Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Services Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Texas 9‑1‑1 plan: COG presenter urges city to back creation of local emergency communications district for stable funding
Summary
A Council of Governments (COG) presenter urged Temple council to support forming a regional emergency communications district (ECD) to collect the 50¢ per‑device 9‑1‑1 fee locally rather than through the state, arguing it would stabilize funding for equipment and mapping and permit later expansions of allowable uses after reserves are built
Jim Reed, a presenter working with the regional emergency communications effort, briefed the council on a proposal for a Central Texas emergency communications district that would take local control of 9‑1‑1 funding and operations now routed through the state Commission on State Emergency Communications (CSEC).
Reed said the region currently pays 50¢ per communications device; under the state system the fee is remitted to the state comptroller and then allocated back to regions subject to legislative appropriations. Reed summarized the stated problem: fluctuating state appropriations make local 9‑1‑1 funding unpredictable. He said: “We want to pull out of the state system, be our own communications district.”
What the district would do: Reed said the ECD would manage the technical side of 9‑1‑1 — call delivery, the addressing database, mapping, system upgrades and equipment replacement — but would not change emergency response providers (police, fire, EMS) or the PSAPs (public‑safety answering points) that currently answer calls. He said governance would be by a board representing the Central Texas Council of Governments region; initial formation requires a set of local resolutions across the proposed service area.
Funding and limits: Reed explained the fee would remain 50¢ per device and that enabling legislation (he referenced an earlier enabling bill) prevents the local board from raising that fee above 50¢; any statewide statutory change would apply uniformly. He said the district expects to collect the fee directly from telecom providers via pay agreements and to avoid the uncertainty and top‑slice administrative costs the state now deducts.
Reed outlined several anticipated benefits: more stable, predictable revenue for capital planning and equipment replacement; removal of state administrative charges; and eventual ability — after building reserves — to fund additional public‑safety equipment or services not permitted under the current state program. He cautioned that expanded spending would not be immediate: his timeline projected five to seven years before non‑traditional uses (for example, first responder radios or mobile data terminals) might be funded.
Governance and concerns: Reed walked through the initial board structure the statute specifies and noted the Central Texas COG executive committee would serve as the initial board; that setup gives larger population centers substantial voting representation. Several council members asked how the board would guard against urban areas directing funds away from more populated contributors; Reed said the COG bylaws and proposed policies would adopt the state's policy papers at the outset and that a technical advisory committee would be recommended for operational input.
Next steps and timeline: Reed said he needs resolutions from seven counties and 32 cities — 39 resolutions total — for the district to form; he and staff said they are targeting an August 2025 activation date and requested that Bell County and other partners time their resolutions to allow a coordinated formation. Reed said telecom pay agreements and bylaw drafting remain to be completed.
Ending: Council members praised the COG’s work updating addressing databases and 9‑1‑1 maps and agreed more detail on bylaws and governance would be helpful; no formal council action was taken at the workshop.
