1SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
ON STATE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF 
911 AND ENHANCED 911 FEES AND CHARGES
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014
Submitted Pursuant to
Public Law No. 110-283
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas Wheeler, Chairman
December 31, 2015
2TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................... 2
III. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
IV. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 6
A. Summary of Reporting Methodology .............................................................................................. 7
B. Overview of State 911 Systems ....................................................................................................... 9
C. Description of Authority Enabling Establishment of 911/E911 Funding Mechanism .................. 14
D. Description of State Authority that Determines How 911/E911 Fees are Spent ........................... 19
E. Description of Uses of State 911 Fees ........................................................................................... 20
F. Description of 911/E911 Fees Collected ....................................................................................... 23
G. Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Use................................................................. 28
H. Oversight and Auditing of 911/E911 Fees..................................................................................... 38
I. Description of Next Generation 911 Services and Expenditures................................................... 41
J. Cybersecurity Expenditures ........................................................................................................... 46
      K. Measuring Effective Utilization of 911/E911 Fees……………………………………………….49
L. Public Comments on 2014 Sixth Annual Report ........................................................................... 51
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE 2015 SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT......................... 54
Appendix A – Information Collection Questionnaire
Appendix B – Summary of State and Other Jurisdiction Responses Regarding 2014 Collections
Appendix C – Overview of Total State and Other Jurisdiction 911 Fees – 2009 - 2015
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 seventh 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, 2014 to December 31, 2014.  This report also reflects the 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.    
II. KEY FINDINGS
2. Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Navajo Nation, and 
three Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offices responded to this year’s data request.  The following is a 
                                                     
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).
3compilation of key findings based on the responses:
? In calendar year 2014, states and other reporting jurisdictions collected 911/E911 fees or 
charges totaling $2,527,625,360.85.  
? Fees and charges collected on a per-state basis ranged from a low of $8,159,730.03 by 
Delaware to a high of $213,983,628 by Illinois.
? Fourteen states reported collecting 911/E911 fees at the state level, nine reported collecting 
fees at the local level, and twenty-four states collected fees at both the state and local level.
4
? Eight states reported diverting or transferring 911/E911 fees for purposes other than 
911/E911.
o Five states (California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia) 
used a portion of their 911/E911 funds to support other public safety or emergency 
response-related programs.  
o Three states (Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island) diverted 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 2014 was $223,420,909.00 or approximately 8.8 percent of total 911/E911 fees 
collected.
? Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia reported spending 911/E911 funds on Next 
Generation 911 (NG911) programs in calendar year 2014.  The total amount of reported 
NG911 expenditures from 911/E911 fees was $227,574,995.97, or approximately nine
percent of total 911/E911 fees collected.  This indicates a higher level of expenditure on 
NG911 programs in 2014 than in 2013, but only nine states reported NG911 expenditures in 
excess of $5 million.
? While almost every state collects 911 fees from in-state subscribers, 23 states 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, only three states conducted audits in 2014.
? On the topic of cybersecurity preparedness for Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), 
thirty eight states indicated that they spent no 911 funds in 2014 on 911–related cybersecurity 
programs for PSAPs in 2014.  Five states and the Navajo Nation 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:
                                                     
4
The three reporting BIA regional offices (Eastern, Rocky Mountain, and Western) indicated that they do not 
collect 911/E911 fees.
4To 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 June 2015, the Bureau sent questionnaires to the 
Governor of each state and territory, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the BIA Regional 
Directors requesting information on 911 fee collection and expenditure for calendar year 2014.
5
  The 
Bureau received responsive information from 48 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and 
the Navajo Nation.
6
  The Bureau did not receive responses from Louisiana, Missouri, Guam, Northern 
Mariana Islands, and United States Virgin Islands.  Additionally, the Bureau received responses from 
three of twelve regional BIA offices regarding the status of 911/E911 funding for Indian tribes in their 
regions.
5. This year’s expanded data collection incorporated recommendations made by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its April 2013 report on state collection and use of 911 
funds.
7
  The GAO Report recommended that the Commission improve its reporting on state use of 
collected funds by “using close-ended questions when possible, developing written internal guidance 
for analyzing data, and fully describing the methodology for its report.”
8
  In response to the GAO’s 
recommendations, the Bureau took a number of steps to improve the collection and analysis of data in 
its annual reports.  Consistent with GAO’s recommendation, 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,
9
and the 
                                                     
5
See Appendix A - Annual Collection of Information Related to the Collection and Use of 911 and E911 Fees by 
States and Other Jurisdictions (FCC Questionnaire).
6
Copies of reports from all responding jurisdictions are available on the FCC web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov/fcc.gov/general/7th-annual-911-fee-report-state-filings.  Of the 48 responding states, Nevada 
and Wyoming did not provide direct responses.  Wyoming stated that it did not collect any information at the state 
level and referred the Bureau to individual counties for responses.  Similarly, Nevada noted it did not collect the 
information at the state level but coordinated a response by select Nevada counties.  Two states – New York and 
Rhode Island – responded to the data request but did not use the supplied questionnaire, instead providing their own 
response format.
7
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.  SeeMiddle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 158 (2012).
8
Id. at 29.
9
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).
5results of the expanded collection are reported for the first time in this report.
IV. DISCUSSION
6. Based upon the information gathered from the responding states and territories, this 
Report describes how states and other entities collected 911/E911 funds in calendar year 2014, how 
much they collected, and how they oversaw the expenditure of these funds.
10
  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
7. 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.”
11
  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.”
12
8. 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.  Because each State makes its own 
determination of how 911/E911 fee revenues are to be spent, 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 
state’s 911 funding statute, and also requests information on what uses are deemed permissible under 
the statute and how such uses support 911 or E911 service.  Although some state statutes expressly 
authorize the diversion or transfer of some part of collected 911/E911 fees, the Bureau considers such 
diversions or transfers to be reportable under the NET911 Act as expenditures that are not “in support 
of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 services, or enhancements of such services,” within the meaning of the 
Act.  The report on 911/E911 fee diversion in Section G below is consistent with this interpretation.
B. Overview of State 911 Systems
9. To provide a broader context for the information provided on collection and use of 911 
                                                     
10
We note that some states collect and distribute fees over the course of a fiscal year as opposed to the calendar year 
covered by our reports.
11
NET 911 Act at §6(f)(1).
12
Id. at §6(f)(2).  Emphasis added.
6fees, this year’s data collection for the first time 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.
13
10. Number and Type of PSAPs.  The Bureau requested that states “provide the total 
number of active [Primary and Secondary PSAPs]
14
in your state or jurisdiction that receive funding 
derived from the collection of 911/E911 fees during the annual period ending December 31, 2014.”  
Table 1 shows that 45 states and the District of Columbia responded to this request, reporting a total of 
4,439 Primary PSAPs and 789 Secondary PSAPs, for a total of 5,228 PSAPs dependent on funding 
derived from the collection of 911 fees.
15
  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.
16
  The Navajo Nation Department of Public Safety indicates that it has no PSAPs 
dependent on funding from 911 fees but maintains numerous facilities providing emergency response.
17
  
Ohio states that it is “currently undergoing consolidation activity and defining PSAPs related to funding 
provided for in the Ohio Revised Code [and] currently, wireless 9-1-1 is eligible for state funding, but 
PSAPs that only answer wireline 9-1-1 calls and only accept transferred wireless calls are not 
associated with the state funding formula.”
18
  Other states, such as New Jersey and Wisconsin, indicate 
that information regarding PSAP funding is not communicated to the state office.
Table 1 - Number and Types of PSAPS of Reporting Jurisdictions
State
Number of PSAPs
Total 
Primary
Total 
Secondary
Total
PSAPs
Unknown
No 
Response
AL 118 0 118
AK 24 12 36
AR 102 25 127
AZ 78 11 89
CA 400 51 451
                                                     
13
FCC Questionnaire at 2-3.
14
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 .
15
New York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming did not respond to this portion of the questionnaire.
16
American Samoa Response at 3.  The PSAP is funded under the Department of Public Safety annual operations 
budget.
17
See Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, Direct Emergency Numbers, listing seven 
emergency districts and various Police, Fire and EMS facilities, at http://www.nntrc.org/911-numbers.aspx.
18
Ohio Response at 2.
7State
Number of PSAPs
Total 
Primary
Total 
Secondary
Total
PSAPs
Unknown
No 
Response
CO 83 6 89
CT 104 1 105
DE 8 1 9
FL 158 55 213
GA 135 23 158
HI 5 3 8
IA 115 0 115
ID 46 2 48
IL 272 24 296
IN 91 44 135
KS 117 0 117
KY 115 40 155
MA 249 94 343
MD 24 52 76
ME 26 0 26
MI 148 0 148
MN 99 5 104
MS 150 225 375
MT 53 0 53
NC 121 6 127
ND 22 0 22
NE 71 0 71
NH 2 0 2
NJ 0 0 0 X
NM 47 3 50
NV 11 1 12
NY 0 X
OH 322 322
OK X
OR 43 14 57
PA 69 69
RI 1 1
SC 75 75
SD 29 29
TN 132 8 140
TX 505 61 566
UT 32 4 36
VA 121 10 131
8State
Number of PSAPs
Total 
Primary
Total 
Secondary
Total
PSAPs
Unknown
No 
Response
VT 8 8
WA 55 8 63
WI X
WV 51 51
WY X
Other Jurisdictions
AS 1 0 1
DC 1 0 1
NN 0 0 0
Total 4,439 789 5,228 2 3
11. Number of Telecommunicators.  Respondents were asked to provide the total number 
of active telecommunicators
19
in each state or territory that were funded through the collection of 
911/E911 fees during the annual period ending December 31, 2014.  As detailed in Table 2, twenty five 
states and the District of Columbia responded to this data request, reporting a total of 23,360 full time 
telecommunicators and 1,911 part-time telecommunicators that are funded through the collection of 911 
fees.  American Samoa and Navajo Nation report eight and 56 full time telecommunicators, 
respectively, but they are not funded by 911 fees.  Nine states indicated they do not know whether 
telecommunicators are funded with 911 fees and five states did not respond to the question.  
Table 2 – Total Telecommunicators Funded by 911 Fees
State
Number of Telecommunicators Funded by 911 
Fees
Full 
Time
Part 
Time
Unknown
Not 
Funde
d
NR
AK 121 6
AL X
AR 1,002 176
AZ X
CA X
CO 390 13
CT 2,800
DE X
                                                     
19
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.
9State
Number of Telecommunicators Funded by 911 
Fees
Full 
Time
Part 
Time
Unknown
Not 
Funde
d
NR
FL X
GA X
HI X
IA X
ID X
IL 3,770
IN X
KS X
KY 1,250 300
MA X
MD 1,122 74
ME X
MI 1,949 279
MN 1,310 250
MS 1,367
MT X
NC X
ND 230
NE 590 96
NH 74 10
NJ X
NM X
NV 257 6
NY X
OH 147 40
OK X
OR 668 5
PA 2,138 347
RI 40
SC X
SD 205 32
TN X
TX 513 13
UT 382 20
VA 1,043
VT 99 39
10
State
Number of Telecommunicators Funded by 911 
Fees
Full 
Time
Part 
Time
Unknown
Not 
Funde
d
NR
WA 1,199 95
WI X
WV 622 110
WY X
Other Jurisdictions
AS X
DC 72 0
NN X
23,360 1,911 9 11 5
12. Number of 911/E911 Calls.  The questionnaire asked respondents, for the annual period 
ending December 31, 2014, to provide an estimate of the total number of 911 calls the state or 
jurisdiction received.  Thirty-eight states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Navajo 
Nation reported a cumulative total of 196,150,195 calls of all types during 2014.  Of this total, 
135,788,462 calls came from wireless phones, representing approximately 69 percent of the total 
reported call volume.  Table 3 provides specific information provided by each state or other jurisdiction 
for each service type.  Ten states did not respond to the question.
Table 3 – Total 911 Calls by Service Type
AK 26,538 209,846 236,384
AL X
"These statistics are 
maintained at the 
local emergency 
communications 
districts and are not 
readily available to 
the state office.  
However, Alabama 
completed their 
wireless aggregation 
project in December 
of 2014, which 
allows for all 
wireless calls in the 
state to be routed 
through the 
Alabama Next 
Generation 
Emergency 
11
Network (ANGEN), 
so we will be able to 
provide wireless 
statistics for the 
state for calendar 
year 2015."
AR 279,348 2,352,284 54 2,631,686
"Data does not 
include data for the 
following 
counties/PSAPs that 
have not yet 
submitted the 2015 
PSAP Certification:
Chicot, Cross, 
Dallas, Lafayette, 
Lincoln, Miller 
County-SO, 
Ouachita, & Prairie"
AZ 1,037,636 3,743,175 4,780,811
"Calls transferred to 
Secondary PSAPs 
for 2014-
1,258,883"
CA 5,982,152 21,117,013 878,810 23,834 28,001,809
CO 489,201 5,639,954 166,712 6,295,867
CT 362,472 1,665,633 124,189 2,152,294
DE X
FL 2,713,611 16,927,140 442,533 96,964 20,180,248
GA X
HI 324,500 1,015,100 37,000 65,500 1,442,100
IA 795,125 795,125
"Nomadic VoIP is 
counted but not 
separated with 
wireless counts.  
Static VoIP is 
counted with 
wireline counts."
12
ID X
"Unknown.  Note:  
34 of 46 PSAPs 
Responded and not 
all PSAPs are 
tracking or were 
able to pull the 
requested data for 
the state report.  
651,938 total 
number of 911 calls 
delivered for 33 
responding PSAPs.  
Not all could break 
out the different 
types.  
Consequently, those 
reported a total 
number."
IL 6,398,902 5,070,127 11,469,029
IN 1,800,000 3,399,698 81,866 5,281,564
KS 902,966 2,104,200 22,271 98,993 3,128,430
KY 925,000 2,500,000 3,425,000
MA 893,419 3,040,214 3,933,633
VoIP included in 
wireline call total
MD 3,863,752 2,609,589 10 6,473,351
VoIP included in
wireline call total
ME 184,681 417,648 44,464 107 646,900
MI 1,444,579 4,159,576 286,004 113 5,890,272
"*not every PSAP 
reported their call 
volume numbers"
MN 471,808 2,559,242 102,842 96,400 3,230,292
MS 3,100,000
[Only provided total 
calls]
MT X
NC 1,738,215 5,087,289 470,147 7,295,651
ND 69,190 255,386 1,618 326,194
NE 235,320 779,142 1,014,462
"State does not 
total VoIP or Other 
calls" 
NH 76,775 353,429 47,936 21,810 499,950
NJ 7,684,796
NM 248,461 1,029,007 21,638 1,299,106
NOTE:  NM totals 
it to $1,236,463 
13
NV 531,779 1,033,097 8,918 112 1,573,906
"Based on 
information 
supplied by 
Counties of Clark, 
Esmeralda, Eureka, 
Lincoln, Lyon, and 
Storey; Las Vegas 
Combined 
Communications 
Center; and City of 
Elko.  Boulder City, 
Humboldt, and 
Washoe did not 
submit call totals."
NY X
"In New York State, 
responsibilities for 
public safety call 
taking and 
emergency services 
dispatching are 
primarily a local 
government
function. There is 
no centralized, 
statewide operation 
or system used to 
undertake these 
functions Public 
Safety Answering 
Point (PSAP) 
metrics system 
information and 
reporting thereof are 
the responsibility of 
each PSAP operator 
(county, municipal 
or agency). New 
York State would 
not be the source for 
this data."
OH 939,591 3,862,833 108,931 395,634 5,306,989
Based on 
information 
provided by 55 
counties.
OK X
OR 331,578 1,287,475 87,365 32,015 1,738,433
[NOTE: Filing 
totals out to 
1,736,433]
14
PA 2,583,901 6,308,126 8,892,027
"Wireline and VoIP 
calls are grouped 
together for PSAP 
reporting purposes 
in PA"
RI 511,810
RI reports that in 
addition to 
receiving 511,810 
incoming 911 calls, 
it transferred 
761,345 calls
RI reports that
approximately 75% 
of its incoming 911 
calls are wireless
SC 3,862,852 3,862,852
SC only has 
information on 
wireless calls; local 
jurisdictions 
administer wireline 
calls
SD 319,450
"Note – this 
information is 
currently not 
collected from the 
PSAPs because 
every PSAP has a 
different CPE and 
some of their 
systems do not 
allow them to pull 
call counts by 
service type. 
However in 
calendar year 2015 
the state is 
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. The state will 
have call data on at 
least some of the 
PSAPs in 2015, 
2016 and 2017. 
Calendar year 2018 
will be the first full 
15
year with all PSAPs 
on the hosted CPE 
and therefore the 
call counts will be 
available by service 
type."
TN X
TX 3,446,773 22,221,858 450,877 111,911 26,231,419
UT 166,368 802,428 29,554 18,846 1,017,196
VA 1,164,251 3,227,961 4,392,212
VT 46,611 146,115 16,756 6,266 215,748
WA 983,445 4,601,398 350,253 0 5,935,096
WI X
"In Wisconsin, 
county and 
municipal 
governments 
operate and 
administer the 911 
system and all 
public safety 
answering points.  
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."
16
WV 2,371,398
All PSAP’s keep 
record of total calls, 
but all do not have 
the ability to keep 
track of Type of 
Service (i.e. 
Wireline, Wireless, 
VoIP, and Other). 
The total call 
number is correct 
and percentages 
have been used to 
reflect a breakdown
of the Type of 
Service calls 
percentage that is 
reflected by PSAP’s 
that can track type 
of calls.
WV Provides 
percentage 
breakdown:
Wireline - 39%
Wireless - 60%
VoIP - .9%
Other - .1%
WY X
AS 25,620 14,281 39,901
DC 438,682 900,371 38,000 1,377,053
NN 402,413 689,850 57,488 1,149,751
Total 41,529,538 135,788,462 3,876,172 968,569 196,150,195 10
13. 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, 2014, regardless of whether such costs are supported by 911 fees or other funding 
sources.  As detailed in Table 4, thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation 
provided cost estimates totaling $3,109,259,861.25. Ten 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.  For example, 
Colorado stated that its estimate was “extrapolated based on partial survey responses from local 911 
Authorities” and that it “believe[s] 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
  Delaware 
                                                     
20
Colorado Response at 2-3.
17
reported that the state uses collected fees to supply equipment to 911 centers, but that local 911 
authorities are responsible for funding personnel and other costs.
21
  New Jersey stated that its estimate 
of $12.5 million in costs reflects the funding of “statewide enhanced 9-1-1 infrastructure” but that 
“operational, equipment and personnel costs are the responsibility of the PSAP and not reported to the 
State 9-1-1 Office.”
22
  Virginia stated that “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 
service,” and that its cost estimate of $115 million is therefore incomplete.
23
  
Table 4 – Cost to Provide 911 Service
AK $13,969,230.81
AL $99,558,438.00
AR $45,222,240.75
"Data does not include data for the following 
counties/PSAPs that have not yet submitted the 2015 
PSAP Certification: Chicot, Cross, Dallas, Lafayette, 
Lincoln, Miller County-SO, Ouachita, & Prairie."
AZ $12,105,682.44
CA $84,584,000.00
CO $77,835,212.00
"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."
CT $37,578,747.00
DE $100,000,000.00
“The State of Delaware E911 Board uses the 911 funds 
to supply equipment to the 911 centers.  Each center is 
managed by the local agency.  The agency is 
responsible for employees and overhead to maintain the 
center.”
FL $215,503,763.00
                                                     
21
Delaware Response at 3.
22
New Jersey Response at 3.
23
Virginia Response at 3.
18
GA No Response
"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 governments."
HI No Response
"Unable to determine at this time. The Enhanced 911 
Board does not have the authority to request financial 
information from the PSAPs at this time."
IA $144,628,785.00
ID No Response
"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 34 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 $263,503,493.00
IN $80,500,000.00
"This is expenditures from 911 funds only.  This does 
not include expenditures that local government pays for 
from other funds."
KS $64,299,980.00
"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."
KY $105,000,000.00
"Centralized data collection is new to the CMRS Board 
so data collection in [sic] 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."
19
MA $29,907,980.00
"The estimated amount (based upon the amount 
contracted for Fiscal Year 2015) to provide E911 
service is: $29,907,980.
This estimated amount includes the costs associated 
with the legacy E911 service provider contract, 
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."
MD $93,091,148.75
"The amount above is based on FY 2014 audits 
submitted by each PSAP.  The fiscal year is July 1, 2013 
to June 30, 2014.  Audits are not done on a calendar 
year basis; therefore a calendar year cost cannot be 
determined."
ME $10,253,498.00
"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 911 
surcharge."
MI $207,167,178.44
"The amount provided to question 3 above is the total of 
the following:
1) Revenue reported by the PSAPs for 911 purposes. 
This includes the following:
funding resources of $198,505,685.96 for PSAPs 
approximately included:
• State 911 Fee Distribution Received: $22,986,774.39
• Local 911 Fee Received: $60,606,236.97
• Millage Receipts: $31,958,730.33
• General Fund Monies: $72,910,563.50
• Other Receipts: $10,043,380.77
2) The total reported* technical costs for network 
collections by landline telephone companies for 911 
network and delivery costs in 2014 was $7,295,111.00
3) $1,366,381.48 for calendar year 2014 for the cost of 
wireless 911 delivery was reimbursed to landline service 
providers (AT&T, Frontier, and PFN) under the 
Michigan Public Service Commission’s Docket U-
14000.
* Crawford, Delta, and Manistee Counties did not 
report."
MN $27,638,145.54
This includes NG911 specific expenditures, Legacy 911 
expenditures, and the allocation provided to the PSAPs 
towards their eligible use expenses.
20
MS $31,280,356.96
MT No Response
"The required data and information required to provide 
an estimate of the total cost to provide 911/E911 
services in the state, for the annual period ending 
December 31, 2014 is not available."
NC $56,047,904.00
ND $16,029,376.00
NE No Response
"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 $13,915,755.00
NJ $12,500,000.00
"The State of New Jersey funds the statewide enhanced 
9-1-1 infrastructure at an annual cost of approximately 
$12.5M, the operational, equipment and personnel costs 
are the responsibility of the PSAP and not reported to 
the State 9-1-1 Office."
NM $7,133,196.00
NV
Boulder City $900,000 The State of Nevada did not provide a total estimated.  
Of counties that responded to the questionnaire overall, 
the counties of Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, and 
Storey did not respond to this question.
Clark County $24,815,354
Las Vegas 
Combined 
Communications 
Center
$10,000,000
Lincoln County $350,000
Lyon County $1,141,755.51
Washoe County $2,366,157
Total $40,932,906.51
NY No Response
21
OH
$125,944.026.54
Total costs based on reports from 52 of 56 reporting 
counties.
OK No Response
“Oklahoma has no centralized point for fee collection or 
remission and no authority to require such reporting of 
such fees or charges for the annual period ending 
December 31, 2013 [sic]”
OR $107,378,517.00 "Four PSAPs failed to respond to state survey"
PA $292,976,998.00
RI $5,320,615.00 Amount based on FY 2014 Operating Budget
SC $62,000,000.00
SD $24,024,017.00
TN No Response
"Unknown.  In 2014, Tennessee had 100 local
emergency communications districts and one statewide 
agency that received 911 fees.  Districts may or may not 
receive contributions from local government entities.  
Each district has its own budget and controls its own 
costs."
TX $239,338,148.32
UT $48,000,000.00
"This is the best guess based on the fact that the 
revenues collected do not cover the total cost of 911 
services."
VA $114,872,453.00
"Unknown. 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 
$114,872,453."
VT $4,604,830.00
WA $115,281,000.00
"Based on 115% of statewide total E911 excise taxes 
collected."
22
WI No Response
"In Wisconsin, county and municipal governments 
operate and administer the 911 system and all public 
safety answering points.  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 $56,323,470.00
WY No Response
AS No Response
No separate budgeted line item for PSAP service.  The 
service is provided by the Department of Public Safety 
within its regularly budgeted resources.
DC $34,878,000.00
NN $2,100,000.00
$3,109,259,861.25
C. Description of Authority Enabling Establishment of 911/E911 Funding Mechanism
14. States reported using a variety of methods to collect and distribute 911/E911 fees.  Forty 
five states and the District of Columbia 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.
24
  
American Samoa and Oklahoma stated that they have not established a funding mechanism.  Navajo 
Nation reports that in July 2014, the Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission 
adopted a Report and Order establishing the Navajo Nation 9-1-1 Program, which will outline funding 
mechanisms and set rules and regulations for 9-1-1 service providers that operate on and in behalf of 
the Navajo Nation within the Navajo Nation jurisdiction.
25
  
15. Of those states that have an established funding mechanism, Table 5 identifies those 
reporting that their state or jurisdiction enlarged or altered their funding mechanism during calendar 
year 2014.  For example, Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont
                                                     
24
Two states – Nevada and Wyoming – did not respond to the question.  Nevertheless, both states enable local 
funding mechanisms to support 911 services.
25
Of note, the NNTRC Order directs the Navajo Nation 9-1-1 Program to pursue NG911 as the solution for the 
Navajo Nation and to avoid implementing a legacy 911 system.  For further information about the NNTRC Order, 
see Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission at http://www.nntrc.org/12-001-report-and-
order.aspx.
23
reported that they began collecting 911 fees on prepaid wireless service.
26
  Alabama amended its state 
code to increase the monthly statewide 911 service charge from $1.60 per month to $1.75 per month 
effective August 1, 2014.
27
Table 5 – States That Amended or Enlarged 911 Funding Mechanism
State Description
Alabama
“Pursuant to § 11-98-5 Ala. Code, 1975, as amended, the Alabama 9-1-1 Board 
voted to increase the monthly statewide 9-1-1 service charge from $1.60 per month 
to $1.75 per month effective August 1, 2014.  §11-98-5 (c) (1) states, “The 911 
Board, from time to time but in no event more than once every fiscal year, shall 
increase or decrease the rate of the statewide 911 charge by an amount reasonably 
calculated to produce the baseline 911 revenues, plus any additional revenues 
necessary to meet the requirements of subdivision (6) of subsection (b) of Section 
11-98-5.2.”
Arizona
“Effective January 1, 2014, A.R.S. § 42-5402, prepaid wireless telecommunications 
retailers rather than service providers will be liable for remitting the E91 I excise tax 
on prepaid wireless telecommunications service. Laws 2012, Chapter 198 (HB2094). 
Laws 2012, Chapter 198 (HB2094) established a prepaid wireless 
telecommunications E91 I excise tax. The tax is 0.80% of the gross proceeds of sales 
or gross income from the retail sale of prepaid wireless telecommunications services. 
Retailers are authorized to retain 3% of the cost of the tax that they collect from their 
customers.”
California
“In 2014 the California enacted the Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge 
Collection Act to the California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 42010-42018 
et seq. The code established a prepaid MTS surcharge that shall be imposed on each 
prepaid consumer and shall be collected by a seller from each prepaid consumer at 
the time of each retail transaction in this state. The prepaid MTS surcharge shall be 
imposed as a percentage of the sales price of each retail transaction that occurs in 
this state. Collection of fees shall begin January 1, 2016.”
Colorado
“Local jurisdictions are allowed to set their own surcharges up to 70¢ per line per 
month, or higher with approval of the Public Utilities Commission. Several 
jurisdictions chose to exercise this authority in 2014.”
Florida
“2014 legislation, signed into law, clarified the existing statutes and provided for the 
collection of the prepaid wireless service E911 fee at 40 cents per retail transaction. 
Retail transaction collection of prepaid wireless E911 fees began Jan. 1, 2015. The 
2014 statutes decreased the fee rate from 50 cents to 40 cents for both non-wireless 
and wireless categories on Jan. 1, 2015. New E911 fee revenue disbursement 
allocations percentages were established in the 2014 legislation to begin March 1, 
2015.”
Indiana “During the 2014 session of the Indiana General Assembly, additional; language was 
                                                     
26
Arizona Response at 5; California Response at 4; Florida Response at 4; Minnesota Response at 4; North Dakota 
Response at 4; Oregon Response at 4; and Vermont Response at 4.
27
Alabama Response at 4.
24
State Description
added to IC 36-8-16.6 and IC 38-8-16.7 to clarify that communications service 
providers who held their ETC from the Indiana Regulatory Commission for purposes 
of receiving reimbursement from the Universal Service Administration as part of the 
Life Line program were not exempt from paying the 911 fee in Indiana.”
Kansas
“SB284 was passed during the 2014 session of the Kansas Legislature. This bill 
amended the Kansas 911 Act in several areas. The only change in regard to funding 
was an increase in expenditure authority for administrative and other costs of the 
Council from 1.5% to 2.5% of total receipts.”
Kentucky
“Kenton, Campbell, and Garrard Counties all amended their local funding 
mechanism within the last year, each moving away from the traditional landline fee 
collection method and changing to alternatives such as fee collection on utility bills 
or property bills.  The issue of legality of these collection methods is before the 
Kentucky State Supreme Court at this time.”
Minnesota
“Prepaid Wireless retail point of sale went into effect January 1, 2014.  Minn. Stat. 
§403.16.”
North Carolina
“Yes, funding for qualified secondary PSAPs through the associated Primary PSAP 
was instituted in January 2014.”
North Dakota
“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.”
Oregon
“In the 2014 Legislative Session, the Emergency Communications Tax (9-1-1 Tax) 
was adjusted to include Prepaid Wireless and VOIP, with collection to commence 
January 1, 2015.  Also the “sunset” of the tax was extended to January 1, 2022.”
Vermont “In 2014, pre-paid wireless providers were added to the contribution base.”
16. The questionnaire further asked states to describe the type of authority arrangement for 
the 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, 
twenty-five states report that they collect all 911 fees on a statewide basis, with the collected funds 
administered by the state.
28
Table 6 – Authority to Collect 911/E911 Fees
Type of Collection Number of States
State Collection 25
Local Authority 5
Hybrid 18
No Response 3
                                                     
28
This category includes Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, 
Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Navajo Nation, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia.
25
17. Five states - Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, 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.
29
  Similarly, Mississippi states that “all funds 
collected by service providers are awarded directly to the counties.”
30
  Wyoming states that “under 
Wyoming State Statutes for the Emergency Telephone Service Act, Wyoming does not assign over-
sight responsibility to a state-level agency for 911 services.”
31
18. This year, eighteen states reported using a hybrid approach to 911 fee collection, in which 
state and local governing bodies share authority over fee collection from customers.
32
  For example, 
Iowa reports that “per Iowa Code 34A.7A, the wireless and prepaid surcharge is remitted to the State 
and distributed to the County 911 Service Boards on a quarterly basis and the wireline surcharge is 
remitted directly from the local telecoms to the County Service Boards.
33
”  North Dakota reports that 
“the fees from landline, VoIP, and wireless monthly contracts are imposed by local jurisdictions and 
remitted by the phone companies directly to those jurisdictions (53 counties and 1 city) [and] the pre-
paid fee revenue is centrally collected by the State Tax Department and remitted to a joint powers entity 
consisting of all local 911 jurisdictions for distribution or dedication to statewide 9-1-1 network 
costs.”
34
  Washington states that “State and County fees are collected by the carriers and are submitted 
to the Department of Revenue who then deposits them into the state and respective counties’ enhanced 
911 accounts.”
35
  Further, the use of the fees is controlled by two mechanisms, “the first is the 
limitations imposed by RCW 82.14B.020 and RCW 82.14B.050 that together permit a fairly broad 
utilization of the county tax [and] the second limiting factor is the requirement associated with counties 
receiving assistance from the State 911 Program.”
36
  
D. Description of State Authority that Determines How 911/E911 Fees are Spent
19. In this year’s questionnaire, 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 indicate that a state entity has authority to approve expenditure of 911 fees.    
Nine states describe authority resting exclusively with local entities.  The majority of responding states 
indicate the authority is shared between state and local authorities.  Wisconsin noted that with respect to 
wireline-based 911 fees, local exchange carriers keep whatever monies they have collected from 
subscribers and use those funds to support provision of 911 service.
37
  The Bureau also sought 
                                                     
29
Georgia Response at 4.
30
Mississippi Response at 4.
31
Wyoming Response at 1.
32
This category includes Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New 
York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.
33
Iowa Response at 4.
34
North Dakota Response at 4.
35
Washington Response at 4.
36
Id. 
37
Wisconsin Response at 5.
26
information on whether states have established a funding mechanism that mandates how collected funds 
may be used.  As also indicated in Table 7, states that responded ‘no’ to this question typically cede 
control of how 911 funds are spent to local jurisdictions.  Forty one states responded that they have a 
mechanism mandating how 911 fees may be spent, whereas eight states indicated there was no such 
mechanism.
38
  
Table 7 – State Authority for Approval of 911 Fee Expenditures
State
State and Local Entities Having 
Authority to Approve Expenditure 
of Collected 911 Fees
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
MA X Yes
MD X Yes
ME X Yes
MI X Yes
MN X Yes
                                                     
38
Nevada and Wyoming did not respond to this question.  However, their filings otherwise indicate that local 
authorities maintain control over how 911 fees are spent.
27
State
State and Local Entities Having 
Authority to Approve Expenditure 
of Collected 911 Fees
State Funding Mechanism Mandating How 
Funds Can be Used
State Local Both
MS X No
MT X Yes
NC X Yes
ND X Yes
NE X Yes
NH X No
NJ X Yes
NM X Yes
NV No Response
NY X Yes
OH X Yes
OK X Yes
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.
Local exchange carriers bill and 
keep.
No
WV X Yes
WY X No Response
AS 911 Fees not collected No
DC X Yes
NN No present authority to collect 911 No
28
State
State and Local Entities Having 
Authority to Approve Expenditure 
of Collected 911 Fees
State Funding Mechanism Mandating How 
Funds Can be Used
State Local Both
fees
Totals
State Local Both Yes No
14 9 24 41 8
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 
provided a description as requested and five did not respond.
39
  California responded that the State 
provides funding for recognized PSAPS to pay refunds; to pay the State Board of Equalization for the 
cost of administration of the program; to pay the Office of Emergency Services for its costs in 
administration of the "911" emergency telephone number system; and “to pay bills submitted to the 
Office of Emergency Services by service suppliers or communications equipment companies for the 
installation of, and ongoing expenses for, the following communications services supplied to local 
agencies in connection with the "911" emergency phone number system including: network costs, 
Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) Costs; database costs (e.g., ALI databases); Training costs for 
PSAPs; and review and analysis of new technology.”
40
  Pennsylvania states that, by statute, “operation 
of Primary PSAPs in Pennsylvania is a responsibility of the counties and cities (if they so choose) 
within the commonwealth [and] all wireless, wireline, and VoIP funding is . . . directed to the counties 
and cities responsible for the provision of E911 service, and is to be used for the exclusive direct 
provision of E911 services as outlined in statutory language.”
41
21. 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 (43 states), CAD (35
states), and buildings and facilities (25 states).  With respect to personnel costs, 28 states reported 
applying 911 funds to salaries and 40 states reported applying funds to training.  Most states also 
applied 911 funds to administrative costs, with 39 covering program administration and 37 applying 
funds to travel expenses.  In general, fewer states reported applying 911 fees to dispatch-related costs.  
Seventeen states reported using 911 fees to reimburse other law enforcement entities providing dispatch
                                                     
39
Non-responding states for this question were Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, and Wyoming.
40
California Response at 7.
41
Pennsylvania Response at 8.
29
service, while 24 states reported that they used 911 funds to lease, purchase or otherwise maintain radio 
dispatch networks.
Table 8 – Allowed Uses of Collected Fees
Operating Costs
[Lease, Maintenance, Purchase of 
Hardware and Software]
Personnel Costs Administrative Costs Dispatch Costs
State CPE CAD
Building 
and 
Facilities
Salaries Training Programs Travel 
Reimburse 
Other Law 
Enforcemen
t Providing 
Dispatch
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Radio 
Dispatch 
Networks
AK Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
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 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
DE Yes Yes No No Yes 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 No
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
MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MD Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No
ME Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No
30
Operating Costs
[Lease, Maintenance, Purchase of 
Hardware and Software]
Personnel Costs Administrative Costs Dispatch Costs
State CPE CAD
Building 
and 
Facilities
Salaries Training Programs Travel 
Reimburse 
Other Law 
Enforcemen
t Providing 
Dispatch
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Radio 
Dispatch 
Networks
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 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
NJ No No No No No Yes No No No
NM Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No
NV NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
NY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
OH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
OK Yes Yes No NR NR NR NR NR NR
OR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
PA Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
RI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
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 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
UT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
VA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
31
Operating Costs
[Lease, Maintenance, Purchase of 
Hardware and Software]
Personnel Costs Administrative Costs Dispatch Costs
State CPE CAD
Building 
and 
Facilities
Salaries Training Programs Travel 
Reimburse 
Other Law 
Enforcemen
t Providing 
Dispatch
Lease, 
Purchase, 
Maintenance 
of Radio 
Dispatch 
Networks
VT Yes No Yes 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 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
AS NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
DC Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes
NN NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
22. The Bureau requested information related to the use of 911 funds for grant programs.  
Twenty states report that they paid for grants through the use of collected 911 fees, and twenty-four said 
they did not.
42
  Table 9 provides a description of state grant programs.
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
“While funds were set aside from the state office’s administrative 1% for grants, no 
grants were actually paid in 2014.  Alabama is currently in its inaugural grant cycle 
during which those FY14 funds are available and plans to have another cycle later in 
the 2015 calendar year during which FY15 funds will be made available.”
                                                     
42
Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and American Samoa did not respond to 
this question.
32
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
CT
“Transition Grants for the purpose of consolidating emergency telecommunications 
$112,000
Capital Expense Grants for reimbursements for expenses related to information 
services, durable goods, architectural services, building materials, restoration 
services and labor needed to accommodate new equipment. $270,000.”
FL
“The E911 Board awarded a total of $5,089,605 to 34 counties in cost 
reimbursement grants during fiscal year 2013-14. Maintaining enhanced 911, E911 
Phase II, and funding of several NG-911 projects were the direct result of the grant 
programs.
The E911 board disbursed a total of $1,812,374 to 30 rural counties in fiscal year 
2013-14, in response to submitted grant applications. These grants provide the funds 
necessary for E911 deployment and maintenance.
Annualized State and Rural County grant expenditures were calculated at 
$12,294,267”
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. 7A. From 
January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014, $50,000 per PSAP was available to local 
service boards through the grant. An equal amount of local match was required. 
Starting July 1, 2014-December 31, 2014, $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.”
IN “There were none in 2014”
33
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
KS
“The [911 Coordinating] Council has used the grant funds, which are derived from 
the 1.06% 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 will also be utilized to pay nonrecurring costs for the statewide 
ESInet and call handling system and for recurring costs for the ESInet.”
KY
Kentucky awarded 42 grants totaling $3,656,300.88 to various city, county, court, 
and university entities, for a range of projects including radio systems, CAD, 
recorder, host/remote phone systems.
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 expenditures were counted towards grant matches for 
communications related Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland 
Security Program (SHSP) grants provided through the US Department of Homeland 
Security, and managed by the Maryland Emergency Management Agency.”
34
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
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.  After payment of costs of the 
commissioner to administer the program, money collected shall be distributed as 
follows:
Subd. 2. Distribution of money. 
(a) After payment of the costs of the commissioner to administer the program, the 
commissioner shall distribute the money collected under this section as follows:
(1) one-half of the amount equally to all qualified counties, and after October 1, 
1997, to all qualified counties, existing ten public safety answering points operated 
by the Minnesota State Patrol, and each governmental entity operating the individual 
public safety answering points serving the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the
Red Lake Indian Reservation, and the University of Minnesota Police Department; 
and
(2) the remaining one-half to qualified counties and cities with existing 911 systems 
based on each county's or city's percentage of the total population of qualified 
counties and cities. The population of a qualified city with an existing system must 
be deducted from its county's population when calculating the county's share under 
this clause if the city seeks direct distribution of its share.
(b) A county's share under subdivision 1 must be shared pro rata between the county 
and existing city systems in the county. A county or city or other governmental 
entity as described in paragraph (a), clause (1), shall deposit money received under 
this subdivision in an interest-bearing fund or account separate from the 
governmental entity's general fund and may use money in the fund or account only 
for the purposes specified in subdivision 3.
(c) A county or city or other governmental entity as described in paragraph (a), 
clause (1), is not qualified to share in the distribution of money for enhanced 911 
service if it has not implemented enhanced 911 service before December 31, 1998.
(d) For the purposes of this subdivision, "existing city system" means a city 911 
system that provides at least basic 911 service and that was implemented on or 
before April 1, 1993.
In CY2014 a total of $13,664,000 in funding was allocated to MN PSAPs using the 
funding mechanism described above.”
35
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
NC
“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
Scotland County: PSAP Consolidation Scotland Co EMS and Laurinburg PD
Wilson County:  911 Equipment Enhancement/Replacement Program
Anson County:   911 Equipment Enhancement/Replacement Program
Bladen County:  Backup Center
Henderson County:  PSAP Relocation
Hertford County:  PSAP Consolidation Hertford Co, Murfreesboro PD & Ahoskie 
PD
Swain County:   911 Equipment Enhancement/Replacement Program
E-CATS :           Emergency Call Tracking System
Ortho Project Image 13:  Image 13 Eastern Piedmont 25 Counties (Orthoimagery 
Mapping)
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 fiscal year.  http://psc.nebraska.gov/orders/ntips/911-019.PI-118.14.pd”
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.”
SD
“The state offered a grant program in 2014 with the goal of the program to be: 
provide financial assistance to PSAPs that need help in funding non-recurring costs 
necessary to achieve or maintain compliance with the standards set out in 
Administrative Rules of South Dakota (“ARSD”) sections 50:02:04:02 (General 
operational standards), 50:02:04:03 (Call taking standards), 50:02:04:04 
(Communication with field units), 50:02:04:05 (Facilities and equipment) and 
50:02:04:06 (Technical standards). The maximum amount of any single grant award 
is $50,000.
The board granted $50,000 to the Winner Police Department PSAP during the 2014 
calendar year and the PSAP provided a 50% match.”
36
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
TN
“The [Tennessee Emergency Communications Board (TECB)] offers [Emergency 
Communications Districts (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
In addition, the TECB has made $25 million available to ECDs for CPE equipment 
used to connect them to the IP platform the state is deploying to modernize 
Tennessee’s 911 infrastructure (Next Generation 911 Project).  The funding plan 
provides each ECD with a base amount of $120,000 plus an additional amount 
determined by the district’s population.”
TX
“The state 9-1-1 program administered by [Commission on State Emergency 
Communications (CSEC)] provides grants of legislatively appropriated 9-1-1 and 
equalization surcharge funds to the 23 [Regional Planning Commissions (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 [University of Texas 
Medical Branch – Galveston (UTMB-G)] and the Department of State Health 
Services to fund emergency medical dispatch, and county and regional emergency 
medical services and trauma care, 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).”
37
State
Describe the grants that your state paid for through the use of collected 
911/E911 fees and the purpose of grant
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.”
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, and maintenance and training funds.”
F. Description of 911/E911 Fees Collected
23. 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 10 23 19 5
Wireless 15 35 8 3
Prepaid 7 27 3 3
VoIP 12 24 14 4
Other 1 5 1 43
24. Table 11 details the fees that each reporting state and jurisdiction levied on wireline, 
wireless, prepaid, VoIP and other services during calendar year 2014.  
38
Table 11 – State Description of Service Type and Associated Fees
AK
$2.00 X
$2.00 X
NA
NA
NR
AL
$1.60 (1/1/14 - 7/31/14)
$1.75 (8/1/14 - Present)
X
$1.60 (1/1/14 - 7/31/14)
$1.75 (8/1/14 - Present)
X
$1.60 (1/1/14 - 7/31/14)
$1.75 (8/1/14 - Present)
X
$1.60 (1/1/14 - 7/31/14)
$1.75 (8/1/14 - Present)
X
$1.60 (1/1/14 - 7/31/14)
$1.75 (8/1/14 - Present)
X
AR
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
$0.65 X
39
$0.65
(per transaction at point 
of sale)
X
$0.65 X
NR
AZ
$0.20 per month for 
each activated wire 
service account
X
$0.20 per month for 
each activated wireless 
service account
X
.80 of one percent from 
the retail sale of 
wireless services; 
retailer can retain 3% 
prior to submittal
X
$0.20 per month for 
each activated VoIP 
service account
X
None
CA
$0.75 of 1% X
$0.75 of 1% X
None
$0.75 of 1% X
NA
CO
$0.43 to $1.75 X
$0.43 to $1.75 X
1.4% of retail sales of 
minutes
X
$0.43 to $1.75 X
NR
CT NR
40
NR
NR
NR
NR
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
NR
FL
$0.50 per month per 
each service identifier. 
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 $0.50 per 
month per access line.
X
$0.50 per month per 
each service identifier X
$0.50 per month per 
each service identifier X
$0.50 per month per 
each service identifier X
GA
$1.50 per month X
$1.00 per month X
$0.75 per transaction X
$1.50 per month X
41
NR
HI
$0.27 per user per 
month
Hawaiian Telcom 
under Bill & Keep
$0.66 per user per 
month
X
None
$0.66 per user per 
month
None
IA
$1.00 X
$1.00 X
$0.51 X
$1.00
Nomadic 
VoIP
Static VoIP
NR
ID
$1.00 or $1.25
$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
$1.00 or $1.25
$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
2.5% point of sale per 
transaction
99% to local, 1% to ECC Operations
$1.00 or $1.25
$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
NR
IL
Fee ranges from $0.30 
to $5.00
X
42
$0.73 X
Retail 1.5% X
Fee ranges from $0.30 
to $5.00
X
NR
IN
$0.90 X
$0.90 X
$0.50 per transaction X
$0.90 X
NR
KS
$0.53 per
subscriber account
X
$0.53 per
subscriber account
X
1.06% of total sale X
$0.53 per
subscriber account
X
$0.53 per
subscriber account
X
KY
Varies from county to 
county, ranges from 
$0.32 to $4.50
X
$0.70 X
Impose $0.70, but 
collect $0.30 per sale
X
Local governments 
collect the local landline 
fee on VoIP services 
provided by cable 
companies
X
NA
43
MA
$0.75 per month for the 
period ending 
December 31, 2014
X
$0.75 per month for the 
period ending 
December 31, 2014
X
$0.75 per month for the 
period ending 
December 31, 2014
X
$0.75 per month for the 
period ending 
December 31, 2014
X
NR
MD
$1.00
25 percent to the 
9-1-1 Trust Fund, 
and 75 percent to 
the county PSAP
$1.00
25 percent to the 
9-1-1 Trust Fund, 
and 75 percent to 
the county PSAP
$0.60
25 percent to the 
9-1-1 Trust Fund, 
and 75 percent to 
the county PSAP
$1.00
25 percent to the 
9-1-1 Trust Fund, 
and 75 percent to 
the county PSAP
ME
$0.45 X
$0.45 X
$0.45 X
$0.45 X
NR
44
MI
$0.19 - state
$0.20 - $3.00 - local
X X
$0.19 - state
$0.20 - $3.00 - local
X X
1.92% point of sale for 
minutes purchased
X
$0.19 - state
$0.20 - $3.00 - local
X X
MN
$0.78 X
$0.78 X
$0.78 X
$0.78 X
NA
MS
$1.00 residential
$2.00 commercial
X
NR
NR
$1.00 X
$0.05 X
MT
$1.00 per month per 
access on each service 
subscriber
X
$1.00 per month per 
access on each service 
subscriber
X
NR
NR
NR
NC $0.60 X
45
$0.60 X
$0.60 X
$0.60 X
NR
ND
$1.00 - $1.50 X
$1.00 - $1.50 X
2% of gross receipts at 
point of sale
X
$1.00 - $1.50 X
NR
NE
$1.00/$0.50 X
$0.45 X
$0.01 X
$1.00/$0.50 X
NA
NH
$0.57 X
$0.57 X
No Charge
$0.57 X
NR
NJ
$0.90/month X
$0.90/month X
None
$0.90/month X
None
NM $0.51 per line per month X
46
$0.51 per line per month X
None
None
NR
NV
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NY
$0.35 - $1.00 per month 
per access line
X
State: $1.20 per month 
per device
Local: $0.30 per month 
per device
X X
None
$0.35 - $1.00 per month 
per access line
X
OH
NR
$0.25 X
NR
NR
NR
OK
Wireline 0 - 15% of base 
telephone rate
X
Wireless $0.50 X
Prepaid $0.50 X
VoIP $0.50 X
47
Other NR
OR
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
NA
PA
$1.00 - $1.50 X
$1.00 X
$1.00 X
$1.00 X X
NR
RI
$1.00 per line per month X
$1.26 per month per 
device
X
2.5% per retail 
transaction
X
NR
NR
SC
$0.30 - $1.00 X
$0.62 X
$0.62 X
$0.30 - $1.00 X
NR
SD
$1.25 per line X
$1.25 per line X
$1.25 per line X
$1.25 per line X
48
NA
TN
$0.65 to $3.00 X
$1.00 X
$0.53 X
$1.00 X
NR
TX
State 9-1-1 Program 
(CSEC/RPC):
The wireline fee is set 
by CSEC at $0.50 per 
access line/month (the 
rate is capped by statute 
at $0.50)
Emergency 
Communications 
Districts:
Res: $0.20 - $1.38 per 
local exchange access 
line/month.
Bus: $0.46 - $3.96 per 
access line/month, up to 
a 100 line maximum in 
most ECD service areas.
Bus. Trunk: $0.74 to 
$3.96
X X
$0.50 per month per 
wireless telecom 
connection.
X
2% of the purchase 
price of each prepaid 
wireless telecom service
X
State 9-1-1 Program 
(CSEC/RPC):
The wireline fee is set 
by CSEC at $0.50 per 
access line/month (the 
rate is capped by statute 
at $0.50)
X
49
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
$0.76 X
$0.76 X
1.90% X
$0.76 X
$0.76 X
VA
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
$0.75 X
NR
VT
2% of customer telecom 
charges
X
2% of customer telecom 
charges
X
2% of customer telecom 
charges
X
Voluntary X
WA
$0.25 state / $0.70 
county per month
X
50
$0.25 state / $0.70 
county per month
X
$0.25 state / $0.70 
county per month
X
$0.25 state / $0.70 
county per month
X
NR
WI
Varies by County Participating telecommunications carriers
None
None
None
NR
WV
Varies by County X
$3.00 per wireless line X
6% Tax X
Varies by County X
NR
WY
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
51
AS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DC
$0.76 per line X
$0.76 per line X
2% at the retail point of 
sale and sales made 
over the Internet
X
$0.76 per line X
Centrex: $0.62/PBX
Trunks:  $4.96 per trunk X
NN
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25. 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 $2,527,625,360.85 in 911 fees for calendar year 2014.
Table 12– Total Amount Collected in 911 Fees by Service Type
AK $5,008,297.41 $8,960,933.40 NA NA NR $13,969,230.81
AL $32,695,123.63 $59,075,842.53 NR $17,016,889.77 NR $108,787,855.93
52
AR $6,918,253.73 $14,979,871.65
Included in 
wireless and 
wireline 
revenue 
$3,392,664.43 NR $25,290,789.81
AZ $16,203,911.00 $1,344,443.00
$41,050
(Interest)
$17,589,404.00
CA NR NR NR NR NR $97,077,234.00
CO
$11,217,995 
(extrapolated based on 
partial survey responses 
from local 911 
Authorities) 
$32,949,356 
(extrapolated 
based on partial 
survey responses 
from local 911 
Authorities) 
$5,495,091 
(extrapolated 
based on partial 
survey 
responses from 
local 911 
Authorities) 
$2,594,643.00 NR $52,257,085.00
CT NR NR NR $1,996,000.00 $35,180,000.00 $37,176,000.00
DE NR NR NR NR NR $8,159,730.03
FL $23,210,317.00 $66,583,250.00 $18,531,186.00
Prepaid not 
segregated in 
2014 wireless 
collections 
NR $108,324,754.00
GA Unknown Unknown Unknown 
$17,538,556.19
GA FY 7/1/13 -
6/30/14 
NR $17,538,556.19
HI $872,500.00 $8,749,300.00 $867,900.00 None None $10,489,700.00
IA Unknown $25,903,929.36 $1,916,622.38 NR $27,820,551.74
ID $17,915,474.00 $935,720.66
$2,028,583.50
[$.25 Grant 
Monies 
collected and 
used for local 
grants]
$20,879,778.16
IL $67,357,403.00 $116,302,352.00 $4,841,929.00
Unknown on 
statewide basis 
$25,481,944.00 $213,983,628.00
IN $10,074,138.62 $49,008,797.94 $7,219,523.48 $5,770,258.29 $2,875.15 $72,075,593.48
53
KS $19,011,333.44 $1,326,414.75 $0.00 $20,337,748.19
KY $28,127,385.00 $23,333,734.00 Not provided $2,459,113.00 None $53,920,232.00
MA $11,784,267.00 $44,472,238.00 $13,716,439.00 $4,974,771.00 NR $74,947,715.00
MD $21,789,423.69 $27,182,747.00 $0.00 $5,794,677.60 NR $54,766,848.29
ME $2,068,738.00 $4,304,298.00 $975,945.00 $982,520.00
$8,650
[Interest]
$8,340,150.00
MI
State:  $20,460,912.31
County: $60,606,236.97
State: 
$7,865,741.41
Local: NA 
NA $88,932,890.69
MN $18,106,997.78 $36,660,353.54 $2,414,082.73 $4,264,674.10 NR $61,446,108.15
MS NR NR NR NR NR $31,280,356.96
MT Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available $13,000,000.00
NC $8,809,556.60 $51,646,089.43 $9,325,720.91 $8,379,879.44 $0.00 $78,161,246.38
ND $9,998,322.00 $339,585.00 NR $10,337,907.00
NE $6,000,550.00 $7,069,662.00 Unknown $870,156.00 NA $13,940,368.00
NH $2,230,441.04 $6,339,836.83 $2,011,991.44 $0.00 NR $10,582,269.31
NJ NR NR NR NR NR $120,000,000.00
NM NR NR $0.00 $0.00 NR $11,600,163.44
NV    NR NR NR NR NR 
NY NR NR NR NR NR $185,513,240.00
OH NR $25,736,969.91 NR NR NR $25,736,969.91
OK NR NR NR NR NR
OR NR NR NR NR NR $39,470,386.00
PA $45,036,138.00 $103,069,152.00 $27,598,118.00 $15,007,705.00 NR $190,711,113.00
RI $5,239,998.00 $11,533,457.00 NR $867,248.00 NR $17,640,703.00
SC Unknown $22,096,561.99 Unknown $6,362,334.06 $0.00 $28,458,896.05
SD $4,082,892.00 $7,996,698.00 $55,776.00 $959,868.00 NR $13,095,234.00
TN Unknown $51,716,235.00 $9,890,235.00 $5,798,370.00 $0.00 $67,404,840.00
54
TX $69,468,291.24 $109,190,616.00
Included in 
wireline
$22,499,609.00
$7,320,000.00
(state 
equalization 
surcharge)
$208,478,516.24
UT $21,600,000.00 $2,817,000.00
Included in 
wireless 
$155,000.00 NR $24,572,000.00
VA $27,471,224.59 $57,716,335.10 Unknown Unknown NR $85,187,559.69
VT   NR   NR   NR   NR   NR 
WA
State:
$6,321,908 
Counties:
$12,928,029
State: 
$17,379,538
Counties: 
$44,785,541
State:
$2,446,805
Counties:
$8,297,729
*included in 
wireless 
NA $91,529,550.00
WI Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 
WV $19,733,754.00 $35,144,017.14
Included in 
wireline
$1,445,699.80 NR $56,323,470.55
WY NR NR NR NR NR 
AS NA NA NA NA NA
DC $1,809,386.17 $5,372,057.31 $1,102,674.44 $575,810.70
Centrex: 
$962,369.58
PBX Trunks: 
$666,689.65
$10,488,987.85
NN NA NA NA NA NA 
26. 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 forty-five responding jurisdictions listed in Table 13, twenty-two 
states report combining collected fees with other funds or grants to support 911 services and twenty-
three 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
55
AK X
AL X
“Any funds that support 911 are contributed at the 
local level, but not in the form of an additional 911 
fee/charge to the citizenry.  Rather, additional funding 
would be in the form of a contract with responder 
agencies in the district or county/municipal funding 
dedicated to 911.”
AR X
AZ X
CA X
CO X
“San Juan County received a state grant from the 
Colorado Department of Local Affairs in the amount 
of $34,000.00 for the purchase of E911 telephone 
equipment.
Additionally, 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
DE X
FL X
“Emergency Communications Number E911 System 
Fund Interest = $322,455
County General Revenues $105,569,226
Annualized State and Rural County grant expenditures 
were calculated at $12,294,267”
GA X
HI X
“The funding that the State of Hawaii Enhanced 
911Board provides to the county PSAPs would be 
insufficient to fund 100% of the costs to operate a 
PSAP.  The amounts from each additional source 
cannot be determined at this time.”
IA X
ID X “No fees combined at the State level.”
IL X
56
IN X
“On average, the 911 fee pays for 45 - 50% 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, racino [race track 
and casino] funds, other.”
KS X
“Local general fund monies are used extensively to 
fund E911 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.”
MA X
MD X
“The State of Maryland’s Department of Information 
Technology used $70,000.00 from a U.S. Department 
of the Interior grant for the purposes of a statewide 
aerial mapping project that benefitted 9-1-1.  The total 
amount funded by the ENSB from the 9-1-1 Trust 
Fund for this project was $810,062.00.”
ME X
“General Fund Appropriation for implementation of 
NG911”
57
MI X
“General funds, millage collections, and fees are used 
to support PSAP budgets statewide, the collective 
financial support of these funding sources totals about 
58%, the breakdown is as follows:
• State 911 Fee Distribution - 12%
• Local 911 Surcharges Received - 30%
• Millage Receipts - 16%
• General Fund Monies - 37%
• Other Receipts - 5%
A full list of the funding sources for each Michigan 
county can be found at:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/2014_Annu
al_Report_to_the_Michigan_Legislature_464409_7.pd
f?20150723151852”
MN X
MS X “Unknown”
MT X
“On a case by case basis state funds that were 
distributed to local governments were combined with 
local general and/or property tax funds.  The amount 
of local funding is not currently available. Individual 
local governments may have been recipients of federal 
grants, but this information is not available.”
NC X
“E911 funds were combined with general fund 
allocations from each of the 121 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 source.”
NH X
58
NJ X
NM X
NV X
NY X
OH X
“State disbursements are sent to each county for use in 
funding their countywide 9-1-1 systems.  Each of 
Ohio’s 88 counties combine these funds with other 
local funds (general fund, sales tax, property tax, etc.) 
to fund their 9-1-1 system.”
OK X
OR X
“As the State 9-1-1 tax distributed to PSAP governing 
authorities is only approximately 24% of total PSAP 
operations, local monies are used for the remainder.  It 
is unknown if any of these governing authorities made 
use of any federal monies or grant monies or special 
collections to cover these costs.  Some of the entities 
use “dispatch fees” to fund operations.  These are 
amounts that local entities pay to the PSAP governing 
authority to dispatch their emergency services.”
PA X
“Any 911 related expenses not covered by 911 fees are 
covered by the general fund of the respective County 
or City.  County/City General Funds covered 
$102,265,885 of 911 expenses in calendar year 2014.”
RI X
SC X
“South Carolina has 3 counties that are handling 911 
calls in an NENA i3 IP environment, 2 of which have 
requested reimbursements for approximately 
$710,000.00.”
59
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
WI X
WV X
WY X
AS X
DC X
NN X
22 23 6
27. 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, thirteen states reported that state 911 fees were the sole source of revenue 
funding 911 services; four states indicated that 50 to 99 percent of funding came from state 911 fees, 
six states reported that 50 to 99 percent of funding came from local fees; and two states reported that 
local fees were the sole source of funding. 
Table 14 – State Estimates of Proportional Contribution from Each Funding Source
60
General 
Fund
(State)
General 
Fund
(County)
AK 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AL NR NR NR NR NR NR
AR NR NR NR NR NR NR 
AZ 100%
CA 100%
CO 3.33% 63.8% 0% 32.86% Unknown Unknown
CT 100%
DE 100%
FL 45% 0% 0% 49% 0% 6%
GA Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
HI Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
IA 22% 41% 0% 37% 41% NR
ID 90% Unknown 0% Unknown 0% 10%
IL 27% 73% 0% Unknown 0% 0%
IN 45-50% Not permitted None Unknown Unknown Unknown
KS 25% NA 0% 72% 0% 3%
KY 21% 30% 9% 34% 6% <1%
MA 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
MD 49% 0% 0% 51% <1% 0%
ME 70% 0% 30% 0% 0% 0%
MI 12% 51% 0% 37% 0% 0%
MN 100% 0% 0% 0 0% 0%
MS NR NR NR NR NR NR
MT Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available
NC 78% 0% 0% 20% 0% 2%
61
General 
Fund
(State)
General 
Fund
(County)
ND 2% 62% 0% 36% 0% 0%
NE Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
NH 100%
NJ Unknown 0% 0% Unknown 0% 0%
NM 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
NV NR NR NR NR NR
NY NR NR NR NR NR NR
OH Variable Variable NA Variable Unknown NA
OK 100%
OR 24% 76% None NR Unknown Unknown
PA 65% NR NR 35% NR NR
RI NR NR NR NR NR NR
SC 45% Unknown 0% Unknown Unknown Unknown
SD 49.5% 0% 0% 25.9% 2.1% 0.27%
TN 100% NR NR NR NR NR
TX 66.68% 33.32% 0% 0% 0% 0%
UT 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
VA 100% 0% 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 NR NR NR NR NR NR
AS 100%
DC 30% NA 60% NA 10% NA
62
General 
Fund
(State)
General 
Fund
(County)
NN 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
G. Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Use
28. As in each prior year, 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.  The majority of respondents – 40 states and other jurisdictions -- indicate that during 
calendar year 2014, or fiscal year 2014, they collected 911/E911 funds only for 911/E911 purposes.
29. Eight states – California, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, 
Virginia, and West Virginia – report that they used collected funds, at least in part, to support programs 
other than 911 and E911 service in calendar year 2014.  Table 15 below summarizes the estimated total 
fees diverted by each of the seven states.  As discussed below, some of these states (California, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, and West Virginia) diverted funds to public safety or emergency 
response programs other than 911/E911, while others (Illinois, New York, Rhode Island) diverted funds 
for other expenditures or to their state general revenue funds.  The aggregate amount of diverted funds 
reported by these jurisdictions is $223,420,909.00, or 8.8 percent of all 911/E911 funds reported to have 
been collected by all responding states and jurisdictions in 2014.
63
Table 15 – Total Funds Diverted or Otherwise Transferred from 911 Uses
State/Territory
Total Funds
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds Used for 
Purposes Other than 
911/E911
Percentage 
Diverted
California $97,077,234.00 $4,331,000.00 4.5%
Illinois $213,983,628.00 $3,000,000.00 1.4%
New Hampshire $10,582,269.31 $1,872,732.00 17.7%
New Jersey $120,000,000.00 $106,728,000.00 89%
New York $185,513,240.00 $77,254,288.00 41.6%
Rhode Island $17,640,703.00 $12,263,289.00 69.5%
Virginia $85,187,559.69 $11,700,000.00 13.7%
West Virginia $56,323,470.55 $6,271,600.00 11.1%
Total $786,308,104.55 $223,420,909.00 28.4%
Percent Diverted From Total Funds Collected 
by All Reporting States/Jurisdictions
Total $2,527,625,360.85 8.8%
30. California stated that “[a]ll funds collected have been used exclusively for the purposes 
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). While 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.  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.”
43
31. Illinois reported that $3,000,000.00 million “was transferred out of the Wireless Carrier 
Reimbursement Fund, a fund in which wireless carriers can seek cost recovery for their 9-1-1 costs, to 
the Public Utility Fund.”
44
32. New Hampshire reported that of the $1,872,732.00 it diverted from 911/E911 fees, 
$1,759,482.00 was transferred, as a result of legislative budget action, to fund the State Police Radio 
Maintenance section, while $113,250.00 was used to fund the State’s Poison Control Project.
45
33. New Jersey reported that it collected a total of $120 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 
                                                     
43
California Response at 12.
44
Illinois Response at 15.
45
New Hampshire Response at 11.
64
Emergency Response Trust Fund account and applied to offset a portion of the cost of related 
programs.”
46
  According to New Jersey, with respect to 911 specific costs, approximately 
$12,372,000.00 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 $106,728,000.00 to offset costs related to programs within the New Jersey Departments of Law and 
Public Safety and Military and Veterans’ Affairs.
47
34. New York stated that in regard to 911/E911 fund diversion in fiscal year 2014-2015, 
“[f]unds derived through the [public safety communications surcharge] were used in accordance with 
the purposes specified in [New York State] Tax Law Section 186-f,” including the authorized transfer 
of a portion of funds to the General Fund. In FY 2014-1 5, $77,254,288 million was transferred to the 
General Fund from the account.
48
35. Rhode Island reported that in its 2014 fiscal year (ending June 30, 2015), the state 
collected $17,640,703.00 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: $4,130,670.00 in personnel costs and $1,189,945.00 in operating costs, for a total of 
$5,320,615.00.  Rhode Island reported that all remaining funds collected were distributed for other 
purposes via the General Fund.
49
36. 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 supporting 911-related activities.
50
37. West Virginia collected $56,323,470.55 in 911/E911 from all sources (wireless, wireline,
VoIP; and other services), and reported diverting $6,271,600.00 of that amount as follows:
51
  
? $1,000,000.00 for the Tower Assistance Fund, to subsidize construction of towers to areas 
that otherwise could not get a tower built to provide enhanced 911 wireless coverage.
? $1,757,200.00 for the 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.
                                                     
46
New Jersey Response at 6.
47
Id.
48
New York Response at 2.
49
Rhode Island Response at 2.
50
Virginia Response at 11.
51
West Virginia Response at 17.
65
? $3,514,400.00 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.
52
38. In Table 16 below, we compare the number of states reporting fee diversions in this 
reporting year compared to past years.  While the general trend with respect to fee diversion over the 
past seven years has been downward, the number of states identifying fee diversion in the last two 
reportable years (2013 and 2014) has remained constant at seven.  We also note that in 2013, the 
Commission improved its information collection process to obtain more detailed information from 
states regarding their use of funds for non-911/E911 purposes.
53
  
Table 16 – States Reporting Diversion of 911/E911 Funds (2009 – 2015)
Report 
Year
2009
Report
2010
Report
2011
Report
2012
Report
2013
Report
2014
Report
2015
Report
States
Illinois
Maine
Montana
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Arizona
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Nebraska
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Maine
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Maine
New York
Rhode Island
Illinois
Kansas
New York
Rhode Island
California
Illinois
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Washington
California
Illinois
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Virginia
West Virginia
Total 8 10 7 6 4 7 8
H. Oversight and Auditing of 911/E911 Fees
39. In order to understand the degree to which states and other jurisdictions track the 
collection and use of 911 fees, the Bureau for the first time 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-eight states and 
the District of Columbia indicated that they have established an oversight mechanism, ten stated they 
                                                     
52
West Virginia Response at 17.
53
See note 6, supra.  As recommended by the GAO, the Bureau’s revised information collection form requires 
states to provide specific information on the nature of expenditures for purposes other than 911/E911, even when 
such purposes are deemed permissible under the state’s 911 funding statute.  The improved information collection 
may have caused more states to report this year than in previous years that they diverted 911 funds to non-911 
public safety programs.  Thus, while prior reports have generally identified states that have diverted funds for non-
public safety purposes, such as transfer of funds to the state general fund, they may not have fully captured public 
safety-related diversions for those reporting years.
66
have not, and two did not respond to the question. Some states spelled out these oversight mechanisms 
in detail.  For example, Oregon stated that the “Secretary of State’s Office has the authority to audit any 
State agency for proper expenditure of public monies”, including the Oregon Office of Emergency 
Management.  In addition, Oregon requires each entity that expends public monies, including PSAP 
governing authorities, to conduct an annual audit.
54
  West Virginia reported that by statute “all 
expenditures of funds by County Commissions in the State of West Virginia [must] be audited by the 
West Virginia State Tax Commissioner [and further] that the financial activities of the [Public Service 
Commission of West Virginia] are monitored internally by the State of West Virginia through audits, 
reviews and studies by the Legislature and externally by an independent private sector auditor in 
‘Single State Audit.’”
55
40. 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 two states reported that they have authority to 
conduct audits of service providers, twenty five reported that they do not, and four did not respond to 
the question.  Under Alabama state code, “on a biennial basis, if not more frequently, the 911 Board 
shall retain an independent, third-party auditor for the purposes of receiving, maintaining, and verifying 
the accuracy of any and all information, including all proprietary information, that is required to be 
collected, or that may have been submitted to the board by voice communication providers and districts, 
and the accuracy of the collection of the 911 service charge required to be collected.”
56
  Washington 
states that the Washington Department of Revenue “conducts periodic audits of service provider excise 
tax collections for accuracy” but that no reported actions were taken during the period under review.
57
  
Of the twenty two states indicating they have authority to audit service providers, three indicated that 
they had undertaken “authority or enforcement or other corrective actions” in connection with such 
auditing, ten indicated no such actions were taken during the period under review, and nine did not 
indicate either way.
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 
from subscribers matches the service 
provider’s number of subscribers?
Conducted 
Audit
AK No No NA
AL Yes Yes No Response
                                                     
54
Oregon Response at 13.
55
West Virginia Response at 18.
56
Alabama Response at 14.
57
Washington Response at 17.
67
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 
from subscribers matches the service 
provider’s number of subscribers?
Conducted 
Audit
AR No No NA
AZ Yes Yes No
CA Yes Yes No Response
CO Yes Yes No
CT Yes 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 No No NA
IN Yes No NA
KS Yes No NA
KY Yes Yes No
MA Yes No NA
MD Yes Yes No
ME Yes Yes No
MI Yes No NA
MN Yes Yes No
68
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 
from subscribers matches the service 
provider’s number of subscribers?
Conducted 
Audit
MS No Yes No Response
MT Yes Yes No Response
NC Yes No NA
ND Yes No NA
NE Yes Yes Yes
NH Yes Yes Yes
NJ No No NA
NM No No NA
NV DNP DNP NA
NY Yes DNP NA
OH Yes No No
OK Yes No NA
OR Yes Yes Yes
PA Yes No NA
RI Yes DNP NA
SC No No NA
SD Yes Yes No Response
TN Yes No NA
TX Yes Yes No Response
UT No No NA
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 
from subscribers matches the service 
provider’s number of subscribers?
Conducted 
Audit
VA Yes Yes No
VT Yes Yes No
WA Yes Yes No
WI Yes No NA
WV Yes Yes No Response
WY DNP DNP NA
Other Jurisdictions
AS No No NA
DC Yes No NA
NN No No NA
Totals
Yes No Yes No Yes No
39 10 22 25 3 10
I. Description of Next Generation 911 Services and Expenditures
41. 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 2014. With respect to classifying NG911 as within the scope of permissible expenditures, 
forty respondents indicated that their 911 funding mechanism allows for distribution of 911 funds for 
the implementation of NG911.  Eight respondents - Alaska, American Samoa, Illinois, Montana, 
Navajo Nation, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah - reported that their funding mechanism does not allow 
for the use of 911 funds for NG911 implementation. Of the respondents that indicated that their 
funding mechanism allows for NG911 funding, thirty-two states and the District of Columbia indicated 
that they used 911 funds for NG911 programs in 2014. 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.
70
Table 18 – Number of States Indicating One or More Areas of NG911 Investment
General 
Project or 
not specified
Planning or 
Consulting 
Services
Hardware or 
Software 
Purchases or 
Upgrades
GIS
ESInet 
Construction
Training
NG Security 
Planning
AL
HI
MA
MS
NM
NN
TN
VA
VT
DC
FL
HI
ID
KY
MA
MD
MN
NC
NH
NJ
NN
OH
TX
VA
CO
FL
HI
IA
KY
MD
NC
ND
TX
WV
WA
CO
FL
IA
KS
MA
MN
ND
NN
PA
SD
TX
VA
CA
CT
FL
IL
KS
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
NC
ND
OH
PA
SC
SD
HI
TX
WA
9 15 11 12 16 2 1
42. The Bureau requested that states and jurisdictions report the amount of funds expended 
on NG911 programs in the annual period ending December 31, 2014.  Table 19 shows the NG911-
related expenditures reported by twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia. Collectively, these 
jurisdictions spent approximately $227,574,995.97 on NG911 programs, or approximately 9 percent of 
total 911/E911 fees collected.  Five states reported that 911/E911 fees were used for NG911 purposes, 
but did not report the exact amounts of state expenditures on NG911-related programs.
58
  Twelve states, 
American Samoa, and the Navajo Nation did not report expenditures for NG911-related programs.
59
Table 19 – Funds Spent on Next Generation 911 Programs
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
AL $1,228,623.43
AL completed its wireless aggregation project in Dec. 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 phases of the project.  All wireless calls in the state 
are now routed through this network.
                                                     
58
These States include Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 
59
These include Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, 
Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin.  
71
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
AZ $61,603.00
No Response
CA $3,781,336.00
CA has two NG911 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 $22,270,461.00
“Responses . . . posed to local 911 Authorities in Colorado yielded a variety 
of responses.  Here is a summary:
? NG911 compliant radio system and logging recorder
? Install public safety fiber between city public safety facilities
? Installation of fiber to connect local governments in service area
? Consolidation of 8 PSAPs into regional NG911 center (Q1 2017). 
? Conversion of two primary PSAPs not consolidated into NG911 backup 
center
? New IP phone system and NG911-compliant logging recorder
? GIS updates and network upgrades
? New NG911-ready call-handling equipment
? New IP phone system
? Direct IP text-to-911 delivered via local ESInet
? NG911-ready CPE installed
? Preparations for installation of new IP phone system
? Software upgrades to make phone system NG911-ready”
CT $3,100,000.00
Installation of Public Safety Data Network  (PSDN) an ultra-high 
speed flexible fiber optic network which serves as the base transport 
infrastructure and interconnectivity pathway for public safety related 
applications and connectivity for NG911.
DC $1,872,000.00
The OUC started NG911 discovery and explorations with 
requirements gathering for a fully integrated NG911 CPE solution 
and a NG911 i3 network solution for the District of Columbia.
FL $17,476,934.34
In 2014, NG911 expenditures include county expenditures on county 
NG911 projects. These expenditures include next-generation ESI 
network circuits and services, NG911 database and routing services 
and call handling equipment.
60
HI $1,723,800.00
Last half of CY 2013: completion of the statewide deployment of the 
NG911 enabled Intrado “Viper” platform and related user training. 
First half of CY 2014: Hawaii County initiated the procurement 
process for a new NG911-compatible CAD while the Kauai and 
Oahu PSAPs CAD upgrades were in the implementation process.
IN $8,000,000.00 The Statewide 911 Board in cooperation with the IN Department of 
                                                     
60
Map information on Florida’s NG911 projects is included in the Florida E911 Board 2014 Annual Report, 
available at: http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/telecommunications/enhanced_911.
72
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
Administration published Request for Service 15-12 in July 2014.  
RFS15-12 calls for a single statewide wireless ESInet (as is the case 
today) or for multiple ESInet deployments.  
At the Dec. 2014 meeting of the Statewide 911 Board, award letters 
were granted to AT&T and INdigital Telecom for build-out and 
operation of (2) two statewide ESInet that meet the i3 standard and 
are redundant. Completion date is 18 to 24 months.
KS $1,649,268.00
GIS Data Enhancement project: This project collects GIS data from 
all of the PSAP jurisdictions and compares it to our KS NG911 GIS 
data model for compliance. Deviations from the standard are 
remediated by contracted GIS vendors, or by the PSAP jurisdiction if 
they so choose. Once the remediation work is complete, the data is 
resubmitted for a quality assurance audit to ensure that the deviations 
have been corrected. Once the data passes the audit at 100% 
compliance, the PSAP jurisdiction is responsible for continued 
maintenance as changes occur. When the data is updated through 
maintenance it is submitted to the Council’s GIS Committee for 
quality assurance and inclusion in the statewide GIS database. This 
data set will initially be used for wireless Phase 2 call mapping in the 
statewide call handling system and ultimately be used for geospatial 
call routing. This project is expected to be complete by the end of 
2015.
Statewide ESInet and hosted call handling system implementation: 
This project develops IP network connectivity between the PSAPs 
and a hosted call handling solution that can be shared amongst the 
PSAPs. Concurrently, the Council is planning and will deliver SMS 
text messages to the PSAPs that are connected to the statewide 
system. Text-to-911 is expected to be delivered to the PSAPs within 
six to eight months of their coming onto the statewide platform, with 
this timeframe narrowing as implementation progresses. The current 
goal will have 30 PSAPs on the statewide system by the end of 2015, 
with the remaining 87 on by the end of 2017.
MA $1,583,218.00
Develop, design, and implement a high speed fiber optic network in 
Western and parts of Central MA 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 NG911 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 NG911.  
73
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
On Aug. 4, 2014, the Department entered into a contract with General 
Dynamics to provide a comprehensive, end-to-end, fully featured, 
standards-based NG911 system to replace the current enhanced 911 
system. During the annual period ending Dec. 31, 2014, system 
design and test planning development, laboratory trial and testing, 
site surveys, and other activities were undertaken.
MD $12,067,230.15
The Board has funded IP enabled telephone systems for six primary 
and one backup PSAP.  Additionally, the Board has funded projects 
to install diverse fiber optic networks from local serving wire offices 
to various PSAPs (“last-mile” connectivity) to carry 911 trunks and 
other telephone services, which may be used for an ESInet once one 
is established.
ME $6,418,849.00
A contract was executed with FairPoint Communications in Mar. 
2013 for NG911 services to transition Maine’s aging E911system to a 
modern standards-based system capable of handling new 
communication. The process required the legacy E911 system and the 
NG911 system to operate simultaneously until all PSAPs were on the 
NG911 network. 
The first PSAP was transitioned in Mar. 2014. An aggressive 
implementation schedule resulted in all 26 PSAPs being successfully 
cutover to the new system by July 23, 2014. This completed one of 
the nation’s first statewide end-to-end NG911 system deployment 
based on the Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the 
NENA i3 Solution.
MI $177,286.72
The Upper Peninsula 911 Project which supports the eight PSAPS 
serving all 15 counties of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
61
MN $27,638,145.54
All 104 PSAPs connected to the ESInet for all call types (wireline, 
wireless, and VoIP). 
RFP posted for response for ESInet, IP Selective Routing, and a 
solution for Text to 911.
GIS Project Manager position was filled to begin the Statewide GIS 
Centerline project for 911 in preparation for ECRF/LVF.
NC $1,285,639.00
Johnston County 911 is implementing a local ESInet that will feature 
an LTE backup network. This ESInet will have interconnect 
capabilities with other ESInets in the state that are operated by 
Intrado.
                                                     
61
More detailed information can be found at: http://www.upcap.org/programs_services/911.html.  
74
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
The NC 911 Board issued a Request for Information (“RFI”) to 
gather information and statements of interest relating to design, 
development and implementation of a NG911 communications 
network throughout NC.  This was described as an Emergency 
Services Internet Protocol (IP) network (ESInet).  In addition the RFI 
gathered information and statements of interest relating to systems 
having NG911 functionality that would use the ESInet to provide 
these services to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs).  
Responses were received from 13 diverse vendors and several were 
invited back to make presentations. 
On Dec. 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 911 environment to a NG911 environment for all primary, 
secondary, and backup PSAPs. 
The contract has been awarded and work will begin shortly. This plan 
will include issuance of an RFP for NG 911 functional capabilities. 
These NG911 functional capabilities are comprised of GIS operation 
supporting call routing, Hosted Call Processing, a Network 
Operations Center (NOC) and Help Desk, CAD interoperability for 
all PSAPs, 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 [NENA] i3 next generation standards, 
requirements, and best practices.
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.
NJ $9,141.00
“Consultant service to begin groundwork for 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.”
NN
No Response
Navajo Nation Division of Public Safety began planning for 
911/NG911 in 2014.  Activities include: 
• RFP for NG911 Call Taking Equipment, RFP for new CAD system, 
quotes for 911 trunks and selective router access.  
• 911 Service Plan filed with the State of New Mexico
75
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
• Discussions with the State of Arizona regarding the Navajo Nation’s 
plan to migrate to E911
• Meetings with the FCC to discuss lack of funding available to the 
Navajo Nation for E911 and NG911 migrations
• Dialog with all wireline and wireless carriers providing services 
within the Navajo Nation to update them on E911 plans.
• Currently working with State of Arizona to validate Navajo Nation vs. 
county boundaries for 911.  Correcting GIS shape files for wireless 
Phase 0 and VoIP currently.
Additionally, NN has a broadband network provided by Navajo 
Communications Company (a Division of Frontier Communications) 
that can be used for future NG911 network connectivity across the 
Navajo Nation.
OR $438,061.62 No Response
PA
No Response
PA is in the early stages of implementation with the ongoing 
development of regional and statewide ESInets and geo-spatial 
mapping to provide for 911 call routing.  NG911 is a core technology 
change and will be based upon nationwide standards currently being 
developed by NENA and other 911 authorities.
PEMA’s goals are to establish the strategy to implement NG911 
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 (NENA i3 Standards)
• Implement IP capable PSAPs
• Develop geographic based routing and database integration
• Deploy NG911 capable, shared applications
• Converge networks and systems to a “system of systems”
• Implement “Best Practices” approach  
SC $710,000.00
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 (a coastal county) and 
Spartanburg (an upstate county).  Project should be complete in early 
2016 and it will be the first two jurisdictions in the state to 
interconnect through an ESInet.
SD $288,773.00
GIS:  In Nov. 2014, SD entered into a 5-year renewable contract with 
GeoComm to create a statewide GIS dataset and maintenance to be 
used for geospatial 911 call routing.
911 Call Answering: In Dec. 2014, SD entered into a 5-year 
renewable contract with TCS for our Statewide ESInet, statewide 
hosted call answering system and managed services.
TN $73,004,983.00 All wireless carriers were directly connected to the NG911 network.  
76
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
There were over 1,250 wireline trunk order submissions, 415 of 
which were successfully tested.  All PSAPs were at some stage of 
deployment with 85 tested for live traffic and 72 live on the network.
TX $22,952,496.17
State 911 Program:
• Updated Texas NG911 Master Plan
• Implemented Enterprise Geospatial Database Management Services 
(EGDMS) for GIS data development, standardization, and QA/QC 
processes in preparation for moving ALI Database from MSAG based 
to LVF based function for NG911.
• Procured contracts with vendors for the implementation of the State-
level ESInet Phase I.
• Collaborated with statewide stakeholders and to complete and adopt 
standards & policies (NG911 Interoperability; GIS Data; 
Cybersecurity)
• Text to 911 Project plan developed to leverage current ALI MPLS 
network to support text to 350 PSAPs in State 911 program by 
connecting to the 2 national TCCs.
• Continued implementation of Regional ESInets that will interconnect 
with other Regional ESInets and the State-level ESInet.
772 ECDs:
• Implementation and deployment of Denco Area 911 District’s regional 
ESInet serving their 11 PSAPs.
Municipal ECDs:
• Purchased and/or installed Next Gen Systems, and Next Gen capable 
equipment.
• Upgraded CPE.
• Project underway to connect to NCTCOG network, and deploy an 
NG911 System.
VA $1,000,000.00
NG911 Feasibility Study: Virginia completed a feasibility study for 
the design of a single statewide IP-based 911 network to reduce the 
length of 911 call set-up time and enable transferability of 911 calls 
statewide.  This study provides a concise list of statewide IP-based 
911 network design options to the E-911 Services Board and is a 
critical first step in the statewide deployment of NG911. The results 
of this Study will contribute to the blueprint for the Commonwealth's 
related long-term planning efforts; as well provide insight to 
localities on statewide NG911 efforts.     
NoVA Regional SIF Project: Knowing that the existing Verizon 
Selective Router Network for the legacy 911 system is nearing 
obsolescence, and that data preparation is a key element of 
transitioning to NG911, the NoVA PSAPs have received a 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 NoVA that is 
77
State Amount Spent Description of Projects
suitable for provisioning into a live NG911 ECRF/ LVF system 
residing on the ESInet.
VT $4,604,830.00
VT has and continues to allow expenditures under the 911 program 
for NG911 services and such funds have been used to support the 
Statewide Next Generation system that was implemented in May 
2011.  In Nov. 2014 The State entered into a contract with a new 
vendor for its Next Generation system which will be implemented in 
July, 2015.
WA $13,476,567.00
WA began in earnest to replace analog 911 telephone equipment in 
the state’s 55 primary PSAPs with NG911 phone systems.  A total of 
11 primary PSAPs were upgraded during the calendar year.  
In 2014, the WA contracted for a third-party cybersecurity 
assessment of the state-wide ESInet, which is currently underway.  
Also in 2014, all of WA’s PSAPs began assessing options for local 
Text-to-911 implementation.
WV
No Response
Dark Fiber and routers are installed in all PSAPs in WV in 
preparation for NG911
TOTAL $227,574,995.97
62
43. ESInet Deployments.  To better track NG911 implementation progress, the Bureau for 
the first time requested that states and other responding jurisdictions provide information on whether 
they had any Emergency Services IP Networks (ESInets) operating during calendar year 2014.  The 
Bureau further requested descriptions of the type and number of ESInets operating within each state or 
jurisdiction, and the number of PSAPs linked to each ESInet.
44. As detailed in Table 20, eleven states reported having deployed state-wide ESInets.
63
  
Eleven other states reported having regional ESInets within the state, and seven states reported local-
level ESInets.
64
  We note that 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. 
                                                     
62
This total reflects only the reported totals of monies spent by the States and territories but may not be reflective of 
the total expenditures actually made nationwide.  
63
We note that deployment of ESInets is an indicator that the state or jurisdiction is transitioning to IP-based routing 
of 911 calls, but by itself, does not mean the state has completed its transition to NG911 service.  These states 
include Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Hampshire; Tennessee, Vermont,
Washington, and West Virginia.  
64
Note that Florida, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia state that they have both regional and local ESInets 
operating within the state. 
78
Table 20 – Type and Number of ESInets Deployed During Period Ending December 31, 2014
Type of 
ESInet
Number of 
States/Jurisdictions 
Indicating PSAPs Connected 
to ESInet
States Responding
Yes
Total PSAPs 
Operating on 
ESInet
No Yes
Single 
Statewide 
ESInet
35 11
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Tennessee
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
498
Local ESInet 38 7
Colorado
Florida
North Carolina
Ohio
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia
85
Regional 
ESInet
34 11
Arizona
California
Florida
Illinois
Kentucky
Michigan
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
170
45. 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 2014.  The Bureau also requested that respondents estimate the number of PSAPs that they 
anticipated would become text-capable by the end of calendar year 2015.  Table 21 sets forth the 
information provided by respondents.  Collectively, respondents reported 316 PSAPs as being text-
capable as of the end of 2014.  Respondents further reported that they anticipated an additional 559
79
PSAPs would become text-capable by the end of 2015.  Four states - Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, 
and Vermont - reported statewide text-to-911 capability.
65
  For purposes of comparison, Table 21 also 
shows the total number of PSAPs in each state that have registered as text-capable with the FCC as of 
December 16, 2015.
66
Table 21 – Text-to-911 Deployments
AK 0 2 2 0
AL 10-11 31 42 3
AR 0 15 15 0
AZ 0 0 0 0
CA 1 28 29 20
CO 6-24 61 85
21
CT 0 0 0 0
DE 0 0 0 0
FL 2 0 2 4
GA 4 0 4 3
HI 0 8 8 9
IA 1 12 13 9
ID 1 6 7 3
IL 0 0 0 9
IN 88 10 98 89
                                                     
65
Although Puerto Rico did not file a report in response to this year’s questionnaire, we note that Puerto Rico 
registered that it was text-capable on June 22, 2015 and text to 911 service is available island wide as of December 
23, 2015.
66
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.
80
KS 3 30 33 0
KY 1 9 10 2
MA 0 2 2 0
MD 1 7 8 1
ME 2 26 28 25
MI 2 15 17 15
MN 0 7 7 0
MS 1 25 26 0
MT 2 0 2 5
NC 38 19 57 58
ND 0 5 5
0
NE 3 0 3 0
NH 2 0 2 2
NJ 0 21 21 19
NM 0 0 0 0
NV X 0 X 0 0
NY X 0 X 0 7
OH 0 0 0 3
OK X X
OR 0 7 7 0
PA 10 30 40 11
RI X 0 X 0 0
SC 5 20 25 9
SD 0 0 0 0
81
TN 0 0 0 0
TX 103 89 192 114
UT 0 6 6 1
VA 6 50 56 19
VT 2 6 8
2
WA 0 5 5 5
WI 0 1 1 3
WV 3 5 8 1
WY X 0 X 0
Other Jurisdictions
AS 0 0 0 0
DC 0 1 1 0
NN 0 0 0 0
Totals 316 5 559 5 875 472
J. Cybersecurity Expenditures
46. The Bureau requested that states and jurisdictions provide information on whether they 
expended funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs in 2014 and, if so, the amounts of those 
expenditures.  As represented in Table 22, thirty eight jurisdictions responded that they did not expend 
funds on PSAP-related cybersecurity programs.  Colorado reported that while no cybersecurity 
programs have been implemented for PSAPs at the state level, some local 911 authorities have 
cybersecurity programs in place.
67
  Five states – Alaska, Maine, Michigan, Texas, and Washington -
and the Navajo Nation reported that they expended funds on cybersecurity programs for PSAPs in 
2014.  The Navajo Nation reported that it spent $8,000; Texas reports that it spent $443,830.16; and 
Washington reported that it spent $83,473 on cyber projects.  Alaska spent approximately $1,900,000 
for the state’s cybersecurity program, which it reports includes the cost of providing “cybersecurity 
                                                     
67
Colorado Response at 18.
82
protections for the 7 State of Alaska PSAPs (6 Alaska State Trooper Posts PLUS 1 at the Ted Stevens 
International Airport).”
68
  Michigan stated that the “estimated aggregate spend for Cyber Security in 
2014 was $22,871,649. . . . Included within this amount are cyber expenditures for centralized cyber 
related infrastructure and services that are used to support three state of Michigan State Police operated 
PSAPS in Negaunee, Gaylord, [and] Detroit.”
69
  Seven states did not respond to the question or reported 
they did not know.
70
47. The Bureau additionally requested information on the number of PSAPs in each state or 
jurisdiction that implemented or participated in cybersecurity programs in 2014.  Table 22 shows that 
nine states, the District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation reported that one or more of their PSAPs 
either implemented a cybersecurity program or participated in a regional or state-run cybersecurity 
program. Thirteen states and American Samoa reported that their PSAPs did not implement or 
participate in cybersecurity programs.
71
  Twenty-six states reported that they lacked data or otherwise 
did not know whether their PSAPs had implemented or participated in cybersecurity programs.
Table 22 – Annual Cybersecurity Expenditures
State
During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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 NA 7
AL X NA “Not reported at state level”
AR X NA Unknown
AZ X NA 0
CA X NA Unknown
CO X
A number of local 
911 Authorities 
report having 
cybersecurity 
programs in place, 
but nothing has been 
implemented 
“In a survey of local 911 
Authorities, 16.2% of local 
911 Authorities stated they 
had implemented a 
cybersecurity program in 
2014. Extrapolating to all 
PSAPs in the state, we can 
                                                     
68
Alaska Supplemental Response to Question 9 at 1.  According to the supplemental filing, the state spent 
approximately $1.2 million on “network and host security products”; $300,000 on “software licensing and 
maintenance costs”; and approximately $400,000 on “Center for Internet Security, Equipment hosting.”  Id.
69
Michigan Response at 18. 
70
Included in this category are Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wyoming.
71
Illinois and North Dakota, which both responded that this question was not applicable to them, are included in this 
category.
83
State
During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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
specifically for 
PSAPs from the state 
level.
estimate 16 PSAPs 
implemented a cybersecurity 
program in that calendar 
year.”
CT X NA Unknown
DE X 0
FL X
“Information not 
Collected”
“Information not Collected”
GA X *Unknown* *Unknown*
HI X NA “All 5 primary PSAPs”
IA X NA Unknown
ID X NA 1
IL X NA N/A
IN X NA Unknown
KS X NA
“8 of the PSAPs reported 
that they implemented or 
participated in a local cyber 
security program.”
KY X NA “Unsure”
MA X NA “Unknown”
MD X NA “Not Known”
ME X
“Unable [to 
determine] as it is 
part of the overall 
services required of 
the NG911 System 
Service Provider 
contract.”
“26
As required by CJIS for 
NCIC”
84
State
During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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
“The state of 
Michigan estimated 
aggregate spend for 
Cyber Security in 
2014 was 
$22,871,649 . . . 
Included within this 
amount are cyber 
expenditures for 
centralized cyber 
related infrastructure 
and services that are 
used to support three 
state of Michigan 
State Police operated 
PSAPS in Negaunee, 
Gaylord, Detroit. 
“Data not collected”
MN X NA None
MS X NA 0
MT X NA Unknown
NC X NA 3
ND X NA N/A
NE X NA 0
NH X NA 0
NJ X NA None
NM X NA None
NV X NR
NY X
“Cyber security 
expenditures, if any, 
are not reported to 
DHSES at this time.”
NR
85
State
During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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
OH X NA Unknown
OK X Unknown
OR X NA 0
PA X NA Unknown
RI X
“Presently, RI E 9-1-1 is not 
Internet connected and, as 
such, does not utilize 
cybersecurity software for 
the receipt and transfer of 
incoming 911 calls. It is 
envisioned that once our 911 
network becomes Internet 
based (in accordance with 
answer number 8 above), 
that we will then incorporate 
cybersecurity safeguards and 
protocols.”
SC X NA Unknown
SD X NA 0
TN X NA Unknown
TX X $443,830.16 18
UT X NA 0
VA X NA Unknown
VT X NA Unknown
WA X $83,473.00 55
WI X NA Unknown
WV X NA 5
WY X NR
Other Jurisdictions
AS X NA None
86
State
During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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
DC X NA “One”
NN X
$8,000.00 7 PSAPS within the Navajo 
Nation
Total 6 38 6 1 $25,306,952.16 151
48. 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)
72
for networks that support one or more PSAPs.  Nine states reported that they do 
adhere to the NIST Framework, eight states reported that they do not,
73
and thirty-four indicated they 
did not know or did not respond to the question. 
Table 23 – Adherence to NIST Cybersecurity Framework
AK X
AL X
AR X
AZ X
CA X
CO X
CT X
DE X
FL X
GA X
                                                     
72
See National Institute of Standards and Technology, Cybersecurity Framework, at 
http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/.
73
Alaska states that “[a]s the NIST CSF (Cyber security Framework) is relatively new, the State Security Office is 
undertaking a current review of the state’s information Security Framework as well as our individual Information 
Security Policies. In conjunction with this review moving toward and adopting the NIST CSF over the next 12-18 
months.” Alaska Supplemental Filing at 1.
87
HI X
IA X
ID X
IL X
IN X
KS X
KY X
MA X
MD X
ME X
MI X
MN X
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
88
WI X
WV X
WY X
Other Jurisdictions
AS X
DC X
NN X
Totals 9 8 30 4
K. Measuring Effective Utilization of 911/E911 Fees 
49. 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 49 jurisdictions that 
responded, 26 described some effort to measure the effectiveness of 911/911 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.  Seven jurisdictions did not respond to this section.  Nine 
jurisdictions reported that that they had no information responsive to this section. Seven states reported 
that they were developing a mechanism to measure the effectiveness of expenditures.  Finally, the 
Navajo Nation reported that the questions were not applicable as it had not yet begun spending funds on 
911/E911.
50. The efforts of states that have tried to track the performance of programs funded by 911 
fees vary considerably.  A number of states require periodic reports from PSAPS on the use of funds.  
For example, Kentucky requires PSAPs receiving wireless funds receive a Geo-Audit that measures the 
accuracy of their ability to receive a plot wireless 911 calls on the PSAP map.  In other states, such as 
Florida, the State 911 board evaluates PSAP performance.  The frequency of various audits and 
performance measurements also varies widely.  Massachusetts requires the [State 911] department to 
file a written annual report describing grant expenditures to municipalities.  Texas has a biennial 
reporting requirement.  Kentucky requires a financial audit of each PSAP every six years.
L. Public Comments on 2014 Sixth Annual Report
51. As in past reports, this section summarizes public comments received in response to the 
prior year’s report.  On January 23, 2015 the Commission issued a Public Notice seeking comment on 
89
the 2014 Sixth Annual Report.
74
  We received input from five commenters,
75
all expressing concern that 
state legislatures have diverted funds that were intended to support 911 systems.  The Washington State 
APCO-NENA Chapter (APCO-NENA) commented that the practice in Washington state’s recent 
biennial budgets “has been to change the language of the E911 [funding] statute to meet their funding 
needs,” including diverting “$2 [million for a] Department of Corrections narrow-banding radio 
project,” “$3.5 million . . . to fund computer system upgrades for the criminal history section of the 
Washington State Patrol,” and $10.8 million to the Washington State Military Department for operating 
expenses.”
76
APCO-NENA stated that “the fund has not been drained to the point of impacting the 
ability to provide basic E911,” but the diversions will “at a minimum, extend the timeline for NG911 
therefore causing additional unnecessary expenses and at a maximum, could damage the transition to 
the point of inability to implement.”
77
Grays Harbor Communications Center E9-1-1 (Grays Harbor) 
commented that “[t]his year’s Governor’s Budget recommendation was presented utilizing $8.0 million 
to fund the [Washington State] Military Department[‘s] . . . daily expenses.”
78
  
52. The New Jersey Wireless Association (NJWA) commented that “88% of the [State of 
New Jersey’s 9-1-1 System and Emergency Response Trust Fund Account (911 Trust Fund)] 
expenditures were appropriated to offset the operating budget of the NJ State Police and State 
Homeland Security Department.”
79
  NJWA reported that New Jersey’s state and municipal PSAPs have 
not received any funds from 911 Trust Fund since 2009, despite those PSAPs handling the “vast 
majority” of 911 calls.
80
NJWA also argues that the State of New Jersey will “never” be able to 
implement a new IP-based ESInet, as only minimal funding is allocated to the planning or 
implementation of a statewide NG911 network.
81
53. The Yakima County E911 Administrative Board and the Pacific County Communications 
Agency both commented that “the diversion and withholding of funds from the intended specific 
purposes hinders the enhancement of the 9-1-1 and NG911 communications systems” and “erodes the 
credibility and trust of elected officials to garner future public support of future public safety 
communications systems.”
82
  Grays Harbor asks the Commission to “find a mechanism to ensure that 
the funds put in place by the citizens are spent on the items they are intended.
83
  NJWA “believes the 
FCC and Congress should clarify the definitions within or related to the NET911 Act of what 
                                                     
74
FCC Seeks Public Comment on Sixth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 344 (Jan. 23, 2015), available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001015936.
75
The Commission received comments from the Yakima County E911 Administrative Board, the Washington State 
APCO-NENA Chapter, the Pacific County Communications Agency, Grays Harbor Communications Center E9-1-
1, and the New Jersey Wireless Association.
76
Washington State APCO-NENA Chapter Comments at 1.
77
Id. at 2.
78
Grays Harbor Communications Center E9-1-1 Comments at 2 (Grays Harbor Comments).
79
New Jersey Wireless Association Comments at 2.
80
Id.
81
Id. at 3.
82
Yakima County E911 Administrative Board Comments at 1; Pacific County Communications Agency at 1.
83
Grays Harbor Comments at 2.
90
expenditures are intended under the Act as originally contemplated and subsequently adopted” and that 
“Congress should mandate that the process and organizations with jurisdiction of the expenditures of 
911 Fees be subject to [the Open Public Records Act], to maintain the spirit of transparency within the 
[NET911] Act.”
84
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE 2015 SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT
54. 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.
                                                     
84
New Jersey Wireless Association Comments at 4.
91
Appendix A
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
92
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, 2014:
PSAP Type
85
Total
Primary
Secondary
Total
2. Please provide the total number of active telecommunicators
86
in your state or jurisdiction 
that were funded through the collection of 911 and E911 fees during the annual period 
ending December 31, 2014:
Number of Active 
Telecommunicators
Total
Full-Time
Part-time
3. For the annual period ending December 31, 2014, please provide an estimate of the total cost 
to provide 911/E911 service in your state or jurisdiction.
Amount
($)
                                                     
85
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 .
86
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.
93
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, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
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, 2014, did your state or 
jurisdiction amend, enlarge, or in any way alter the funding mechanism.
94
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.
95
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.)
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.
96
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.
97
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, 2014, describe the grants that your state paid 
for through the use of collected 911/E911 fees and the purpose of the grant.
98
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, 2014, please report the total amount collected 
pursuant to the assessed fees or charges described in Question F 1.
Service Type Total Amount Collected ($)
Wireline
Wireless
Prepaid Wireless
Voice Over Internet 
Protocol
Other
Total
2a. If an amount cannot be provided, please explain why.
99
3. Please identify any other sources of 911/E911 funding.
Question Yes No
4. For the annual period ending December 31, 2014, were 
any 911/E911 fees that were collected by your state or 
jurisdiction combined with any federal, state or local 
funds, grants, special collections, or general budget 
appropriations that were designated to support 
911/E911/NG911 services? Check one.
4a. If Yes, please describe the federal, state or local funds and amounts that were combined with 
911/E911 fees.
100
5. Please provide an estimate of the proportional contribution from 
each funding source towards the total cost to support 911 in your 
state or jurisdiction.
Percent
State 911 Fees
Local 911 Fees
General Fund - State
General Fund - County
Federal Grants
State Grants
101
G. Description of Diversion or Transfer of 911/E911 Fees for Other Uses
Question Yes No
1. In the annual period ending December 31, 2014, were 
funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes in your state or 
jurisdiction made available or used solely for purposes 
designated by the funding mechanism identified in 
Question 5?  Check one.
1a. If No, please identify what amount of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes were made 
available or used for any purposes other than the ones designated by the funding mechanism or 
used for purposes otherwise unrelated to 911 or E911 implementation or support, including any 
funds transferred, loaned, or otherwise used for the state's general fund.  Along with identifying 
the amount, please include a statement identifying the non-related purposes for which the 
collected 911 or E911 funds were made available or used.
Amount of Funds ($)
Identify the non-related purpose(s) for which the 911/E911 funds were 
used.  (Add lines as necessary)
102
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, 2014.  (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, 2014.  (Enter “None” if no actions were taken.)
103
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, 2014, 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
($)
104
3. For the annual period ending December 31, 2014, please describe the type and 
number of NG911 Emergency Service IP Network(s) (ESInets) that operated 
within your state. 
Type of ESInet Yes No
If Yes, Enter 
Total PSAPs 
Operating on 
the ESInet
If Yes, does the type of ESInet 
interconnect with other state, 
regional or local ESInets?
Yes No
a. A single, 
state-wide 
ESInet
b. Local (e.g., 
county) 
ESInet
c. Regional 
ESInets
[If more than one 
Regional ESInet is 
in operation, in the 
space below,  
provide the total 
PSAPs operating on 
each ESInet]
Name of Regional ESInet:
Name of Regional ESInet:
105
4. Please provide a description of any NG911 projects completed or underway during the annual 
period ending December 31, 2014.
Question
Total PSAPs
Accepting Texts
5. During the annual period ending December 31, 
2014, how many PSAPs within your state 
implemented text-to-911 and are accepting 
texts?
Question
Estimated Number of PSAPs
that will Become Text Capable
6. In the next annual period ending December 31, 
2015, how many PSAPs do you anticipate will 
become text capable?
106
J. Description of Cybersecurity Expenditures
Question
Check the 
appropriate box
If Yes,
Amount Expended ($)
1. During the annual period ending 
December 31, 2014, did your state 
expend funds on cybersecurity 
programs for PSAPs? 
Yes No
Question Total PSAPs
2. During the annual period ending December 31, 2014, 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?
107
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.
108
Appendix B
Summary of State Responses Regarding 2014 Collections
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
AK Local No $13,969,230.81 None No None
AL State
State and Local 
Required
$108,787,855.93 None Yes $1,228,623.43
AR Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$25,290,789.81 None Yes None
AZ State Yes $17,589,404.00 None Yes $61,603.00
CA State Yes $97,077,234.00 $4,331,000.00 Yes $3,781,336.00
CO Hybrid No $52,257,085.00 None Yes $22,270,461.00
CT State Yes $37,176,000.00 None Yes $3,100,000.00
DE State Yes $8,159,730.03 None Yes None
FL State
State and Local 
Required
$108,324,754.00 None Yes $17,476,934.34
GA Local No $17,538,556.19 None Yes None
HI State Yes $10,489,700.00 None Yes $1,723,800.00
109
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
IA Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$27,820,551.74 None Yes Does Not Track
ID Hybrid No $20,879,778.16 None Yes None
IL Hybrid No $213,983,628.00 $3,000,000.00 No None
IN State
State and Local 
Required
$72,075,593.48 None Yes $8,000,000.00
KS State
State and Local 
Required
$20,337,748.19 None Yes $1,649,268.00
KY Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$53,920,232.00 None Yes Does Not Track
MA State Yes $74,947,715.00 None Yes $1,583,218.00
MD State
State and Local 
Required
$54,766,848.29 None Yes $12,067,230.15
ME State Yes $8,340,150.00 None Yes $6,418,849.00
MI Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$88,932,890.69 None Yes $177,286.72
MN State State $61,446,108.15 None Yes $27,638,145.54
110
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
MS Local No $31,280,356.96 None Yes None
MT Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$13,000,000.00 None No None
NC State No $78,161,246.38 None Yes $1,285,639.00
ND Hybrid No $10,337,907.00 None Yes $255,750.00
NE Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$13,940,368.00 None No None
NH State Yes $10,582,269.31 $1,872,732.00 Yes None
NJ State Yes $120,000,000.00 $106,728,000.00 Yes $9,141.00
NM State Yes $11,600,163.44 None Yes None
NV
Did Not 
Provide
Did Not 
Provide
Did Not Provide Did Not Provide Did Not Provide Did Not Provide
NY Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$185,513,240.00 $77,254,288.00 Yes Does Not Track
OH Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$25,736,969.91 None Yes None
OK Local No Did Not Provide None No None
111
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
OR State
State and Local 
Required
$39,470,386.00 None Yes $438,061.62
PA Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$190,711,113.00 None Yes Does Not Track
RI State Yes $17,640,703.00 $12,263,289.00 Yes $500,000.00
SC Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$28,458,896.05 None Yes $710,000.00
SD State
State and Local 
Required
$13,095,234.00 None Yes $288,773.00
TN Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$67,404,840.00 None Yes $73,004,983.00
TX Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$208,478,516.24 None Yes $22,952,496.17
UT State
State and Local 
Required
$24,572,000.00 None No None
VA State Yes $85,187,559.69 $11,700,000.00 Yes $1,000,000.00
VT State Yes Did Not Provide None Yes $4,604,830.00
112
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
WA Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$91,529,550.00 None Yes $13,476,567.00
WI
Fees 
retained in 
full by 
service 
providers
No Does Not Track None Yes None
WV Hybrid
State and Local 
Required
$56,323,470.55 $6,271,600.00 Yes Does Not Track
WY Local No Does Not Track Did Not Provide Did Not Provide Does Not Track
Other Jurisdictions
AS
None; 
budgeted 
through 
executive 
office of 
Department 
of Public 
Safety
Department of 
Public Safety
None Did Not Provide Not applicable None
DC City Yes $10,488,987.85 None Yes $1,872,000.00
NN AZ, NM, No tribal None Did Not Provide No None
113
State and 
Other 
Jurisdictions
Type of 
Fund 
Collection
State 
Approval of 
Expenditures 
Required
Total Funds 
Collected
(Year End 2014)
Total Funds 
Used for Other 
Purposes
Funding of 
NG911 
Permissible 
under 
911/E911 
Funding 
Authority
Total Funds Used for 
NG911
UT collect 
911 fees; no 
tribal 
authority to 
collect fees
authority 
regarding use 
of fees 
collected by 
AZ, NM, UT
114
Appendix C
Overview of Total State 911 Fees - 2009 to 2015 Reports
87
State or 
Jurisdiction
2009
Report
2010
Report
2011
Report
2012
Report
2013
Report
2014
Report
2015
Report
Alabama $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
Alaska 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
American
Samoa
DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
Arizona $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
Arkansas $24,799,338.00 DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP $25,290,789.81
California $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
Colorado $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.)
Connecticut $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
Delaware 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
District of
Columbia
$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
Florida $130,962,053.00 $125,531,674.00 $123,059,300.00
88
$122,550,767.00 $108,896,142.00 $107,884,715.00 $108,324,754.00
Georgia DNP $8,537,319.00 $8,950,569.00 $13,700,097.00 DNP $18,462,645.22 $17,538,556.19
Guam $1,468,363.00 DNP DNP $1,779,710.00 DNP DNP DNP
Hawaii $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
Idaho $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
Illinois 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
Indiana $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
Iowa $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
                                                     
87
“DNP” indicates that the state or jurisdiction did not provide the information.
88
Revised total to reflect the collection of $45,888,321.00 in non-wireless E911 fees and the collection of $77,170,979.00in wireless E911 fees of.  The 2011 
Report only included non-wireless E911 fees in the total. 
115
State or 
Jurisdiction
2009
Report
2010
Report
2011
Report
2012
Report
2013
Report
2014
Report
2015
Report
Kansas DNP $6,705,538.67 DNP $22,125,937.00 $20,477,020.47 $20,573,217.00 $20,337,748.19
Kentucky $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
Louisiana DNP DNP $3,017,672.00 DNP $4,912,926.00 DNP DNP
Maine $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
Maryland $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
Massachusetts 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
Michigan $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
Minnesota $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
Mississippi $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
Missouri DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
Montana $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
Nebraska $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
Nevada DNP DNP DNP DNP $2,010,341.58 $1,944,446.69 DNP
New Hampshire $10,854,202.82 DNP $9,832,831.00 DNP $10,493,486.32 $10,467,786.57 $10,582,269.31
New Jersey $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
New Mexico $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
New York $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
North Carolina $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
North Dakota DNP $8,369,366.00 DNP $9,506,000.00 $9,506,000.00 $9,998,322.00 $10,337,907.00
Northern
Marianas
Islands
NA NA NA NA DNP DNP DNP
Ohio $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
Oklahoma DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
Oregon $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
Pennsylvania $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
Puerto Rico $20,952,458.73 $21,876,276.72 DNP $21,367,260.00 $20,323,323.95 $19,507,889.00 DNP
Rhode Island $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
116
State or 
Jurisdiction
2009
Report
2010
Report
2011
Report
2012
Report
2013
Report
2014
Report
2015
Report
South Carolina $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
South Dakota DNP DNP $8,100,000.00 $8,200,000.00 $9,111,476.00 $13,275,031.00 $13,095,234.00
Tennessee $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
Texas $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
Utah $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
Vermont $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
Virgin Islands NA $590,812.00 $554,245.00 DNP DNP DNP DNP
Virginia 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
Washington $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
West Virginia $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
Wisconsin $9,602,745.46 DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
Wyoming $6,700,000.00 DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
Total $1,877,863,271.72 $1,749,609,554.27 $2,002,117,111.00
89
$2,149,689,191.00 $2,322,983,616.36 $2,404,510,787.64 $2,527,625,360.85
                                                     
89
Total for the annual period ending December 31, 2010 (2011 Report) revised from $1,924,946,132.00 to $2,002,117.111.00 to reflect correction to Florida 
total fees.