." 
KY X     
“Essentially the costs for providing 911 services are paid at the 
local level.  911 fees collected by the state on wireless phones are 
distributed to local governments in regular quarterly payments 
(and grants) to help pay for daily operational costs and capital 
purchases ($19 million).  State 911 fees are combined at the local 
level with local general fund appropriations ($32 million) and 
local 911 fees ($28 million) to support 911 services.  No other 
state funds are appropriated for ‘local’ 911 services.  (State 
general funds help pay for 911 services provided by the State 
Police.) A minimal amount of federal grant money (<$2 million) 
will be used at the local level for 911 services.” 
LA     X “Unknown” 
MA   X     
MD X     
“County (including the independent jurisdiction of Baltimore 
City) general funds." 
ME   X     
54 
 
Responses regarding combination of collected fees with any federal, state or local funds, grants, 
special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services. 
State Yes No No Response 
If Yes, description of federal, state or local funds combined 
with 911/E911 fees 
MI X     
"County Millages: $33,018,238.38 
 
Local/County General Funds: $114,742,581.20 
 
Other Receipts: $20,399,582.70 (grants, tower rentals, contracts 
for service, etc.)" 
MN   X     
MS X     
"Local budgets must supplement funds received from wireline 
fees collected to cover operation costs." 
MT X     "Local funds" 
NC X     
"E911 funds were combined with general fund allocations from 
each of the 119 Primary PSAPs and 6 Secondary PSAPs to pay 
for expenses not allowed by NC General Statutes to provide for 
E911 services. Examples of expenses not allowed from collected 
911 fees are telecommunicator salaries, facility maintenance, and 
radio network infrastructure." 
ND X     
"Prepaid wireless revenue collected by the Office of State Tax 
Commissioner are combined with a percentage of the fee revenue 
collected locally to cover expenses associated with the state’s 
transition to NG9-1-1." 
NE X     
"Local jurisdictions are also supported by general funds. 
State 911 funds have not been comingled with any other funding 
sources." 
NH   X     
NJ   X     
NM   X     
NV   X     
NY 
  
X 
 
OH X     
"See attached spreadsheet for local responses from 80 of Ohio’s 
88 counties." 
OK 
 
X 
  
OR X     
"The Distribution to the 9-1-1 jurisdictions is combined with local 
monies to pay for 9-1-1." 
55 
 
Responses regarding combination of collected fees with any federal, state or local funds, grants, 
special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services. 
State Yes No No Response 
If Yes, description of federal, state or local funds combined 
with 911/E911 fees 
PA X     
"Any 911 related expenses not covered by 911 fees are covered 
by the general fund of the respective County or City." 
RI     X   
SC X     
"Local Jurisdictions collect landline 911 fees and combine those 
fees with the wireless 911 funds distributed by our office to 
support local 911/E911/NG911 services." 
SD X     
"At the state level, the answer to this question is no. The 911 
dollars were not combined with any other funding at the state 
level. However, at the local level (county/municipality) they 
supplement their 911 surcharge funds with additional funding 
from these sources: local general funds, Office of Homeland 
Security grant funds, State 911 Surcharge interest, State Grants, 
Other Intergovernmental Revenue, Charges for Goods/Services, 
Emergency Management Performance Grant, other Federal 
Grants, PSAP city/county host subsidy." 
TN   X     
TX   X     
UT   X     
VA   X     
VT   X     
WA X     
"While the exact amount is unknown, all local PSAP jurisdictions 
contribute additional local funds to augment State and Local 
E911 excise taxes, in covering the costs of 911 statewide.  It is 
estimated that on average statewide 15% of the actual cost of 
providing Washington State approved 911 activities comes from 
these local sources.  In many cases this comes from local 
government general use funds or individual agency user fees.  In 
addition, Washington State Patrol operates 4 Primary and 4 
Secondary PSAPs using some funding from their direct budget." 
WI   X     
WV   X     
WY 
  
X 
 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS   X   "N/A. No fees collected." 
56 
 
Responses regarding combination of collected fees with any federal, state or local funds, grants, 
special collections, or general budget appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services. 
State Yes No No Response 
If Yes, description of federal, state or local funds combined 
with 911/E911 fees 
DC X     "Local Funds: $28,172,500" 
PR   X   
 
USVI X     
"Appropriated general budget in the amount of $1,612,574 for 
salaries and fringe benefits." 
Totals 24 25 4 
 
 
 
28. Lastly, the Bureau requested that states provide an estimate of the proportional 
contribution from each funding source towards the total cost to support 911 in the state or jurisdiction.  
As described in Table 14, sixteen states reported that state 911 fees were the sole source of revenue 
funding 911 services; nine states indicated that 50 to 99 percent of funding came from state 911 fees; 
thirteen states reported that 50 to 99 percent of funding came from local fees; and one state reported that 
local fees were the sole source of funding.  Ten states report not knowing the proportional 
contributions.  
 
 
Table 14 – State Estimates of Proportional Contribution from Each Funding Source 
 
State State 911 Fees 
Local 911 or 
Other Fees 
General 
Fund 
(State) 
General 
Fund 
(County) 
Federal 
Grants 
State 
Grants 
AK 0% 63% 15% 22.5% 0% 0% 
AL 92.8% 0% 0% 7.1% 0.024% 0.002% 
AR 32.8% 14.77% 0% 48.52% 0% 3.91% 
AZ 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
CA 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
57 
 
State State 911 Fees 
Local 911 or 
Other Fees 
General 
Fund 
(State) 
General 
Fund 
(County) 
Federal 
Grants 
State 
Grants 
CO 3% 48.6% 0% 
48.4% 
(county and 
municipal) 
"Unknown. 
Local 911 
Authorities 
are not 
required to 
report if and 
when they 
receive a 
grant that 
benefits, in 
whole or in 
part, 911 
service." 
"Unknown. 
Local 911 
Authorities 
are not 
required to 
report if and 
when they 
receive a 
grant that 
benefits, in 
whole or in 
part 911 
service." 
CT 100%           
DE 100%           
FL 45% 0% 0% 49% 0% 6% 
GA Reports that information is unknown 
HI Reports that information is unknown 
IA 46%   
54% 
(includes 
Sheriff 
Funds) 
    
ID 90% Unknown 0% Unknown 0% 10% 
IL 47% 
44% 
(all local 
sources) 
0% 9% 0% 0% 
IN 38% Not permitted 0% 62% 0% 0% 
KS 27% N/A 0% 73% 0% 0% 
KY 19% 28% 8% 42% <1% 3% 
LA Unknown Unknown 0% Unknown 0% 0% 
MA 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
MD 51.24% 0% 0% 48.76% 0% 0% 
ME 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
58 
 
State State 911 Fees 
Local 911 or 
Other Fees 
General 
Fund 
(State) 
General 
Fund 
(County) 
Federal 
Grants 
State 
Grants 
MI 11% 25% 0% 
64% 
(Includes 
44% General 
Fund, 12.5% 
voter-
approved 
property tax 
assessments, 
and 7.5% 
"Other") 
0% 0% 
MN 100% 0% 0% 
"PSAPs may 
receive 
general funds 
from the 
county in 
which they 
operate in 
addition to 
the monthly 
9-1-1 fee 
distribution 
allocated by 
the 
legislature.  
The $13.6M 
is budgeted 
by legislature 
and 
distributed 
according to 
Minn Statute 
§403. This 
distribution 
varies by 
county 
according to 
a designated 
formula." 
0% 0% 
MS 0% 
"Local budget 
and fees 
collected must 
cover costs. 
$35,494,712 
0% 0% 0% 0% 
MT Reports that information is unavailable 
NC 49% 0% 0% 48% 0% 3% 
ND 2% 62% 0% 36% 0% 0% 
59 
 
State State 911 Fees 
Local 911 or 
Other Fees 
General 
Fund 
(State) 
General 
Fund 
(County) 
Federal 
Grants 
State 
Grants 
NE Reports that information is unknown 
NH 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%  0% 
NJ Unknown 0% 0% Unknown 0% 0% 
NM 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
NV No Response 
NY No Response 
OH Variable Variable NA Variable Variable Variable 
OK Reports that information is unknown 
OR 28.02% 0% 0% 71.98% 0% 0% 
PA 72% 0% 0% 28% 0% 0% 
RI 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 
SC 
45% 
(estimated) 
15% 
(estimated) 
-- -- -- -- 
SD 54% 0% 0% 18% 1% 2% 
TN 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
TX 71.64% 28.36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
UT 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
VA 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
VT 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
WA 20% 65% 0% 15% 0% 0% 
WI 0% 15% 0% 85% 0% 0% 
WV 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
WY Reports that information is unknown 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
DC 0% 30% 70% 0% 0% 0% 
PR 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
60 
 
State State 911 Fees 
Local 911 or 
Other Fees 
General 
Fund 
(State) 
General 
Fund 
(County) 
Federal 
Grants 
State 
Grants 
USVI 45% 0% 55% 0% 0% 0% 
 
 
G. Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Use  
 
29. Under Section 6(f)(2) of the NET 911 Act, the Commission is required to obtain 
information “detailing the status in each State of the collection and distribution of such fees or charges, 
and including findings on the amount of revenues obligated or expended by each State or political 
subdivision thereof for any purpose other than the purpose for which any such fees or charges are 
specified (emphasis added).”55  Therefore, the Bureau requested that states and territories identify what 
amount of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes were made available or used for any purpose other 
than the ones designated by the funding mechanism or used for purposes otherwise unrelated to 911 or 
E911 implementation or support, such as funds transferred, loaned, or otherwise used for the state’s 
general fund. 
 
30. As in previous reports, we have identified diversion or transfers of 911/E911 funds and 
categorized them as to whether the funds were directed to other public safety uses or to non-public 
safety uses such as state General Fund accounts.  With respect to funds devoted to other public safety 
uses, we have generally determined that funds used to support public safety radio systems, including 
maintenance, upgrades, and new system acquisitions, are not 911-related within the meaning of the 
NET911 Act and therefore constitute a diversion of 911 funds.  However, several states have 
documented expenses associated with integrating public safety dispatch and 911 systems (e.g., purchase 
of CAD hardware and software to support integrated 911 and dispatch operations) and asserted that 
these should be categorized as 911-related expenses.  We agree that where sufficient documentation is 
provided, the expenditure of 911 funds to support integration of dispatch and 911calltaking systems 
may be categorized as 911-related, and we follow this approach in this report.   
 
31. Table 15 below lists the states that diverted or transferred fees and the amounts diverted 
or transferred in calendar year 2015.  Three states (Illinois, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island) and 
Puerto Rico self-identified in their responses to the questionnaire that they used collected funds, at least 
in part, for non-911 related purposes.  Five states (Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and West 
Virginia) did not self-identify as diverting funds, but the Bureau has determined based on review of the 
information provided that these states in fact diverted funds for non-911 related purposes within the 
meaning of the NET 911 Act.  The aggregate amount of diverted funds reported by all of the 
jurisdictions listed in Table 15 is $220,281,586.82, or 8.4 percent of all 911/E911 funds reported to 
have been collected by all responding states and jurisdictions in 2015. 
 
32. In 2012, Congress passed the Next Generation 911 Advancement Act, Public Law 112-96 
(2012 Act), which dedicated $115 million in FCC spectrum auction proceeds to support future 
matching grants to eligible states and U.S. territories for the implementation and operation of 911, 
E911, and NG911 services and applications, migration to IP-enabled emergency networks, and training 
public safety personnel involved in the 911 emergency response chain.  The 2012 Act tasked the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Telecommunications and 
                                                     
55 NET 911 Act at §6(f)(2). 
61 
 
Information Administration (NTIA) with administering the grant program, which will be implemented 
at a later date to be determined.  We remind interested parties that Section 6503 of the 2012 Act 
requires applicants seeking to receive grants under this program to certify that no portion of any 
designated 911 charges imposed by the state or other taxing jurisdiction within which the applicant is 
located are being obligated or expended “for any purpose other than the purposes for which such 
charges are designated or presented.”   
 
Table 15 – Total Funds Diverted or Otherwise Transferred from 911 Uses 
 
State/Territory 
Total Funds Collected 
(Year End 2015) 
Total Funds Used 
for Other Purposes 
Percentage 
Diverted 
Type of 
Transfer 
States/Jurisdictions Self-Identifying as Diverting/Transferring Funds 
Illinois $95,500,349.00  $5,000,000.00 5.2% General Fund 
New Hampshire $12,317,417.55  $2,078,685.85  16.9% 
General Fund 
and Public 
Safety Related 
Puerto Rico $21,896,788.53  $484,016.54  2.2% General Fund 
Rhode Island $16,345,363.80  $11,185,216.24  68.4% General Fund 
States/Jurisdictions Identified by Bureau as Diverting/Transferring Funds 
Iowa $40,547,767.19  $4,000,000.00  9.9% 
Public Safety 
Related 
New Jersey $122,632,000.00  $110,278,000.00  89.9% 
General Fund 
and Public 
Safety Related 
New York $182,262,082.00 $77,254,288.19 42% General Fund 
Washington $94,445,461.00  $6,017,185.00  6.4% 
Public Safety 
Related 
West Virginia $56,649,322.00  $3,984,195.00  7% 
Public Safety 
Related 
Total $642,596,551.07 $220,281,586.82 34.3% 
  
Percent Diverted From  
Total Funds Collected by All States 
Total  $2,631,705,008.98  8.4% 
 
62 
 
 
1. States/Jurisdictions Self-Identifying as Diverting/Transferring Funds.  
33. Illinois reported that $5,000,000.00 was “transferred out of the Wireless Services 
Emergency Fund to the State's General Revenue Fund.”56 
 
34. New Hampshire reported a diversion or transfer of $2,078,685.85.  According to New 
Hampshire, “the Department of Safety, Division of Emergency Services and Communications, receives 
and forwards to the appropriate local dispatch center all 911 calls [and] provides all network 
connections and the equipment at the local dispatch center to receive the forwarded 9-1-1 calls.”57  The 
Division also “funds the State Police Radio Maintenance Section at approximately $1,800,000.00 per 
year,” under the justification that the 911 system uses the microwave system maintained by the State 
Police, however, “the Division funds all of the State Police Radio Maintenance function.”58  According 
to New Hampshire, during the 2015 annual period, the state transferred approximately $1,871,427.00 to 
fund the State Police Radio Communications Maintenance Unit; $12,500.00 to fund the state’s Poison 
Control Project; $95,373.00 to fund broadband communications under the Broadband Technology 
Opportunities Program; and $99,385.85 to fund the Statewide Interoperability Coordinators Office.59 
 
35. Rhode Island reported that in its 2015 fiscal year (ending June 30, 2016), the state 
collected $16,345,363.83 in E911 surcharges, with approximately 90 percent of the collected fees going 
into the state General Fund and the remaining 10 percent being contributed to the state Information 
Technology Fund.  The state indicated that it used a portion of the General Fund revenues to fund the E-
911 program:  $4,054,086.17 in personnel costs and $1,106,061.42 in operating costs, for a total of 
$5,160,147.59.  Rhode Island reported that all remaining funds collected were distributed for other 
purposes via the General Fund.60  
 
36. Puerto Rico reported diversions of approximately $484,016.54.  Pursuant to Act No. 66 
of June 17, 2014, as amended, Article 19, approximately $240,916.54 and $243,100.00 was contributed 
to the “Work Promotion and Economic Activity Fund” under the custody of the Trade and Export 
Company of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.61 
 
37. Two states, California and Virginia, reported that they diverted a portion of the 911 funds 
collected in calendar year 2015 for purposes outside the scope of their established state funding 
mechanisms.  However, on review of the expenditures at issue, the Bureau concludes that the states 
have demonstrated a sufficient nexus with 911 to support a finding that the expenditures were 911-
related. 
 
? California states that “[a]ll funds collected have been used exclusively for the purposes 
                                                     
56 Illinois Response at 15. 
57 New Hampshire Response at 6. 
58 Id. 
59 Id. at 11. 
60 Rhode Island Response at 2-3. 
61 Puerto Rico Response at 11.  We note that Puerto Rico also identified a transfer of $12 million pursuant to “Act 
No. 21 of April 6, 2016, known as "Emergency Moratorium Act and Financial Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico," which 
provides for the declaration of a state fiscal emergency by the Legislative Branch of Puerto Rico.”  Because the 
transfer occurs in the 2016 annual period, we do not count it in this year’s report. 
63 
 
designated by the funding mechanism in support of 911 with the exception of funds that have 
been appropriated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL 
FIRE).”62   California further states that “[w]hile CAL FIRE’s use of the State Emergency 
Telephone Number Account (SETNA) was not specific to the intent for 911 related 
expenditures, the equipment purchased is for use at emergency dispatch centers in response to 
911 call activity.”63  We find that California has shown this expenditure of funds to be in 
support of 911 communications even though the expenditure was outside the state’s statutory 
funding mechanism.  Therefore, we do not identify California as having diverted funds.64 
 
? Virginia reported that it diverted a total of $11,700,000.00 of the 911/E911 funds it collected: 
of this amount, $3,700,000.00 was used to help finance the Virginia State Police (VSP) for 
related costs incurred for answering wireless 911 telephone calls, and $8,000,000.00 to 
support sheriff’s 911 dispatchers throughout the Commonwealth.  Virginia notes that while 
the 911 funding mechanism established in Virginia does not specifically provide for funds to 
be diverted to the VSP and sheriffs’ offices, the diverted funds were used to support 911-
related activities.65  We agree that Virginia’s expenditure to support 911 dispatch by these 
agencies is 911-related, and we therefore do not identify Virginia as having diverted funds.66  
 
2. States/Jurisdictions Identified by the Bureau as Diverting/Transferring 
Funds.  
38. Iowa reported that it did not divert or otherwise transfer funds away from 911 or E911 
related activities. However, Iowa’s report indicates that the state’s Homeland Security and Emergency 
Department was “tasked by the [Iowa] legislature with paying $4,000,000 to Motorola for the statewide 
interoperability Land Mobile Radio, which was within the scope of the Receipt and Disposition of the 
911 language already in Code."67   
 
39. New Jersey reported that it did not divert or transfer any collected funds.68  However, it 
reported that it collected a total of $122.6 million in 911 fees and, in accordance with New Jersey 
statute (P.L.2004, c.48), the total was “deposited into the 911 System and Emergency Response Trust 
Fund account and applied to offset a portion of the cost of related programs.”  According to New 
Jersey, with respect to 911 specific costs, approximately $13,122,000.00 was applied to “the Statewide 
911 Emergency Telephone System” and $900,000 was applied to “the Office of Emergency 
Telecommunications Service.”  New Jersey applied the remainder of $110,278,000.00 to offset costs 
                                                     
62 California Response at 12. 
63 Id.  California states that “the appropriations were to purchase and install new hardware and computer aided 
dispatch (CAD) software at CAL FIRE’s Emergency Command Centers. In addition redundant hardware and a CAD 
system were purchased and installed at their Fire Academy, which is used for training." Id. 
64 California made the same showing in its 2015 filing, but was identified in our 2015 Report as having diverted 
funds in calendar year 2014.  Based on our review of California’s 2015 and 2016 filings, we revise our findings 
from the 2015 Report to remove California from that year’s list of states that diverted funds. 
65 Virginia Response at 11. 
66 Virginia made the same showing in its 2015 filing, but was identified in our 2015 Report as having diverted funds 
in calendar year 2014.  Based on our review of Virginia’s 2015 and 2016 filings, we revise our findings from the 
2015 Report to remove Virginia from that year’s list of states that diverted funds. 
67 Iowa Response at 7. 
68 New Jersey Response at 11. 
64 
 
related to programs within the New Jersey Departments of Law and Public Safety and Military and 
Veterans’ Affairs.69 
 
40. Washington reported that it did not divert or transfer funds, stating that “[d]uring calendar 
year 2015, no state enhanced 911 excise taxes were expended for any other purpose than that prescribed 
by [Revised Code of Washington] 38.52.540.”70  However, the state did identify funds transferred to 
other departments and activities that the Bureau finds are public safety related but not 911-related.  
According to Washington, the state’s “Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Washington 
Administrative Code (WAC) when taken as a whole create a de facto line between ‘Call-taking’ and 
‘Dispatch’” and that “state 911 dedicated funds are to be used only in support of call-taking functions 
(said differently, to get the 911 call from the call-maker to the call-taker) whereas “County 911 
dedicated funds” are allowed to support specific “dispatching” functions.”71  Washington states that 
“for the 2013-2015 and the 2015-2017 fiscal biennia, the [enhanced 911] account may be used for a 
criminal history system upgrade in the Washington state patrol and for activities and programs in the 
military department.”72  The state reported spending $5,882,974 of 911 fees “in support of the 
Washington Military Department activities and programs” and $134,211 of 911 fees “in support of the 
Washington State Patrol upgrades to the state criminal history system.”73  For this report, we categorize 
those expenditures as diversions, albeit for public safety uses. 
 
41. Although West Virginia reported that it did not divert funds, of the $56,649,322.00 in 
911/E911 fees collected from all sources (wireless, wireline, VoIP; and other services), the Bureau 
identified approximately $3,984,195.00 of that amount that was apportioned to certain dedicated 
accounts, as follows: $1,000,000.00 for the Tower Assistance Fund, to subsidize construction of towers, 
which the state describes as ensuring enhanced 911 wireless coverage; $1,790,517.00 for the state’s 
Department of Homeland Security, to be used solely for the purpose of maintaining radio systems used 
by state and 911 Centers to dispatch emergency services and other agencies; and $1,193,678.00 for the 
West Virginia State Police, to be used for equipment upgrades for improving and integrating their 
communication efforts with those of enhanced 911 systems.74  We categorize these expenditures as non-
911 related.  We do not agree with the state’s characterization of tower construction and radio system 
maintenance as 911-related programs.  Arguably, the state’s expenditure of $1,193,678.00 on 
integrating the West Virginia State Police’s radio systems with 911 could be considered 911-related, 
but the state has not provided sufficient documentation of these expenditures to support such a finding.      
 
42. In Table 16 below, we compare the number of states reporting fee diversions in this 
reporting year compared to past years. 
 
  
                                                     
69 Id. at 6. 
70 Washington Response at 12-13. 
71 Id. 
72 Id. 
73 Id. 
74 West Virginia Response at 17-18.  The Bureau derived the amounts provided based on a 5% wireless fee to the 
Department of Homeland Security; a $0.10 per wireless fee collected to the West Virginia State Police; and a set 
$1,000,000 transfer to the state’s Tower Assistance Fund. 
65 
 
Table 16 – States Identified as Diverting 911/E911 Funds (2009 – 2016)  
 
Report Year 
2009 
Report 
2010 
Report 
2011 
Report 
2012 
Report 
2013 
Report 
2014 
 Report 
2015 
Report75 
2016 
Report 
States 
Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois 
New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York 
Rhode Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
Rhode 
Island 
 Arizona Arizona Arizona     
 Georgia Georgia Georgia     
Maine  Maine Maine     
     New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey 
Oregon Oregon Oregon      
      
New 
Hampshire 
New 
Hampshire 
     Washington  Washington 
      
West 
Virginia 
West 
Virginia 
Wisconsin Wisconsin       
     California   
 Delaware       
 Hawaii       
       Iowa 
    Kansas    
Montana        
 Nebraska       
Tennessee        
Other 
Jurisdictions 
     Puerto Rico  Puerto Rico 
Total 8 10 7 6 4 7 6 9 
                                                     
75 Reflects removal of California and Virginia from the 2015 list. 
66 
 
Report Year 
2009 
Report 
2010 
Report 
2011 
Report 
2012 
Report 
2013 
Report 
2014 
 Report 
2015 
Report75 
2016 
Report 
States and Other Jurisdictions That Did Not File a Fee Report 
States Not 
Filing A 
Report 
   Louisiana  Louisiana Louisiana  
      Missouri Missouri 
    Arkansas    
  Kansas      
   
New 
Hampshire 
    
  New Jersey      
  Oklahoma      
   
Rhode 
Island 
    
Other 
Jurisdictions 
Not Filing A 
Report 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
Northern 
Marianas 
 Guam Guam  Guam Guam Guam Guam 
US Virgin 
Islands 
  
US Virgin 
Islands 
US Virgin 
Islands 
US Virgin 
Islands 
US Virgin 
Islands 
 
    
American 
Samoa 
American 
Samoa 
  
   
District of 
Columbia 
    
 
 
H. Oversight and Auditing of 911/E911 Fees  
 
43. In order to understand the degree to which states and other jurisdictions track the 
collection and use of 911 fees, the Bureau requested that respondents provide information about 
whether they had established any oversight or auditing mechanisms in connection with the collection or 
expenditure of 911 fees.  As indicated in Table 17 below, thirty-five states, the District of Columbia, 
and the US Virgin Islands indicated that they have established an oversight mechanism; ten states, 
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico stated they have not.76      
 
44. Some states reported local auditing responsibilities with the state providing oversight or 
review.  For example, Arizona stated that the State Auditor General can audit any program within its 
                                                     
76 New York, Rhode Island, and Wyoming did not respond to the question. 
67 
 
statutory authority and the State 911 office reviews and approves “proposals, reviews, and processes for 
payment all community-approved invoices [and] determines that funds collected have been made 
available or used for the purposes designated by the funding mechanism.”  As of October 2014, Illinois 
reported that local 911 authorities are required to file an annual financial report detailing a variety of 
revenue and expenditure information, and they are to be made available for inspection through the 
website of the Illinois Commerce Commission.  Additionally, Illinois’ Auditor General has specific 
requirements for auditing the State’s collection and distribution of 9-1-1 funds.77  Colorado stated that 
local 911 Authorities are “subject to audit requirements covering all local governments under Colorado 
Revised Statute Section 29-1-601 et seq, [and] each local 911 Authority must include a description of 
their use of funds collected in their audit, and a copy of each audit report must be made available on the 
governing body’s website if it has one.”  According to Louisiana, “a number of state laws and acts 
regulate approved PSAP expenditures, and each district is subject to periodic audits overseen by the 
Legislative Auditor of the State of Louisiana.”78   
 
45. The Bureau also asked whether each state or other jurisdiction has the authority to audit 
service providers to ensure that the amount of 911/E911 fees collected from subscribers matches the 
service provider’s number of subscribers.  Twenty-seven states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
and the US Virgin Islands reported that they have authority to conduct audits of service providers.  
Nineteen states and American Samoa reported that they do not.79  California’s Revenue and Taxation 
Code Section 41130 provides that “upon proper notification to the service supplier, the Board of 
Equalization or its authorized representative shall have the right to inspect and audit all records and 
returns of the service supplier at all reasonable times.”80  According to Colorado, “the local governing 
body may, at its own expense, require an annual audit of the service supplier's books and records 
concerning the collection and remittance of the 911 surcharge funds (CRS § 29-11-103 (3) b).”81  
Nebraska “has the ability to perform remittance audits on wireless carriers.”82  Effective August 2015, 
the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency has “the power and duty to request information and 
require audits or reports relating to program compliance from any entity remitting the surcharge to or 
receiving disbursements from the fund and to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, examine witnesses, 
take such testimony and compel the production of such books, records, papers and documents as it may 
deem necessary or proper in and pertinent to any proceeding, investigation or hearing.”83  Of the 
jurisdictions indicating they have authority to audit service providers, eight indicated that they had 
undertaken “authority or enforcement or other corrective actions” in connection with such auditing, 
twelve states, American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands 
indicated no such actions were taken during the period under review, and thirteen did not respond or did 
not know. 
  
                                                     
77 Illinois Response at 16. 
78 Louisiana Response at 12 
79 New York, Rhode Island, and Wyoming did not respond to the question. 
80 California Response at 13. 
81 Colorado Response at 14. 
82 Nebraska Response at 10. 
83 Pennsylvania Response at 15. 
68 
 
 
Table 17. Description of Oversight and Auditing of Collection and Use of 911 Fees 
 
State 
Has your state established any 
oversight or auditing mechanisms 
or procedures to determine 
whether collected funds have been 
made available or used for the 
purposes designated by the 
funding mechanism or otherwise 
used to implement or support 911? 
Does your state have the 
authority to audit service 
providers to ensure that the 
amount of 911/E911 fees collected 
form subscribers matches the 
service provider’s number of 
subscribers?  
Conducted 
Audit of 
Service 
Providers in 
2015 
AK No No NA 
AL Yes Yes Yes 
AR  No  No NA 
AZ Yes Yes No Response 
CA Yes Yes No Response 
CO Yes Yes No 
CT No Yes No Response 
DE Yes No NA 
FL Yes No NA 
GA Yes Yes No 
HI Yes No NA 
IA Yes No NA 
ID Yes No NA 
IL Yes Yes No Response 
IN Yes Yes Yes 
KS Yes Yes No Response 
KY Yes Yes Yes 
LA Yes Yes No 
MA Yes No No 
MD Yes Yes No 
ME Yes Yes No 
MI Yes No No Response 
69 
 
State 
Has your state established any 
oversight or auditing mechanisms 
or procedures to determine 
whether collected funds have been 
made available or used for the 
purposes designated by the 
funding mechanism or otherwise 
used to implement or support 911? 
Does your state have the 
authority to audit service 
providers to ensure that the 
amount of 911/E911 fees collected 
form subscribers matches the 
service provider’s number of 
subscribers?  
Conducted 
Audit of 
Service 
Providers in 
2015 
MN Yes Yes No 
MS No Yes No Response 
MT Yes Yes No 
NC Yes No NA 
ND Yes No NA 
NE Yes Yes Yes 
NH No Yes No Response 
NJ No No NA 
NM No No NA 
NV No No NA 
NY No Response No Response No Response 
OH Yes Yes No Response 
OK No  No NA 
OR Yes Yes Unknown 
PA Yes Yes No 
RI No Response No Response No Response 
SC No No NA 
SD Yes Yes Yes 
TN Yes No NA 
TX Yes Yes Yes 
UT No No NA 
VA Yes Yes Unknown 
VT Yes Yes Yes 
WA Yes Yes Yes 
70 
 
State 
Has your state established any 
oversight or auditing mechanisms 
or procedures to determine 
whether collected funds have been 
made available or used for the 
purposes designated by the 
funding mechanism or otherwise 
used to implement or support 911? 
Does your state have the 
authority to audit service 
providers to ensure that the 
amount of 911/E911 fees collected 
form subscribers matches the 
service provider’s number of 
subscribers?  
Conducted 
Audit of 
Service 
Providers in 
2015 
WI Yes No NA 
WV Yes Yes No 
WY No Response No Response No Response 
Other Jurisdictions  
AS No No NA 
DC Yes Yes No 
PR No Yes No 
USVI Yes Yes No 
Totals 
Yes No Yes No Yes No 
37 13 30 20 8 15 
 
 
 
I. Description of Next Generation 911 Services and Expenditures  
 
46. In order to track progress of the nationwide transition to NG911, the Bureau requested 
that states and other jurisdictions specify whether they classify NG911 expenditures as within the scope 
of permissible expenditures for 911 or E911 purposes, and whether they expended funds on NG911 in 
calendar year 2015.  With respect to classifying NG911 as within the scope of permissible expenditures, 
44 states and the District of Columbia indicated that their 911 funding mechanism allows for 
distribution of 911 funds for the implementation of NG911.  Six respondents - Alaska, Illinois, 
Montana, Montana, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands - reported that their funding mechanism does 
not allow for the use of 911 funds for NG911 implementation.  Thirty-six states, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico indicated that they used 911 funds for NG911 programs in 2015.  Table 18 
shows the general categories of NG911 expenditures that respondents reported supporting with 
911/E911 funds, although most respondents did not specify NG911 expenditures by category. 
  
71 
 
 
Table 18 – Number of States Indicating One or More Areas of NG911 Investment 
 
Area of 
Expenditure 
States/Other Jurisdictions Total 
General Project or 
Not Specified 
Alabama Kentucky Rhode Island 
26 
Delaware Louisiana South Carolina 
Florida Maine Tennessee 
Hawaii Maryland Vermont 
Idaho Massachusetts Virginia 
Illinois Mississippi Washington 
Indiana New Mexico West Virginia 
Iowa Nevada Puerto Rico 
Kansas Ohio  
Planning or 
Consulting Services 
Arizona New Jersey Texas 
7 Idaho North Carolina  
New Hampshire Oregon  
ESInet 
Construction 
California Kentucky South Carolina 
15 
Colorado Massachusetts South Dakota 
Florida Minnesota Texas 
Iowa North Dakota Utah 
Kansas Pennsylvania Virginia 
Hardware or 
Software Purchases 
or Upgrades 
Connecticut Kansas South Dakota 
11 
Florida Massachusetts Texas 
Hawaii Nevada 
District of 
Columbia 
Iowa Rhode Island  
GIS 
Hawaii Michigan South Dakota 
10 
Iowa North Dakota Virginia 
Kansas Pennsylvania  
Massachusetts South Carolina  
NG Security 
Planning 
Washington 1 
Training None 0 
72 
 
 
 
47. The Bureau requested that states and jurisdictions report the amount of funds expended 
on NG911 programs in the annual period ending December 31, 2015.  Table 19 shows the NG911-
related expenditures and projects reported by 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 
Collectively, these jurisdictions spent approximately $164,817,664.55 on NG911 programs, or 
approximately 6.26 percent of total 911/E911 fees collected.  Twelve states did not specify the amount 
spent for NG911 purposes.  Twelve states, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands report no 
expenditures for NG911-related programs.84 
 
Table 19 – Funds Spent on Next Generation 911 Programs 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
AL $516,285.31 
“Alabama completed our wireless aggregation project in December 
2014, which is as far as the first iteration of Alabama Next Generation 
Emergency Network (ANGEN) is able to accomplish with the vendor 
selected during the first phase of the project. All wireless calls in the 
state are now routed through this network.” 
AZ $17,804.00 
“Funds were expended for a consultant study of proposed Next 
Generation 911 network and management solution.” 
CA $3,687,206.00 
“The State of California has two NG9-1-1 ESInet projects under 
development. The Regional Integrated Next Generation project in 
Pasadena and the Mendocino County ESInet project.  Both projects 
utilize a hosted solution currently in place and will be supported with by 
regional ESInets currently under development.” 
CO $4,083,718.00 
“The City of Aurora, Colorado, is installing fiber optic cable for the 
purpose of preparing for NG911 services. Other local governments may 
be undertaking NG911 related projects, but did not report them.” 
CT Not specified 
“Network based components were installed first in the Network Control 
Centers and Emergency Calling Data Centers. Deployment and 
transition to 25% of PSAPs.” 
DE $2,700,000.00  
“Delaware has entered in to an agreement with Intrado (West) to 
provide 911 service to the centers. This agreement includes voice 
texting and pictures and video when available. Delaware and Intrado 
have completed A ALI cutover and are working on voice to start in Q1 
2016. Delaware is planning on turning on texting in 2016 as a state wide 
project. This is a long term contract and should avail Delaware to any 
NG911 systems for the coming years.” 
FL $17,162,709.23 
“In 2015, Next Generation 911 expenditures include county 
expenditures on county NG-911 projects. Expenditure information is 
collected and reported on the county fiscal year basis (October 1, 2014 - 
September 30, 2015). These expenditures include next-generation ESI 
network circuits and services, next-generation E911 database services, 
                                                     
84 These include Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.  Wyoming did not respond to the question. 
73 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
next-generation E911 call handling equipment, and NG-911 routing 
services. NG-911 map information on systems implementations for 
Florida’s NG-911 projects is included in the E911 Board 2014 Annual 
Report, available at: 
http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/telecommunication
s/enhanced_911” 
HI $2,687,000.00 
“1. Completed installation of NG911 Viper consoles 
2. Initiated soft launch of text-to-911 deployment 
3. County of Honolulu deployment of Smart911 database 
4. GIS” 
IA $16,000,000.00 
“During this reporting period PSAPs continued to upgrade to the NENA 
i3 standard Next Gen. PSAPs upgraded their CPE’s and Recorders to 
SIP capable/enabled. 
 
During this reporting period, PSAPs worked with GeoComm to begin a 
second data assessment of GIS data that will ultimately be used for 
NextGen upgrades. 
 
During this reporting period, 10 PSAPs began receiving SMS text 
messaging through the interim, web browser solution. 
 
During this reporting period, TCS continued work on building out the 
secondary ESInet. This is a completely redundant ESInet connecting 13 
PSAPs with the CLCs.  In case of a large outage, those 13 PSAPs could 
handle the statewide calls.” 
ID Not Specified 
“The IECC has formed a NG 911 working group composed of 
stakeholders from all counties within the state and has begun 
implementation of the State NG plan.  In 2015 we expect to formalize 
some legislation that will improve NG 911 language in the current 
legislation.  Efforts are under way to firm up 911 costs by utilization of 
a contractor to calculate state costs and revenue for the entire state.” 
IL Not Specified 
“A region of 14 9-1-1 authorities joined together calling themselves the 
Counties of Southern Illinois (CSI) to create a NG9-1-1 system.  Seven 
of the 14 systems were implemented in 2014 and the remaining 7 
implemented in 2015.” 
IN $8,500,000.00 
“The board awarded contracts to INdigital and AT&T during this 
reporting period. INdigital modernized the current network and AT&T 
started the build of their network to meet NENA i3 standards.” 
KS $4,610,580.68 
“Statewide IP Network and hosted call handling solution is currently 
being deployed. As of 12/31/15, eleven Kansas PSAPs had been 
migrated to this system. Statewide GIS data remediation is underway, 
with 93 of 105 counties having completed remediation and moving into 
data maintenance mode. Planning has begun for migration to geospatial 
call routing and interconnect with AT&T Nationwide ESINet.” 
74 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
KY Not Specified  
“CMRS grant funds were awarded and used for NG911 “interim” 
solutions that include the acquisition of IP enabled Host/Remote 911 
telephony equipment in 38 PSAPs.  Grant funds were awarded on the 
basis of being compliant with our NG911 State Plan.  Planning for a 
regional 911 network to serve a dozen counties in east Kentucky 
utilizing an existing fiber ring owned by regional co-op telcos was 
undertaken and reached Governor level approval.” 
LA Not Specified  
“Jefferson, Tangipahoa, St. Helena, Terrebonne, Washington, and 
Lafourche parishes have completed text to 911 implementations.  
Several other parishes are in the process of implementation including 
West Baton Rouge, East Baton Rouge, Webster, Ouachita, Cameron, 
Orleans, and Calcasieu parishes.” 
MA $9,540,773.00 
“During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, the State 911 
Department coordinated in the efforts to develop, design, and implement 
a high speed fiber optic network in Western and parts of Central 
Massachusetts to ensure that the needs of the State 911 Department and 
its PSAPs are addressed and incorporated in the overall development 
and design of the fiber optic network.  This network will prepare the 
PSAPs for transition to Next Generation 911 and will allow for more 
effective and efficient management of system updates, recordings, and 
overall system maintenance and monitoring.  The State 911 Department 
also provided funding for additional dedicated resources for MassGIS, a 
department within the Commonwealth’s Information Technology 
Division, to provide updated, synchronized mapping data and 
information needed to support the State 911 Department as it prepares 
for the implementation of Next Generation 911.  On August 4, 2014, the 
Department entered into a contract with General Dynamics Information 
Technology, Inc. to provide a comprehensive, end-to-end, fully featured, 
standards-based Next Generation 911 system to replace the current 
enhanced 911 system. During the annual period ending December 31, 
2015, system design and test planning development, laboratory trial and 
testing, site surveys, and other activities were undertaken.” 
MD $5,867,257.46 
“The Emergency Number Systems Board funds telephone systems and 
logging recorders that are Next Generation IP enabled systems.  During 
FY 2015, the Board funded IP phone systems for five (5) primary and 
three (3) backup PSAPs.” 
ME $5,070,752.00 
“The State of Maine has a single, statewide NG911 system that was 
fully deployed by August 2014 and was in place for all of 2015.” 
MI $608,014.68 
“The State 911 Office is working with the Upper Peninsula 911 
Authority to utilize data from the Michigan 911 GIS Repository for 
geospatial routing. GIS data from the repository will be exported to the 
LVF/ECRF serving the Upper Peninsula 911 Authority ESInet and 
utilized for text and call routing.” 
MN $6,404,339.00 
“All 104 PSAPs connected to the ESInet for all call types (wire line, 
wireless, and VoIP).  
 
RFP posted for response for ESInet, IP Selective Routing, and a solution 
for Text to 911. 
75 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
 
GIS Project Manager position was created and filled to begin the 
Statewide GIS Centerline project for 911 in preparation for 
ECRF/LVF.” 
MS Not Specified 
“The number of NG911 projects completed or underway during the 
annual period under review was 17.” 
NC $1,524,654.00 
“On December 2, 2014 the NC 911 Board issued an RFP for technical 
consultant support to create a plan that will meet current 911 needs, 
provide an ESInet IP backbone for NG911 applications, increase PSAP 
interoperability, and allow for an error free transition from the current 
legacy E911 environment to a Next Generation 911 environment for all 
primary PSAPs, secondary PSAPs, and backup PSAPs. The contract 
was awarded to Federal Engineering and work began on creating a 
Concept of Operations, Network Design and Network Cost Analysis. 
This plan will include issuance of five and possibly six RFPs for NG 
911 functional capabilities. These Next Generation 911 functional 
capabilities are for an ESINet, Hosted CPE, a Network Operations 
Center (NOC) and Help Desk, CAD interoperability for all PSAPs, GIS 
operation supporting call routing, and radio interoperability for all 
PSAPs.  The 911 Board recognizes a likely interplay between its efforts 
and federal FirstNet development however the planned RFPs are not 
intended to replace or supplant the State’s FirstNet effort.  The NG911 
system functions are to be open standards based and consistent with the 
National Emergency Number Association’s (NENA) i3 next generation 
standards, requirements, and best practices. It is anticipated that the first 
PSAP deployments on the ESINet will occur during the fourth quarter of 
calendar year 2017.” 
ND $255,750.00 
“Work in progress on deployment of ESInet connectivity to all of the 
state’s 22 PSAPs.  As of 6/18/2015 15 of 22 PSAPs in the state have 
been connected to the ESInet.  Ongoing development of GIS/MSAG 
records and removal of a certain number of non-selectively routed 
originating circuits is presently governing the deployment of ESInet 
connectivity to 3 of the remaining 7 PSAPs with 4 PSAPs either in the 
process of moving their CPE location or working to meet ESInet 
network connectivity prerequisites.” 
NH Not Specified 
“The Division issued an RFP for NG 9-1-1 CPE, software and Network 
services with the intent of upgrading to NG 9-1-1 in calendar year 2016. 
Carrier over Ethernet project was completed in calendar 2015.” 
NJ $75,871.14 
“Consultant services to begin the development of a RFP for the 
replacement of the State's legacy 9-1-1 network with a state of the art, IP 
based, Next Generation 9-1-1 network.” 
NM NA 
“When PSAP equipment is replaced, Next Generation ready equipment 
is being used.” 
NV $242,000.00 
Storey County:  upgraded county 911 system to a Cassidian 
Vesta/Sentinal 4 NG911 Phase 2 wireless compatible system. 
 
Nye County: went live with new Airbus/Vesta NG911 system in 
76 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
December 2015 
 
Washoe County: Washoe County uses and maintains West Safety 
Services Advanced "Next Generation" Emergency 911 services for all 3 
PSAPs in Washoe County and provide redundancy 
NY Not Specified 
“The State Interoperable Communications Grant is a formula-based 
grant to counties to build out their interoperable network as part of their 
consortia.  This grant also advances Next Generation 911 (NG-911) 
systems." 
OH Not Specified 
“There are a variety of counties who have their "ESInet" built out and 
ready to go, however none are active NG911 in 2015.” 
OR $325,428.04 
“State is currently on an Analog Frame Relay Network to allow border 
to border ALI services.  Frame Relay Network will reach end of life by 
November 2016.  RFP has been awarded to provide statewide IP 
network to be completed before November 2016.” 
PA Not Specified  
“Pennsylvania is in the early stages of implementation with the ongoing 
development of regional and 
statewide Emergency Service IP networks (ESInets) and geo-spatial 
mapping to provide for 9-1-1 call 
routing. NG9-1-1 is a core technology change and will be based upon 
nationwide standards currently 
being developed by the National Emergency Number Association 
(NENA) and other 9-1-1 authorities. 
 
PEMA’s goals are to establish the strategy to implement NG9-1-1 
throughout the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania in a consistent, precise manner while maximizing all 
available resources including: 
 
• Deployment of a Public Safety 99.999% Grade ESInet 
• Utilize a standards based approach 
• Implement IP capable PSAPs 
• Develop geographic based routing and database integration 
• Deploy NG9-1-1 capable, shared applications 
• Implement “Best Practices” approach” 
RI $630,000.00 
“RI E 9-1-1 has purchased the software and hardware necessary for the 
implementation of NG911.  During FY14, FY15, AND FY16, RI E 9-1-
1 spent the sum of approximately $630,000.00 for the purposes of 
purchase of NG911 equipment, hardware and software. This 
expenditure was approved by the RI legislature (via our budget), the 
State of Rhode Island Department of Public Safety and the State of 
Rhode Island Budget Office, and is within the scope of permissible 
expenditures for RI E 9-1-1 purposes.  RI E 9-1-1 maintains a voice and 
data network within the state that connects RI E 9-1-1 to all local service 
providers (police, fire and medical) dispatch centers, and transfers a 9-1-
1 emergency caller to the appropriate service provider.  RI E 9-1-1 is 
presently implementing a network for NG911 services.  This NG911 
network will consolidate with our present voice and data network and is 
expected to assist RI E 9-1-1 in the “roll out” of Next Generation 911 
77 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
services, in particular, “text-to-911.”  It is envisioned that once RI E 9-
1-1 goes live with NG911, the local service responders will be provided 
with this information on a call-by-call basis, if they have the capacity of 
receiving the text messages from RIE 9-1-1. Additionally, it is 
envisioned that RI E 9-1-1 will be utilizing two emergency services IP 
networks (ESInets) for the implementation of NG911.” 
SC $325,000.00 
“We have 3 counties that are operating on their own ESInet.  Each has 
the capability of interconnecting with other counties, however, none of 
the counties have connected yet.  There is a project between two 
counties to form an ESInet.  Charleston Co. (a coastal county) and 
Spartanburg Co (an upstate county).  
South Carolina is in the beginning stages of implementing our 5-year 
NG9-1-1 Strategic Plan, recently endorsed by the SC Revenue & Fiscal 
Affairs Board.  The plan strongly recommends South Carolina start 
building statewide NG9-1-1 infrastructure.  Current legislation needs to 
be updated, since it prohibits the state from providing/funding a 
statewide ESInet with NG9-1-1 Core Services functionality. Legislation 
also should be updated in order to allow migration to NG9-1-1 from 
legacy systems.  Legislative and Fiscal subcommittees are being 
organized in order to address the legislative issues keeping South 
Carolina from moving forward; these subcommittees will also help 
identify the costs and funding concerns of such a move.  Both 
subcommittees will be made up of a mixture of SC CMRS Advisory 
committee members and local 911 officials from across the state.   
 
Since GIS is such an integral component of NG9-1-1 and counties will 
need assistance preparing local GIS data for NG9-1-1 standards, a GIS 
subcommittee is being organized as well. This GIS subcommittee will 
establish a process to integrate local GIS data into a statewide GIS 
database to be used in statewide NG9-1-1 Core Services.  Like the 
Legislative and Fiscal subcommittees, the GIS subcommittee will be a 
collaborative effort of the SC CMRS committee, the state GIS 
coordinator, and local 911 and GIS officials from around the state.” 
SD $3,482,957.00 
“During calendar year 2015 we began deploying a statewide hosted 
CPE. We installed dual host equipment on either side of the state (Rapid 
City and Sioux Falls). Then we began installation of the leased CPE 
equipment at each PSAP in the state. By the end of the calendar year, 
we had cut over six PSAPs to the new hosted CPE. This is phase one of 
our statewide NG911 project. 
 
We also worked with our GIS vendor, GeoComm, to compile all of the 
existing GIS data in the state and create a statewide seamless GIS 
dataset. During the 2015 calendar year, GeoComm gathered data from 
all of the counties and various state agencies. They completed 
assessments of all the data and then provided reports back to each entity 
for data remediation. After data remediation, the counties submitted 
their revised data again for another evaluation and assessment. This 
second round of assessments and remediation was still on-going at the 
end of the year. 
78 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
 
The state also worked with their vendor, Comtech TCS (formerly 
TeleCommunications Systems) to begin preparations for the statewide 
ESInet. We collected contacts within each of the telecos that serve 
South Dakota. In December, Letters of Authorization (LOAs) were sent 
to each of the respective telecos.” 
TN $14,000,000.00 
“As of July 1, 2015, 86 PSAPs were tested for live traffic and 75 are live 
on the network. The number of PSAPs live on the NG911 network 
currently fluctuates between 75 to 90, depending on technical issues. 
The deployment of NG911 sometimes requires PSAPs to be “rolled off” 
of the network while equipment upgrades, circuit testing or other 
technical measures are being undertaken. Equipment is complete in 137 
PSAPs across the state and all wireless carriers are now sending calls 
over NG911. The TECB is currently working to connect wireline and 
voice over internet protocol (“VoIP”) carriers to the network. The TECB 
is also working on the development and deployment of a state-wide ALI 
database.” 
TX $30,071,313.01 
“State 9-1-1 Program: 
 
• During the calendar year of 2015, CSEC had 21 of 22 regional 
planning commissions completing various stages of their ESInet. Some 
entities were ordering equipment, while others were receiving, 
installing, and testing. 
 
772 ECDs: 
• No projects reported. 
 
Municipal ECDs: 
• Purchased Next Gen capable equipment. 
• Consolidated dispatch center between cities of Addison, Farmers 
Branch, Coppell and Carrollton, TX 
• Installed IP enabled CPE with live redundancy at alternate site. 
• Established contract with Intrado/West for Text-to-911 and to upgrade 
circuits to TIs. 
• The City of Dallas has hired a consultant to perform an assessment of 
the City’s 911 call center system (hardware and software), develop 
specifications and provide implementation management for a new 911 
NG911 call center technology solution (hardware and software).” 
UT $1,200,000.00 
“There are two more Regional ESInets that are underway in Utah, Davis 
County and Utah County. Expected completion dates are both 3rd 
quarter 2016. 
 
We have three PSAPs that have connected to a statewide backbone 
network that currently allows for IP call delivery, and several more in 
the works. All Regional ESInets currently connect to this backbone 
network.” 
79 
 
State Amount Spent Description of Projects 
VA $1,000,000.00 
“Northern VA Regional SIF Project:  
 
Knowing that the existing Verizon Selective Router Network for the 
legacy 9-1-1 system is nearing obsolescence, and that data preparation is 
a key element of transitioning to NG9-1-1, the Northern Virginia PSAPs 
have received a PSAP Grant to prepare the GIS datasets that are 
necessary to transition from the tabular MSAG and ALI database to the 
data that is needed to populate the Emergency Call Routing Function 
(ECRF) and Location Validation Function (LVF) of the NENA i3 
architecture. The goal of this SIF project is to develop a regional GIS 
dataset for Northern Virginia that is suitable for provisioning into a live 
NG9-1 -1 ECRF/ LVF system residing on the ESInet. 
 
Transition to Managed IP Network for 9-1-1 Call Delivery 
8 of 121 PSAPs in Virginia have cut off the Verizon or Century Link 
selective routers in Virginia, and transitioned away from the LEC to a 
managed IP Network solution through a 3rd-party provider.  All 8 of 
those PSAPs selected West/Intrado as their provider.  These transitions 
are all individual decisions by each PSAP.” 
VT $4,604,830.00 
“The State of Vermont has and continues to allow expenditures under 
the 9-1-1 program for Next Generation 9-1-1 services. Vermont’s 
current statewide NG911 system is provided by FairPoint 
Communications.” 
WA $15,037,422.00 
“Washington State continued to replace analog 911 telephone 
equipment in the state’s 54 primary PSAPs with NG911 phone systems.  
A total of 10 primary PSAPs were upgraded during the calendar year.  
In 2015, the State of Washington continued with a third-party 
cybersecurity assessment of the state-wide ESInet, and began 
solicitation of a new ESInet for Washington State.” 
WV Not Specified 
“Dark Fiber and routers are installed in all PSAPs in WV in preparation 
for NG911.” 
Other Jurisdictions 
DC $4,500,000.00 
“The Office of Unified Communications initiated their NG911 projects 
in 2015, with consulting fees, and procurement of Next Generation 9-1-
1 IP logging equipment.” 
PR $86,000.00 “Text 911” 
Total $164,817,664.55 
 
 
48. ESInet Deployments.  To better track NG911 implementation progress, the Bureau 
requested that states and other responding jurisdictions provide information on whether they had any 
Emergency Services IP Networks (ESInets) operating during calendar year 2015.  The Bureau further 
requested descriptions of the type and number of ESInets operating within each state or jurisdiction, and 
80 
 
the number of PSAPs linked to each ESInet.85  As detailed in Table 20, thirteen states and Puerto Rico 
reported having deployed state-wide ESInets.86  Fifteen states reported having regional ESInets within 
the state, and ten states reported local-level ESInets.87 
 
 
 
Table 20 – Type and Number of ESInets Deployed During Period Ending December 31, 2015 
 
Type Of 
ESInet 
Number of 
States/Jurisdictions 
Indicating PSAPs 
Connected to ESInets 
States/Jurisdictions Responding YES 
Total PSAPs 
Operating on 
ESInets 
No Yes 
Single 
Statewide 
ESInet 
34 14 
Connecticut 
Delaware 
Indiana  
Iowa 
Maine 
Minnesota 
New Hampshire 
North Dakota 
Rhode Island 
Tennessee 
Vermont 
Washington 
West Virginia 
Puerto Rico 
503 
Regional 
ESInet 
30 15 
Arizona 
California 
Florida 
Illinois 
Kansas 
Kentucky 
Louisiana 
Michigan 
Nevada 
North Carolina 
Pennsylvania 
Texas 
Utah 
Virginia 
Washington 
367 
Local ESInet 38 10 
Colorado 
Florida 
Hawaii 
Louisiana 
Nevada  
North Carolina 
Ohio 
South Carolina 
Utah 
Virginia 
88 
 
                                                     
85 The deployment of ESInets, while a significant step in the transition to NG911, does not in and of itself constitute 
full implementation of NG911 functionality.  In addition, while the data reported here indicates that significant 
ESInet deployment has occurred, the data also indicates that the vast majority of PSAPs nationwide continue to 
operate on legacy networks. 
86 We note that deployment of ESInets is an indicator that the state or jurisdiction is transitioning to IP-based routing 
of 911 calls, but ESInet deployment, by itself, does not mean the state has completed its transition to NG911 service.  
These states include Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 
Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.  In 2014, Hawaii reported that it has deployed a statewide 
ESInet but it did not respond to the question for this report. 
87 Note that Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia state that they have both regional and 
local ESInets operating within the state. 
81 
 
49. Text-to-911 Service. The Bureau requested that respondents specify the number of 
PSAPs within each state and jurisdiction that had implemented text-to-911 as of the end of calendar 
year 2015.  The Bureau also requested that respondents estimate the number of PSAPs that they 
anticipated would become text-capable by the end of calendar year 2016.  Table 21 sets forth the 
information provided by 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  Collectively, respondents 
reported 553 PSAPs as being text-capable as of the end of 2015, and further reported that they 
anticipated an additional 844 PSAPs would become text-capable by the end of 2016.  For purposes of 
comparison, Table 21 also includes data from the FCC’s Text-to-911 Registry as of December 21, 
2016, which shows the number of PSAPs that the reporting jurisdictions have registered with the FCC 
as text capable.88  While the total number of registered PSAPs is lower than the number of PSAPs that 
respondents projected would be text-capable at the end of 2016, the Bureau has received data indicating 
that many additional PSAPs that are not listed in the FCC registry (which is a voluntary registry) are in 
fact text-capable.  Thus, the actual number of text-capable PSAPs as of year-end 2016 may be 
considerably closer to the projected total in Table 21.  We anticipate that our ability to accurately 
monitor PSAP adoption of text-to-911 will improve with future annual data collections.   
 
Table 21 – Text-to-911 Deployments 
 
State 
Text-
Capable 
PSAPs As of 
Year End 
2015 
No 
Response 
Estimated 
Additional  Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Launched by 
Year End 2016 
No 
Response 
Total Estimated 
Text-Capable 
PSAPs by Year 
End 2016 
Total Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Listed in FCC 
Text to 911 
Registry as of 
December 21, 
201689 
AK 0 
 
2 
 
2 0 
AL 14 
 
45 
 
59 3 
AR 4 
 
4 
 
8 6 
AZ 0 
 
0 
 
0 1 
CA 24 
 
100 
 
124 61 
CO 43 
 
0 
 
43 49 
CT 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
DE 9 
 
0 
 
9 9 
FL 19 
 
37 
 
56 13 
GA 5 
 
0 
 
5 6 
HI 6 
 
0 
 
6 9 
IA 10 
 
103 
 
113 11 
                                                     
88 The FCC’s PSAP Text-to-911 Readiness and Certification Registry is available at 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/psap-text-911-readiness-and-certification-form.  FCC rules do not require PSAPs to 
register with the FCC when they become text-capable; they may notify service providers directly that they are text-
capable and certified to accept texts.  The FCC has encouraged all text-capable PSAPs to register with the FCC. 
89 Based on the FCC’s Registry, the following states and territories are considered to have statewide text-to-911 
availability: Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Vermont, and Puerto 
Rico.  In addition, although Missouri did not file a report, we note that 29 Missouri PSAPs are listed in the FCC 
Registry as text capable.  Accordingly, they are included in the total of 756 provided in Table 21. 
82 
 
State 
Text-
Capable 
PSAPs As of 
Year End 
2015 
No 
Response 
Estimated 
Additional  Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Launched by 
Year End 2016 
No 
Response 
Total Estimated 
Text-Capable 
PSAPs by Year 
End 2016 
Total Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Listed in FCC 
Text to 911 
Registry as of 
December 21, 
201689 
ID 7 
 
19 
 
26 9 
IL 
 
X 
 
X 0 14 
IN 84 
 
8 
 
92 92 
KS 11 
 
51 
 
62 11 
KY 1 
 
12 
 
13 3 
LA 6 
 
7 
 
13 7 
MA 0 
 
2 
 
2 0 
MD 1 
 
2 
 
3 1 
ME 2 
 
24 
 
26 2 
MI 16 
 
14 
 
30 32 
MN 0 
 
7 
 
7 0 
MS 1 
 
25 
 
26 0 
MT 0 
 
4 
 
4 24 
NC 68 
 
51 
 
119 81 
ND 0 
 
5 
 
5 4 
NE 3 
 
10 
 
13 4 
NH 2 
 
0 
 
2 1 
NJ 0 
 
17 
 
17 19 
NM 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
NV 4 
 
1 
 
5 1 
NY 
 
X 
 
X 0 11 
OH 5 
 
65 
 
70 3 
OK 
 
X 
 
X 0 1 
OR 0 
 
8 
 
8 8 
PA 23 
 
30 
 
53 11 
RI 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
SC 5 
 
10 
 
15 12 
SD 0 
 
21 
 
21 0 
TN 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
TX 137 
 
87 
 
224 149 
UT 0 
 
20 
 
20 10 
VA 25 
 
20 
 
45 30 
VT 6 
 
0 
 
6 6 
WA 6 
 
23 
 
29 6 
WI 4 
  
X 4 4 
WV 0 
 
9 
 
9 1 
83 
 
State 
Text-
Capable 
PSAPs As of 
Year End 
2015 
No 
Response 
Estimated 
Additional  Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Launched by 
Year End 2016 
No 
Response 
Total Estimated 
Text-Capable 
PSAPs by Year 
End 2016 
Total Text-
Capable PSAPs 
Listed in FCC 
Text to 911 
Registry as of 
December 21, 
201689 
WY 
 
X 
 
X 
 
0 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
DC 0 
 
1 
 
1 0 
PR 2 
 
0 
 
2 1 
USVI 0 
 
0 
 
0 0 
Totals 553 4 844 5 1,397 756 
 
 
 
J. Cybersecurity Expenditures  
 
50. The Bureau requested that states and jurisdictions provide information on whether they 
expended funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs in 2015 and, if so, the amounts of those 
expenditures.  As represented in Table 22, 41jurisdictions responded that they did not expend funds on 
PSAP-related cybersecurity programs.90  Eight states and the District of Columbia reported that they 
expended funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs in 2015. 
 
51. The Bureau additionally requested information on the number of PSAPs in each state or 
jurisdiction that implemented or participated in cybersecurity programs in 2015.  Table 22 shows that 
ten states reported that one or more of their PSAPs either implemented a cybersecurity program or 
participated in a regional or state-run cybersecurity program.  Fifteen states, American Samoa, the 
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands reported that their PSAPs did not 
implement or participate in cybersecurity programs.91  Twenty-two states reported that they lacked data 
or otherwise did not know whether their PSAPs had implemented or participated in cybersecurity 
programs. 
  
                                                     
90 Georgia reported it did not know whether the state had expended funds on cybersecurity programs.  New York 
and Wyoming did not respond to the question. 
91 Illinois and North Dakota, which both responded that this question was not applicable to them, are included in this 
category. 
84 
 
 
Table 22 – Annual Cybersecurity Expenditures 
 
State 
During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, did your 
state expend funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs? 
Number of PSAPs that either 
implemented a cyber 
security program or 
participated in a regional or 
state-run cyber security 
program. Yes No NR Unknown  Amount  
AK   X       0 
AL   X       0 
AR   X       0 
AZ   X       0 
CA   X       0 
CO   X     
 
32 
CT   X       0 
DE   X       0 
FL X       $157,142.00 51 
GA       X   0 
HI   X       6 
IA X         114 
ID   X       17 
IL   X       0 
IN X         0 
KS X         14 
KY   X       0 
LA   X       0 
MA   X       0 
MD   X       0 
ME X         26 
85 
 
State 
During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, did your 
state expend funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs? 
Number of PSAPs that either 
implemented a cyber 
security program or 
participated in a regional or 
state-run cyber security 
program. Yes No NR Unknown  Amount  
MI X       $22,000,000.0092 0 
MN   X       0 
MS   X       0 
MT   X       0 
NC   X       0 
ND   X       0 
NE   X       0 
NH   X       2 
NJ   X       0 
NM   X       0 
NV   X       0 
NY     X     0 
OH   X       40 
OK   X       0 
OR   X       0 
PA   X       0 
RI   X       0 
SC   X       0 
SD   X       0 
TN   X       0 
TX X       $586,478.61 64 
                                                     
92 Michigan stated that its “estimated aggregate spend for Cyber Security in 2015 was $22 million. This spend 
represents multiple categories across multiple centralized Information Technology programs for the state.  The 
estimated spend is comprised of actual costs and estimated costs for program resources required for specific security 
functions.  Included within this amount are cyber expenditures for centralized cyber related infrastructure and 
services that are used to support three Michigan State Police operated PSAPs in Negaunee, Gaylord, [and] Detroit.”  
Michigan Response at 19. 
86 
 
State 
During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, did your 
state expend funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs? 
Number of PSAPs that either 
implemented a cyber 
security program or 
participated in a regional or 
state-run cyber security 
program. Yes No NR Unknown  Amount  
UT   X       0 
VA   X       0 
VT   X       0 
WA X       $153,356.00 54 
WI   X       0 
WV   X       0 
WY     X     0 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS   X       0 
DC X         0 
PR   X       0 
USVI   X       0 
Total  9 41 2 1 $22,896,976.61 420 
 
 
52. The Bureau asked states and jurisdictions to report whether they adhere to the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity 
(NIST Framework)93 for networks that support one or more PSAPs.  Eleven states and the District of 
Columbia reported that they do adhere to the NIST Framework, eight states and Puerto Rico reported 
that they do not, and 27 states, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands indicated they did not 
know.94  
  
                                                     
93 See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Cybersecurity Framework, at 
http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/. 
94 Nevada, New York, and Wyoming did not respond to the question. 
87 
 
 
Table 23 – Adherence to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 
 
State 
State or jurisdiction adheres to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (February 2014) for 
networks supporting one or more PSAPs in your state or jurisdiction. 
  Yes No Unknown No Response 
AK     X   
AL   X     
AR     X   
AZ     X   
CA X       
CO     X   
CT   X     
DE     X   
FL     X   
GA X       
HI     X   
IA X       
ID     X   
IL   X     
IN X       
KS   X     
KY     X   
LA     X   
MA     X   
MD X       
ME     X   
MI X       
MN     X   
88 
 
State 
State or jurisdiction adheres to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (February 2014) for 
networks supporting one or more PSAPs in your state or jurisdiction. 
  Yes No Unknown No Response 
MS     X   
MT     X   
NC     X   
ND     X   
NE     X   
NH X       
NJ     X   
NM   X     
NV       X 
NY       X 
OH   X     
OK      X   
OR     X   
PA     X   
RI   X     
SC     X   
SD X       
TN     X   
TX X       
UT   X     
VA     X   
VT X       
WA X       
WI     X   
WV     X   
89 
 
State 
State or jurisdiction adheres to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (February 2014) for 
networks supporting one or more PSAPs in your state or jurisdiction. 
  Yes No Unknown No Response 
WY       X 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS     X   
DC X       
PR   X     
USVI     X   
Totals 12 9 29 3 
 
 
 
K. Measuring Effective Utilization of 911/E911 Fees  
 
53. The questionnaire asked respondents to provide “an assessment of the effects achieved 
from the expenditure of state 911/E911 or NG911 funds, including any criteria [the] state or jurisdiction 
uses to measure the effectiveness of the use of 911/E911 fees and charges.”  Of the jurisdictions that 
responded, 42 described some effort to measure the effectiveness of 911/E911 fund expenditures.  
Responses varied from descriptions of how funds had been spent on NG911 to state plans with metrics 
describing improvements to the 911 system.  Alabama reported that it has begun collecting data on a 
biennial basis, with the first result a report a historical survey of state 911 fees.95  According to 
Kentucky, state certified PSAPs are subject to various audits to measure effectiveness, including an 
audit that measures the accuracy of their ability to plot the location of wireless 911 calls; financial 
audits at least once every six years; and required completion of a PSAP survey to maintain state 
certification.96  North Carolina reported that the North Carolina 911 Board completed a rulemaking 
process, effective July 2016, to establish administrative rules for the state’s primary PSAPs that receive 
911 funding, including development of an assessment tool to assist PSAP managers.97  In addition, 
North Carolina reported that it uses “the Electronic Call Analysis Tracking System (ECaTS) to measure 
individual call answer times by PSAP, which enabled it to improve call answering times.98 
 
                                                     
95 Alabama Response at 19-27. 
96 Kentucky Response at 18. 
97 North Carolina Response at 19. 
98 Id.  According to North Carolina, in January 2014, 33 percent of its PSAPs (42) did not meet the state’s standard 
of 10 second answer time for 90 percent of all 911 calls.  In December 2014, that number had decreased to 23 
percent, and by December 2015, had decreased to 8.2 percent.  North Carolina found that “this indicates that better 
training, better equipment and more attention to performance was given as a direct result of 911 funding.” Id. 
90 
 
54. Some states indicate that measuring effectiveness lies with local organizations.  Georgia 
stated that because local governments collect all 911 fees, “there are no state assessments on these 
funds available detailing the effect achieved from any 911 expenditures.”99  Mississippi reported that 
the state does not have “a committee, organization, or board that has oversight or that implements the 
policies and procedures regarding 911/E911 usage [and] responsibility lays solely with the local board 
of supervisors” to measure the effective utilization of 911 fees.100      
 
55. In 2014, the Commission formed an expert advisory committee, the Task Force on 
Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture (Task Force), to provide comprehensive 
recommendations on actions that state, local, and tribal 911 authorities can take to optimize 
cybersecurity, network architecture, and funding.  The Task Force completed its work on December 2, 
2016, with the adoption of final reports that provide detailed recommendations for state and local 
NG911 planning and budgeting and a common NG911 “scorecard” to enable jurisdictions to assess the 
progress and maturity of their NG911 implementations.101  We anticipate that as states and other 
jurisdictions incorporate these guidelines into their planning, future fee reports will provide enhanced 
information on the effective utilization of 911/E911 fees.   
 
L. Public Comments on 2015 Seventh Annual Report  
 
56. As in past reports, this section summarizes public comments received in response to the 
prior year’s report.  On January 8, 2016 the Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment on 
the 2015 Seventh Annual Report and the sufficiency and accuracy of the reported information.102  We 
received input from seven commenters.103  APCO states that “diverting 9-1-1 fees exacerbates 
challenges that are already facing resource-constrained PSAPs,” and “not only can fee diversion render 
a state ineligible for federal grants, it also undermines the case for funding made by non-diverting 
states.”104  T-Mobile concurs, arguing further that “one of the biggest contributors to fee diversion and 
its impact on 911 funding is the lack of consensus around what activities and investments 911 fees 
should support,” a situation made more complicated by varying state statutes as to what constitutes a 
permissible use of 911 fees.105  T-Mobile believes that different statutory allowances means “the 
amount of fees that are diverted to non-911 activities may actually be higher than the [FCC] report 
indicates.”106  Lastly, T-Mobile suggests that because “the FCC relies on states to self-report fee 
diversion [and that many states] do not require an independent audit of 911 fee collections or 
                                                     
99 Georgia Response at 18. 
100 Mississippi Response at 18. 
101 See FCC, Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture, at https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-
committees/general/task-force-optimal-public-safety-answering-point. 
102 FCC Seeks Public Comment on Seventh Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 
and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 84 (Jan. 8, 2016) (Public Notice), available at 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001536009.pdf. 
103 The Commission received comments from APCO, the Washington State APCO-NENA Chapter, the New Jersey 
Association of Counties, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Reply Comments from T-Mobile USA, Inc. and the 
New Jersey Wireless Association. 
104 APCO Comments at 2. 
105 T-Mobile Reply Comments at 2. 
106 Id. 
91 
 
expenditures [then] these self-reports could well be understated even with respect to the permitted uses 
under state law.”107 
57. Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) takes issue with the Bureau designating the state as 
a diverter in the 2014 period, because “the fee distribution practices Virginia reported to the FCC [in the 
Seventh Report] are not new and have been reported in each of the six prior years’ submissions.”108  
According to Virginia, “these practices were not deemed diversions in the past, but now appear to be 
considered diversions [but] the subject report gives no explanation for the change.”109  Virginia reports 
that the Virginia State Police plays a critical role in the processing of 911 calls, transferring as many as 
211,000 wireless 911 calls annually for answering and processing.110  According to Virginia, ‘”the $3.7 
million transferred in the Virginia Appropriation Act from the fund to the State Police supports this 
ongoing role in the provision of 9-1-1 services and is not a diversion of funds away from 9-1-1 
services.”111  Virginia also points out that “fewer CMRS providers sought cost recovery over the last 
several years and [the state] recognized an opportunity to fund 9-1-1 dispatchers with a portion of this 
funding [and thus] the Virginia Appropriation Act [shifted] a portion of the CMRS provider funding ($8 
million) to the Compensation Board,” which directly supports dispatchers in 911 centers.112  Although 
Virginia agrees that the report does indicate that the diverted funds are being used to support other 
public safety or emergency response-related programs, Virginia believes that “this statement does not 
fully characterize the situation in Virginia” and thus Virginia seeks reconsideration of the classification 
as a diverter.113 
 
58. The New Jersey Association of Counties (NJAC) comments that New Jersey “collects in 
excess of $100 million annually in telecommunication user surcharges, itemized on consumer bills as 
“9-1-1 System/Emergency Response Fees,” [but] the vast majority of 9-1-1 service requests in the State 
continue to be handled by county and municipal PSAPs [and] the State has not allocated any funding 
whatsoever through the 9-1-1 Trust Fund to local PSAP operators since 2009.”114  According to NIAC, 
“[d]ue to this lack of funding, counties operating PSAPs have become self-reliant in improving, 
maintaining and operating their 9-1-1 systems, despite local residents providing the State a consistent 
                                                     
107 Id. at 3. 
108 Commonwealth of Virginia Comments at 1.  According to Virginia, “[u]nder the sections of the Code of Virginia 
that concern 9-1-1 funding, Virginia collects a $0.75 monthly surcharge from all wireless subscribers to fund 9-1-1 
services within the Commonwealth. The revenue collected is distributed to cover several 9-1-1 needs. The largest 
portion (60 percent) of the funding is distributed monthly to the local 9-1-1 centers to support operational expenses. 
An additional 10 percent of the fund is set aside to provide grants to localities to assist with equipment and services 
purchases and upgrades. The remaining funding (30 percent) is held to provide cost recovery to commercial mobile 
radio system (CMRS) providers for the costs of providing Phase I and Phase 2 data in Virginia.” Id. 
109 Id. 
110 Id. at 2. 
111 Id.  According to Virginia, “there are only two other call centers in Virginia processing more wireless 9-1-1 calls 
than the State Police.” 
112 Id. 
113 Id. 
114 New Jersey Association of Counties Comments at 1.  See also New Jersey Wireless Association Reply 
Comments at 2 (“During the years 2006-2009, a portion of the 911 Trust Fund provided grants to New Jersey 
counties/municipalities. After 2009, no funds were granted to New Jersey counties and municipalities. While grants 
to locally run PSAPs have been eliminated, the State has allocated 911 Trust Funds to agencies and expense 
categories that NJWA believes are not consistent with the Act’s spirit and intent.”). 
92 
 
revenue stream intended for such purposes.”115  New Jersey Wireless Association states that, “while 
[New Jersey Statutes, section 52:17C-19, establishing the 911 Trust Fund] does not specifically permit 
these fund diversions, the current and all past administrations in our state have interpreted this Statute, 
since its inception in 2004, in such a manner that these 911 fee diversions are now a de-facto way of 
addressing other budget gaps.”116  NJAC urges the FCC to recognize this critical public safety funding 
diversion and take action to ensure 9-1-1 Trust Fund revenues are spent solely on eligible expenses [as] 
[d]oing so will help to ensure that local PSAPs have the funding necessary to continue to provide 
residents with effective, efficient and up to date 9-1-1 systems as intended.”117   
 
59. The Bureau also sought comment on whether there have been other instances of fee 
diversion by states or local jurisdictions, including counties or other jurisdictions in state that have local 
of hybrid fee collection programs.118  The Washington State APCO-NENA Chapter (APCO-NENA) 
commented that it is “concerned about the use of 911 funds for purposes other than 911 in Washington 
State.”119  According to APCO-NENA, although Washington State “correctly answered yes” to 
Question G regarding the use of collected 911 fees within the state’s relevant funding mechanism, 
“Washington State routinely changes the funding mechanism to permit use of 911 funds for purposes 
other than 911.”120  APCO-NENA believes that “without a national standard definition for appropriate 
uses of 911 funds it is left to each state or jurisdiction to determine their own definition/boundaries and 
expenditure rules” and that “911 funds generated from the current funding model do not entirely cover 
the cost of providing the 911/E911/NG911 services.”121  T-Mobile notes that Michigan “collects ‘Police 
and Fire’ fees, but those fees are deposited in the state’s general fund rather than being set aside for 
police and fire activities.”122  Similarly, T-Mobile points out that Colorado uses 911 fees for “the hiring 
and training of call takers – which is closely connected to the provision of 911 services, but also may be 
considered fee diversion.”123 
                                                     
115 Id. 
116 New Jersey Wireless Association Reply Comments at 3. 
117 Id. 
118 Public Notice at 2. 
119 Washington State APCO-NENA Chapter Comments (Feb. 17, 2016) at 1.  See also T-Mobile Reply Comments 
at 3. 
120 Id. APCO-NENA points out that in its State Fiscal Year 2013-2015 biennium, the Washington State legislature 
appropriated State E911 Funds as follows: $10,842,000 to the Washington Military Department Operating Budget – 
replacing equivalent General Fund (GF)-S with dedicated State E911 Account Funding; $3,867,000 to the 
Washington State Patrol – Mobile Office Platform; and $2,000,000 to the Department of Corrections – Radio 
Infrastructure Upgrade.  Similarly, in the State Fiscal Year 2015-2017 biennium, the legislature approved 
appropriations from the State E911 Fund as follows: $8,606,000 – to the Washington Military Department Operating 
Budget – replaced equivalent GF-S with dedicated State E911 Account Funding; $3,230,000 to the Washington 
State Patrol –Criminal History Fingerprint System; $ 633,000 for state government policy compensation changes; 
and $ 130,000 for a King County cardiac arrest response pilot project.  See also Robert Oenning (“If legislatively 
approved redirection of funds explicitly collected for support of 911 operations is not considered diversion by the 
Commission that should be made abundantly clear in the report to Congress. If legislative redirection is considered 
diversion that should be made clear to the reporting entities, and in this case the report should be appropriately 
corrected.”). 
121 Id. at 2. 
122 T-Mobile Reply Comments at 2-3. 
123 Id. 
93 
 
 
60. We sought comment on whether expenditure of 911 fees on NG911-related programs as 
documented in the Report is effectively contributing to implementation of NG911 services and 
infrastructure, including deployment of text-to-911.124 APCO states that “it is important to have a clear 
picture of current NG9-1-1 deployments, as well as the challenges facing states, in order to facilitate the 
transition to NG9-1-1 nationwide.”  APCO believes that because “there is still no consensus-based, 
standardized definition of NG9-1-1, which makes data analysis and planning the transition to NG9-1-1 
more difficult, the responses received for the [annual report] may present an unclear picture of NG911 
expenditures.”  By way of example, APCO points out that some “states reported funds and efforts 
related to text-to-911 as NG911 expenditures [but] the current, interim SMS text-to-911 solution 
available in some areas today is more accurately defined as an enhancement to a legacy system as 
opposed to an initial capability of NG9-1-1.”125  APCO agrees with the Commission that ESInet 
deployment is an indicator that the state or jurisdiction is transitioning to IP-based routing of 911 calls, 
but “limiting the definition of NG9-1-1 to IP-based routing overlooks additional needs for staffing, 
technologists, cyber security, records management systems, logging, and a variety of other 
requirements.”126  Lastly, ACPO recommends that the Commission “seek additional information to 
better understand how states should amend any laws or regulations that act as impediments to the 
deployment of NG9-1-1.”127  
 
61. APCO urges the Commission “to take a proactive role in properly defining NG9-1-1 as 
end-to-end (from the caller to the telecommunicator) IP connectivity enabling current voice 
communications, future multimedia, and other data capabilities to flow from the 9-1-1 caller to the 
PSAP and be properly reported, archived, and further transmitted between the PSAP and first 
responders. The definition must be both clear and comprehensive to ensure adequate funding and 
planning.”128  Finally, APCO recommends revising the annual questionnaire to capture information 
related to the technical standards that states and their vendors are employing for NG911 components so 
as to better understand what “these standards entail, how they are applied, and whether they ensure 
interoperability between systems” and to help “stakeholders identify gaps and determine whether 
there’s a need to complete or refine NG9-1-1 standards.”129 
 
62. We also sought comment on whether 911 fees are being effectively used by state, local, 
and tribal jurisdictions to implement cybersecurity best practices within PSAPs as well as adherence to 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework.130  APCO states that as 
“states and jurisdictions continue to transition to IP-based networks and equipment, cyber security is an 
increasingly critical consideration.”131  Noting that “cybersecurity programs” may be interpreted to 
encompass a vast array of practices and initiatives, such as cyber hygiene, workforce training, and 
hiring cyber security consultants, APCO recommends that the Commission “provide guidance about 
                                                     
124 Public Notice at 2. 
125 APCO Comments at 3. 
126 Id. 
127 Id. at 5. 
128 APCO Comments at 3. 
129 Id. at 4. 
130 Public Notice at 2. 
131 APCO Comments at 4. 
94 
 
what constitutes a “cybersecurity program” and seek more focused information about the types of 
cybersecurity programs states and PSAPs are participating in and implementing.”132  In this way, argues 
APCO, “[u]nderstanding the cybersecurity efforts underway may assist with the development of 
cybersecurity plans to achieve economies of scale, real time capabilities, and operational efficiencies . . 
. information [that] will also be useful for promoting increased awareness, transparency, information 
sharing, and related educational efforts among public safety stakeholders.”133  Lastly, APCO cautions 
that “while the deployment of IP networks and equipment increases the cyber risk, vulnerabilities also 
exist for legacy systems [and] [b]oth legacy and next generation PSAPs must be equipped to identify, 
defend against, and recover from cyberattacks.”134 
 
63. We sought comment on the role of oversight and auditing in ensuring that collected 911 
fees are used according to state and local requirements, and on whether additional efforts are needed to 
ensure that state and local entities have the authority to monitor and audit 911 fee collections.135  We 
did not receive any comments on this line of inquiry. 
 
  
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE 2016 EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT 
 
64. Following submission of this report to Congress, the Commission will make the report 
public and will formally seek public comment on it. We will include any pertinent information from 
public comments in next year’s report. 
 
                                                     
132 Id. 
133 Id. 
134 Id. 
135 Public Notice at 2. 
95 
 
Appendix A 
 
Summary of State Responses Regarding 2015 Collections 
 
State/Other 
Jurisdiction 
Type of Fund 
Collection 
Authority to  
Approve 911 
Expenditures 
Total Funds 
Collected 
(2015 Annual Period) 
Total Funds 
Used for Non-
911 Related 
Purposes 
NG911 Funding 
Permissible 
under 911/E911 
Funding 
Authority 
Total Funds Used 
for NG911 
(2015 Annual Period) 
NG911 
Expenditures 
as a % of 
Total Funds 
Collected 
AK Local Local $12,837,113.68 None No None -- 
AL State Hybrid $116,440,103.36 None Yes $516,285.31 .4% 
AR Hybrid Hybrid $26,985,554.99 None Yes None -- 
AZ State State $19,227,222.00 None Yes $17,804.00 .1% 
CA State State $87,838,234.00 None Yes $3,687,206.00 4.2% 
CO Hybrid Local $52,732,731.00 None Yes $4,083,718.00 7.7% 
CT State State $32,564,308.00 None Yes None -- 
DE State Hybrid $8,159,730.03136 None Yes $2,700,000.00 33% 
FL State Hybrid $108,226,957.00 None Yes $17,162,709.23 15.9% 
GA Local Local $17,659,037.41 None Yes None -- 
                                                     
136 2014 total used as proxy. 
96 
 
State/Other 
Jurisdiction 
Type of Fund 
Collection 
Authority to  
Approve 911 
Expenditures 
Total Funds 
Collected 
(2015 Annual Period) 
Total Funds 
Used for Non-
911 Related 
Purposes 
NG911 Funding 
Permissible 
under 911/E911 
Funding 
Authority 
Total Funds Used 
for NG911 
(2015 Annual Period) 
NG911 
Expenditures 
as a % of 
Total Funds 
Collected 
HI State State $10,237,032.00 None Yes $2,687,000.00 26.2% 
IA Hybrid Hybrid $40,547,767.19 
$4,000,000.00 
(9.9%) 
Yes 
$16,000,000.00 39.5% 
ID Hybrid Local $20,952,378.70 None Yes None -- 
IL Hybrid Local $95,500,349.00 
$5,000,000.00 
(5.2%) 
No None -- 
IN State Hybrid $79,108,857.85 None Yes $8,500,000.00 10.7% 
KS State Hybrid $20,821,974.24 None Yes $4,610,580.68 22.1% 
KY Hybrid Hybrid $53,500,000.00 None Yes Unknown -- 
LA Hybrid Local $42,750,000.00 None Yes Unknown -- 
MA State State $95,508,773.40 None Yes $9,540,773.00 10% 
MD State State $53,314,406.32 None Yes $5,867,257.46 11% 
ME State State $8,402,473.00 None Yes $5,070,752.00 60.3% 
MI Hybrid Hybrid $93,333,482.76 None Yes $608,014.68 .7% 
MN State State $62,110,858.23 None Yes $6,404,339.00 10.3% 
97 
 
State/Other 
Jurisdiction 
Type of Fund 
Collection 
Authority to  
Approve 911 
Expenditures 
Total Funds 
Collected 
(2015 Annual Period) 
Total Funds 
Used for Non-
911 Related 
Purposes 
NG911 Funding 
Permissible 
under 911/E911 
Funding 
Authority 
Total Funds Used 
for NG911 
(2015 Annual Period) 
NG911 
Expenditures 
as a % of 
Total Funds 
Collected 
MS Local Local $26,510,538.00 None Yes None -- 
MT State Hybrid $13,000,000.00 None No None -- 
NC State State $81,135,377.32 None Yes $1,524,654.00 1.9% 
ND Hybrid Local $10,337,907.00 None Yes $255,750.00 2.5% 
NE Hybrid Hybrid $13,900,447.54 None Yes None -- 
NH State State $12,317,417.55 
$2,078,685.85 
(16.9%) 
Yes None -- 
NJ State State $122,632,000.00 
$110,278,000.00 
(89.9%) 
Yes 
$75,871.14 .1% 
NM State State $11,146,012.00 None Yes None -- 
NV Local Local 
$1,591,367.00 
(Washoe County) 
None 
Yes 
(Counties of 
Washoe and Nye 
County) 
$242,000.00 
(Nye County) 
-- 
NY Hybrid Hybrid $185,262,082.00 
$77,254,288.19 
(42%) 
Yes Not Specified -- 
OH Hybrid Hybrid $40,382,365.16 None Yes Not Specified -- 
OK State Local Did Not Provide None No Unknown -- 
98 
 
State/Other 
Jurisdiction 
Type of Fund 
Collection 
Authority to  
Approve 911 
Expenditures 
Total Funds 
Collected 
(2015 Annual Period) 
Total Funds 
Used for Non-
911 Related 
Purposes 
NG911 Funding 
Permissible 
under 911/E911 
Funding 
Authority 
Total Funds Used 
for NG911 
(2015 Annual Period) 
NG911 
Expenditures 
as a % of 
Total Funds 
Collected 
OR State Hybrid $39,470,386.00 None Yes $325,428.04 .8% 
PA State Hybrid $239,800,218.00 None Yes Unknown -- 
RI State State $16,345,363.80 
$11,185,216.24 
(68.4%) 
Yes 
$630,000.00 3.9% 
SC Hybrid Hybrid $39,054,282.49 None Yes $325,000.00 .8% 
SD State Hybrid $13,093,702.00 None Yes $3,482,957.00 26.6% 
TN State Hybrid $78,729,854.00 None Yes $14,000,000.00 17.8% 
TX Hybrid Hybrid $222,938,735.00 None Yes $30,071,313.01 13.5% 
UT State Hybrid $27,130,872.00 None Yes $1,200,000.00 4.4% 
VA State Hybrid $85,431,606.09 None Yes $1,000,000.00 1.2% 
VT State State $6,256,658.00137 None Yes $4,604,830.00 73.6% 
                                                     
137 Total collected under Vermont Universal Service Fund fee of 2% on all telecommunications service providers. 
99 
 
State/Other 
Jurisdiction 
Type of Fund 
Collection 
Authority to  
Approve 911 
Expenditures 
Total Funds 
Collected 
(2015 Annual Period) 
Total Funds 
Used for Non-
911 Related 
Purposes 
NG911 Funding 
Permissible 
under 911/E911 
Funding 
Authority 
Total Funds Used 
for NG911 
(2015 Annual Period) 
NG911 
Expenditures 
as a % of 
Total Funds 
Collected 
WA Hybrid Hybrid $94,445,461.00 
$6,017,185.00 
(6.4%) 
Yes $15,037,4232.00 15.9% 
WI 
Fees retained in 
full by service 
providers 
Not Applicable Did Not Provide None Yes None -- 
WV Hybrid Hybrid $56,649,322.00 
$3,984,195.00 
(7%) 
Yes Not Specified -- 
WY Local Local Did Not Provide None Did Not Provide Unknown -- 
Other Jurisdictions  
AS None 138 Not Applicable Not Applicable None Did Not Provide None -- 
DC City City $12,189,231.34 None Yes $4,500,000.00 36.9% 
PR State State $21,896,788.53 
$484,016.54 
(2.2%) 
No $86,000.00 .4% 
USVI State State $1,297,671.00 None No None -- 
States/Jurisdictions That Did Not File a Report 
Missouri 
Guam 
Northern Marianas Islands 
 
                                                     
138 911 service is budgeted through the executive office of the Department of Public Safety.  
100 
 
Appendix B 
Overview of Total State 911 Fees - 2009 to 2016 Reports139 
 
State 
2009 
Report 
2010 
Report 
2011 
Report 
2012 
Report 
2013 
Report 
2014 
Report 
2015 
Report 
2016 
Report 
AK DNP $8,199,046.36  $8,649,083.00  $12,320,888.00  $12,256,620.07  $12,448,651.46  $13,969,230.81 $12,837,113.68 
AL $60,465,103.67  $29,857,571.09  $28,680,846.00  $28,401,585.00  $28,401,585.00  $41,974,723.93  $108,787,855.93 $116,440,103.36 
AR $24,799,338.00  DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP $25,290,789.81 $26,985,554.99 
AZ $15,056,353.00  $17,460,160.00  $16,238,766.00  $16,747,691.00  $16,445,301.00  $16,628,695.00 $17,589,404.00 $19,227,222.00 
CA $106,817,446.59  $101,450,093.46  $100,000,000.00  $85,952,018.00  $82,126,695.00  $75,714,948.00 $97,077,234.00 $87,838,234.00 
CO $45,000,000.00  $45,000,000.00  $45,000,000.00  $1,907,087.00  
$42,900,000.00 
(est.)  
$42,900,000.00 
(est.) 
$52,257,085.00 
(est.) 
$52,732,731.00 
(est.) 
CT $20,116,090.61  $21,397,572.52  $20,723,228.00  $22,413,228.00  $24,001,890.00  $35,755,787.70 $37,176,000.00 $32,564,308.00 
DE DNP $2,259,727.83  $8,044,859.00  $8,775,757.00  $7,623,391.53  $7,786,658.53 $8,159,730.03 $8,159,730.03140 
FL $130,962,053.00  $125,531,674.00  $123,059,300.00 $122,550,767.00  $108,896,142.00  $107,884,715.00 $108,324,754.00 $108,226,957.00 
GA DNP $8,537,319.00  $8,950,569.00  $13,700,097.00  DNP $18,462,645.22 $17,538,556.19 $17,659,037.41 
HI $8,842,841.49  $9,578,764.44  $9,544,397.00  $9,755,031.00  $10,020,045.00  $9,599,983.00 $10,489,700.00 $10,237,032.00 
IA $29,054,622.00  $31,458,531.00  $31,304,377.00  $30,664,253.00  $30,297,168.00  $20,657,733.45 $27,820,551.74 $40,547,767.19 
ID $19,191,409.99  $18,673,808.67  $18,013,902.00  $17,013,000.00  $19,313,000.00  $20,768,995.00 $20,879,778.16 $20,952,378.70 
IL DNP $67,000,000.00  $69,700,000.00  $71,900,000.00  $69,200,000.00  $71,200,000.00 $213,983,628.00 $95,500,349.00 
IN $71,000,000.00  $39,600,000.00  $30,000,000.00  DNP $69,515,799.65  $73,114,655.69 $72,075,593.48 $79,108,857.85 
KS DNP $6,705,538.67  DNP $22,125,937.00  $20,477,020.47  $20,573,217.00 $20,337,748.19 $20,821,974.24 
KY $23,569,921.00  $22,979,827.96  $54,900,000.00  $56,500,000.00  $55,700,000.00  $53,506,843.30 $53,920,232.00 $53,500,000.00 
LA DNP DNP $3,017,672.00  DNP $4,912,926.00  DNP DNP $42,750,000.00 
MA DNP $69,694,702.00  $75,125,185.00  $73,408,835.00  $73,677,263.00  $74,561,727.61  $74,947,715.00 $95,508,773.40 
MD $57,176,923.16  $55,556,616.37  $54,560,255.00  $52,099,601.00  $52,240,760.76  $51,716,231.56  $54,766,848.29 $53,314,406.32 
ME $6,664,062.00 $6,108,985.00 $7,786,855.00 $8,416,235.00 $8,342,459.00 $8,034,327.32 $8,340,150.00 $8,402,473.00 
                                                     
139 “DNP” indicates that the state or jurisdiction did not provide the information. 
140 2014 Total used as proxy. 
101 
 
State 
2009 
Report 
2010 
Report 
2011 
Report 
2012 
Report 
2013 
Report 
2014 
Report 
2015 
Report 
2016 
Report 
MI $69,835,671.59 $93,000,132.24 $87,673,893.00 $196,215,849.00 $181,204,130.55 $178,224,825.56  $88,932,890.69 $93,333,482.76 
MN $51,281,641.00 $51,269,514.00 $58,821,937.00 $58,654,182.00 $62,353,897.17 $62,056,115.98  $61,446,108.15 $62,110,858.23 
MO DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP 
MS $11,758,733.12 DNP $56,335,986.00 $60,813,014.00 $65,290,042.40 $58,175,490.31  $31,280,356.96 $26,510,538.00 
MT $13,172,462.14 $13,172,462.14 $13,715,064.00 $13,626,940.00 $13,177,751.61 $13,099,542.00  $13,000,000.00 $13,000,000.00 
NC $84,613,672.00 $87,367,015.00 $80,001,662.00 DNP $69,424,896.51 $71,688,784.47  $78,161,246.38 $81,135,377.32 
ND DNP $8,369,366.00 DNP $9,506,000.00 $9,506,000.00 $9,998,322.00  $10,337,907.00 $10,337,907.00 
NE $13,278,907.19 $5,507,239.80 $8,128,042.00 $14,808,421.00  $15,555,733.76  $15,663,631.18  $13,940,368.00 $13,900,447.54 
NH $10,854,202.82 DNP $9,832,831.00 DNP $10,493,486.32  $10,467,786.57  $10,582,269.31 $12,317,417.55 
NJ $130,000,000.00 $128,900,000.00 DNP $125,000,000.00 $126,000,000.00  $121,000,000.00  $120,000,000.00 $122,632,000.00 
NM $12,786,327.64 $12,073,923.31 $13,081,062.00 $13,424,002.00 $12,028,770.41  $11,970,079.32  $11,600,163.44 $11,146,012.00 
NV DNP DNP DNP DNP $2,010,341.58  $1,944,446.69  DNP 
$1,591,367.00 
(Washoe County) 
NY $83,700,000.00 DNP $193,194,759.00 $194,787,113.00 $190,281,716.00  $183,219,891.00  $185,513,240.00 $185,262,082.00 
OH $28,544,923.91 $28,164,049.54  $29,175,929.00 DNP $28,837,121.12  $25,689,296.16  $25,736,969.91 $40,382,365.16 
OK DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP 
OR $87,447,639.72 $40,155,054.04 $39,592,560.00 $39,370,086.00  $39,229,319.00  $39,115,990.00  $39,470,386.00 $39,470,386.00 
PA $190,239,804.99 $116,656,192.90 $194,554,260.00 $192,297,459.00  $184,044,508.00  $192,779,782.15  $190,711,113.00 $239,800,218.00 
RI $19,400,000.00 $18,200,000.00 $15,488,729.00 DNP $16,500,000.00  $17,454,000.00  $17,640,703.00 $16,345,363.80 
SC $22,000,000.00 DNP $21,988,052.00 $22,215,748.00  $28,948,882.35  $27,690,958.32  $28,458,896.05 $39,054,282.49 
SD DNP DNP $8,100,000.00 $8,200,000.00  $9,111,476.00  $13,275,031.00  $13,095,234.00 $13,093,702.00 
TN $51,536,089.00 $55,965,000.00 $58,500,000.00 $94,497,881.00  $60,852,139.96  $98,199,801.31  $67,404,840.00 $78,729,854.00 
TX $197,228,795.88 $203,547,359.97 $199,025,787.00 $209,202,098.00  $212,788,623.00  $213,215,483.00  $208,478,516.24 $222,938,735.00 
UT $23,366,301.00 $2,724,374.00 $23,909,566.00 $23,070,307.00  $26,188,051.00  $29,354,710.30  $24,572,000.00 $27,130,872.00 
VA DNP $52,022,170.24 $53,217,635.00 $54,079,487.00  $51,658,842.97  $55,212,203.72  $85,187,559.69 $85,431,606.09 
VT $4,832,374.02 $5,487,046.00 $4,605,803.00 $4,993,132.00  $5,416,336.00  $4,628,027.00  DNP $6,256,658.00 
WA $69,523,163.00 $71,036,718.00 $71,244,435.00 $100,952,115.00  $95,417,113.85  $95,887,087.00  $91,529,550.00 $94,445,461.00 
WI $9,602,745.46 DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP 
102 
 
State 
2009 
Report 
2010 
Report 
2011 
Report 
2012 
Report 
2013 
Report 
2014 
Report 
2015 
Report 
2016 
Report 
WV $32,278,728.00 $33,760,563.00 $35,375,580.00 $36,176,377.00  $37,928,204.37 $58,001,074.83 $56,323,470.55 $56,649,322.00 
WY $6,700,000.00 DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP 
Other Jurisdictions 
AS DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP 
DC $12,744,103.00 $12,714,347.00  $12,700,000.00  DNP $12,064,842.00  $13,700,000.00 $10,488,987.85 $12,189,231.34 
Guam $1,468,363.00 DNP DNP $1,779,710.00  DNP DNP DNP DNP 
No. M NA NA NA NA DNP DNP DNP DNP 
PR $20,952,458.73 $21,876,276.72 DNP $21,367,260.00 $20,323,323.95 $19,507,889.00 DNP $21,896,788.53 
USVI NA $590,812.00 $554,245.00 DNP DNP DNP DNP $1,297,671.00 
Total $1,877,863,271.72 $1,749,609,554.27 $2,002,117,111.00 $2,149,689,191.00 $2,322,983,616.36 $2,404,510,787.64 $2,527,625,360.85 $2,631,705,008.98 
 
 
103 
 
Appendix C 
 
Approved by OMB 
3060-1122 
Expires:  March 31, 2018 
Estimated time per response:  10-55 
hours 
  
 
Annual Collection of Information  
Related to the Collection and Use of 911 and E911 Fees by States and Other Jurisdictions 
 
Pursuant to OMB authorization 3060-1122 , the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
seeks the following specific information in order to fulfill the Commission’s obligations under Section 
6(f)(2) of the NET 911 Act: 
 
A. Filing Information 
 
1. Name of State or Jurisdiction 
State or Jurisdiction 
 
 
 
2. Name, Title and Organization of Individual Filing Report 
Name Title Organization 
   
 
  
104 
 
B. Overview of State or Jurisdiction 911 System 
 
1. Please provide the total number of active Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in your 
state or jurisdiction that receive funding derived from the collection of 911/E911 fees during 
the annual period ending December 31, 2015: 
 
PSAP Type141 Total 
Primary  
Secondary  
Total  
 
2. Please provide the total number of active telecommunicators142 in your state or jurisdiction 
that were funded through the collection of 911 and E911 fees during the annual period 
ending December 31, 2015: 
 
Number of Active 
Telecommunicators 
Total 
Full-Time  
Part-time  
 
3. For the annual period ending December 31, 2015, please provide an estimate of the total cost 
to provide 911/E911 service in your state or jurisdiction. 
 
Amount 
($) 
 
 
                                                     
141 A Primary PSAP is one to which 911 calls are routed directly from the 911 Control office.  A secondary PSAP is 
one to which 911 calls are transferred from a Primary PSAP.  See National Emergency Number Association, Master 
Glossary of 9-1-1 Terminology (Master Glossary), July 29, 2014, at 118, 126, available at 
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/Standards/NENA-ADM-000.18-2014_2014072.pdf . 
142 A telecommunicator, also known as a call taker or a dispatcher, is a person employed by a PSAP who is qualified 
to answer incoming emergency telephone calls and/or who provides for the appropriate emergency response either 
directly or through communication with the appropriate PSAP.  See Master Glossary at 137. 
105 
 
3a. If an amount cannot be provided, please explain why. 
 
 
4. Please provide the total number of 911 calls your state or jurisdiction received during the 
period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. 
 
Type of Service Total 911 Calls 
Wireline  
Wireless   
VoIP  
Other  
Total  
 
 
C. Description of Authority Enabling Establishment of 911/E911 Funding Mechanisms 
 
1. Has your State, or any political subdivision, Indian tribe, village or regional corporation 
therein as defined by Section 6(f)(1) of the NET 911 Act, established a funding mechanism 
designated for or imposed for the purposes of 911 or E911 support or implementation 
(please include a citation to the legal authority for such mechanism)?  Check one. 
 
? Yes …………………..  
? No ………………..…..  
 
1a. If yes, provide a citation to the legal authority for such a mechanism. 
 
 
 
 
1b. If yes, during the annual period January 1 - December 31, 2015, did your state or 
jurisdiction amend, enlarge, or in any way alter the funding mechanism. 
 
 
 
106 
 
 
2. Which of the following best describes the type of authority arrangement for the collection of 
911/E911 fees?  Check one. 
? The State collects the fees …………………………………..  
? A Local Authority collects the fees ………………………..    
? A hybrid approach where two or more governing bodies 
 (e.g., state and local authority) collect the fees ……………..  
 
3. Describe how the funds collected are made available to localities. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D. Description of State or Jurisdictional Authority That Determines How 911/E911 Fees are Spent 
 
1. Indicate which entities in your state have the authority to approve the expenditure of funds 
collected for 911 or E911 purposes. 
Jurisdiction 
Authority to Approve  
Expenditure of Funds 
(Check one) 
Yes No 
State 
 
  
Local  
(e.g., county, city, municipality) 
 
  
1b. Please briefly describe any limitations on the approval authority per jurisdiction (e.g., limited 
to fees collected by the entity, limited to wireline or wireless service, etc.) 
 
 
 
107 
 
2. Has your state established a funding mechanism that mandates how collected funds can be 
used?  Check one. 
? Yes …………………..  
? No ………………..…..  
 
2a. If you checked YES, provide a legal citation to the funding mechanism of any such criteria. 
 
 
 
2b. If you checked NO, describe how your state or jurisdiction decides how collected funds can 
be used. 
 
 
E. Description of Uses of Collected 911/E911 Fees 
 
1. Provide a statement identifying with specificity all activities, programs, and organizations for 
whose benefit your state, or political subdivision thereof, has obligated or expended funds 
collected for 911 or E911 purposes and how these activities, programs, and organizations 
support 911 and E911 services or enhancements of such services. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
108 
 
 
 
2. Please identify the allowed uses of the collected funds. Check all that apply. 
Type of Cost Yes No 
Operating Costs 
Lease, purchase, maintenance of customer 
premises equipment (CPE) (hardware and 
software) 
  
Lease, purchase, maintenance of computer 
aided dispatch (CAD) equipment (hardware 
and software) 
  
Lease, purchase, maintenance of 
building/facility   
Personnel Costs 
Telecommunicators’ Salaries 
  
Training of Telecommunicators 
  
Administrative Costs 
Program Administration 
  
Travel Expenses 
  
Dispatch Costs 
Reimbursement to other law enforcement 
entities providing dispatch   
Lease, purchase, maintenance of Radio 
Dispatch Networks   
Grant Programs   
If Yes, see 2a. 
 
2a. During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, describe the grants that your state paid 
for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the purpose of the grant. 
 
 
 
 
 
109 
 
F. Description of 911/E911 Fees Collected 
 
1. Please describe the amount of the fees or charges imposed for the implementation 
and support of 911 and E911 services.  Please distinguish between state and local fees 
for each service type. 
Service Type Fee/Charge Imposed 
Jurisdiction Receiving Remittance 
(e.g., state, county, local authority, or a 
combination) 
Wireline   
Wireless   
Prepaid Wireless   
Voice Over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) 
  
Other   
 
2. For the annual period ending December 31, 2015, please report the total amount collected 
pursuant to the assessed fees or charges described in Question F 1. 
 
Service Type Total Amount Collected ($) 
Wireline  
Wireless  
Prepaid Wireless  
Voice Over Internet 
Protocol 
 
Other  
Total  
 
 
 
110 
 
2a. If an amount cannot be provided, please explain why. 
 
 
 
3. Please identify any other sources of 911/E911 funding. 
 
 
 
Question Yes No 
4. For the annual period ending December 31, 2014, were 
any 911/E911 fees that were collected by your state or 
jurisdiction combined with any federal, state or local 
funds, grants, special collections, or general budget 
appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services? Check one. 
  
4a. If Yes, please describe the federal, state or local funds and amounts that were combined with 
911/E911 fees. 
 
 
 
  
111 
 
5. Please provide an estimate of the proportional contribution from 
each funding source towards the total cost to support 911 in your 
state or jurisdiction. 
Percent 
State 911 Fees  
Local 911 Fees  
General Fund - State  
General Fund - County  
Federal Grants  
State Grants  
 
G. Description of Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Uses 
 
Question Yes No 
1. In the annual period ending December 31, 2015, were 
funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes in your state or 
jurisdiction made available or used solely for purposes 
designated by the funding mechanism identified in 
Question 5?  Check one. 
  
1a. If No, please identify what amount of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes were made 
available or used for any purposes other than the ones designated by the funding mechanism or 
used for purposes otherwise unrelated to 911 or E911 implementation or support, including any 
funds transferred, loaned, or otherwise used for the state's general fund.  Along with identifying 
the amount, please include a statement identifying the non-related purposes for which the 
collected 911 or E911 funds were made available or used. 
Amount of Funds ($) 
Identify the non-related purpose(s) for which the 911/E911 funds were 
used.  (Add lines as necessary) 
  
112 
 
H. Oversight and Auditing of Collection and Use of 911/E911 Fees 
 
Question Yes No 
1. Has your state established any oversight or auditing 
mechanisms or procedures to determine whether collected 
funds have been made available or used for the purposes 
designated by the funding mechanism or otherwise used to 
implement or support 911?  Check one. 
  
1a. If yes, provide a description of the mechanisms or procedures and any enforcement or other 
corrective actions undertaken in connection with such auditing authority, for the annual period 
ending December 31, 2015.  (Enter “None” if no actions were taken.) 
 
 
 
Question Yes No 
2. Does your state have the authority to audit service 
providers to ensure that the amount of 911/E911 fees 
collected form subscribers matches the service provider’s 
number of subscribers? Check one. 
  
2a. If yes, provide a description of any auditing or enforcement or other corrective actions 
undertaken in connection with such auditing authority, for the annual period ending December 
31, 2015.  (Enter “None” if no actions were taken.) 
 
 
  
113 
 
 
I. Description of Next Generation 911 Services and Expenditures 
 
Question Yes No 
1. Does your state or jurisdiction classify expenditures on 
Next Generation 911 as within the scope of permissible 
expenditures of funds for 911 or E911 purposes? Check 
one. 
  
1a. If yes, in the space below, please cite any specific legal authority: 
 
 
 
 
Question Yes No 
2. In the annual period ending December 31, 2015, has your state 
or jurisdiction expended funds on Next Generation 911 
programs? Check one. 
  
2a. If yes, in the space below, please enter the dollar amount that has been expended. 
Amount 
($) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
114 
 
 
3. For the annual period ending December 31, 2015, please describe the type and 
number of NG911 Emergency Service IP Network(s) (ESInets) that operated 
within your state.  
Type of ESInet Yes No 
If Yes, Enter 
Total PSAPs 
Operating on 
the ESInet 
If Yes, does the type of ESInet 
interconnect with other state, 
regional or local ESInets? 
Yes No 
a. A single, 
state-wide 
ESInet 
  
 
  
b. Local (e.g., 
county) 
ESInet 
  
 
  
c. Regional 
ESInets   
 
 
[If more than one 
Regional ESInet is 
in operation, in the 
space below,  
provide the total 
PSAPs operating on 
each ESInet] 
  
Name of Regional ESInet: 
 
 
  
Name of Regional ESInet: 
 
 
  
 
  
115 
 
 
4. Please provide a description of any NG911 projects completed or underway during the annual 
period ending December 31, 2015. 
 
 
 
Question 
Total PSAPs 
Accepting Texts 
5. During the annual period ending December 31, 
2015, how many PSAPs within your state 
implemented text-to-911 and are accepting 
texts? 
 
Question 
Estimated Number of PSAPs 
that will Become Text Capable 
6. In the next annual period ending December 31, 
2016, how many PSAPs do you anticipate will 
become text capable? 
 
 
 
 
 
  
116 
 
 
J. Description of Cybersecurity Expenditures 
 
Question 
Check the 
appropriate box 
If Yes, 
Amount Expended ($) 
1. During the annual period ending 
December 31, 2015, did your state 
expend funds on cybersecurity 
programs for PSAPs?  
Yes 
 
No 
 
 
 
Question Total PSAPs 
2. During the annual period ending December 31, 2015, how 
many PSAPs in your state either implemented a cyber 
security program or participated in a regional or state-run 
cyber security program? 
 
 
Question Yes No Unknown 
3. Does your state or jurisdiction adhere to the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 
Cybersecurity (February 2014) for networks 
supporting one or more PSAPs in your state or 
jurisdiction? 
   
 
 
  
117 
 
 
K. Measuring Effective Utilization of 911/E911 Fees 
 
1. Please provide an assessment of the effects achieved from the expenditure of state 911/E911 or 
NG911 funds, including any criteria your state or jurisdiction uses to measure the effectiveness 
of the use of 911/E911 fees and charges.  If your state conducts annual or other periodic 
assessments, please provide an electronic copy (e.g., Word, PDF) of the latest such report upon 
submission of this questionnaire to the FCC or provide links to online versions of such reports 
in the space below.