Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 911 Fee Diversion topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County administrator says state diverted 9‑1‑1 fees; Warren County seeks answers

5828099 · February 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County Administrator Alex J. Lazorisak told commissioners the state has not fully returned 9‑1‑1 surcharge revenue to counties and outlined historical figures and reporting gaps.

Warren County Administrator Alex J. Lazorisak told the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 26 that the county has not been receiving the full share of 9‑1‑1 surcharge funds collected from phone lines and outlined what he said are gaps in state reporting and distribution.

Lazorisak described the federal 9‑1‑1 Improvement Act and said the state collects a monthly surcharge—90 cents per line—and is required to pass the revenue to entities operating 9‑1‑1 systems. He said New Jersey collected roughly $1.25 billion over the past eight years and that, in his review, the Murphy administration spent about 15% on the state 9‑1‑1 system and diverted the remainder into the state operating budget. He said the administration released $10 million in 2023 that was split among 21 counties but that Warren County did not receive a share of that distribution.

Lazorisak said the Federal Communications Commission receives annual reports on the use of the fee and that, except for 2023, the Murphy administration did not submit detailed reports showing how the money was used. He said that of the funds distributed in 2023, 81% were applied to items he characterized as unrelated to county 9‑1‑1 operations. Lazorisak said he is continuing to work with county leadership and state contacts to pursue the issue.

The remarks were presented as an informational update; no formal motion or vote was recorded on the subject at the Feb. 26 meeting. Commissioners discussed the matter briefly after Lazorisak’s report; the minutes show no directive that the board adopt specific litigation or formal action at that time.