Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Statewide 911 Funding Governance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews HB 2110 to revise statewide 9‑1‑1 fund structure, remove LCPA mandate and provide $1M startup transfer

2435634 · February 27, 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

House Bill 2110, a follow-up to last year’s 9‑1‑1 restructuring legislation, was presented to the committee as a technical and policy "trailer" bill that would change how 9‑1‑1 fee revenues are collected, held and distributed.

House Bill 2110, a follow-up to last year’s 9‑1‑1 restructuring legislation, was presented to the committee as a technical and policy “trailer” bill that would change how 9‑1‑1 fee revenues are collected, held and distributed. The bill would remove the statutory requirement that the State 9‑1‑1 Board contract with a local collection point administrator (LCPA), establish three funds in the state treasury on July 1, 2025, require an immediate $1,000,000 remittance to the operations fund on that date, and schedule a bulk transfer of existing out‑of‑treasury fee balances to the state treasury on Jan. 2, 2026.

Nick Myers, a staff member presenting HB 2110, said the bill is a "trailer bill" to last year’s legislation and summarized its main changes: eliminating the required LCPA contract while leaving contracting authority to the State 9‑1‑1 Board; creating a State 9‑1‑1 Fund, an Operations Fund, and a Grant Fund on 07/01/2025; directing a $1,000,000 initial transfer into the operations fund on that date; and moving the bulk transfer of fee monies held outside the treasury into the new funds on Jan. 2, 2026.

Myers described distribution mechanics preserved in the bill: 23 cents of every 9‑1‑1 fee would go to the state operations fund, 1 cent would go to the grant fund (the bill removes the prior $2,000,000 threshold that had previously paused that 1‑cent transfer), and remaining funds would be deposited into the State 9‑1‑1 Fund for distribution to PSAPs and governing bodies.

Sherry Massey, executive director of the 9‑1‑1 Coordinating Council, testified in support and described administrative challenges during the transition to a state agency. She said two council staff members are currently listed under the Department of Administration for payroll processing and that the Department invoices the LCPA for reimbursements because the council does not yet exist in the state accounting system. "That is because we don't have any existence in the state accounting system yet and no funds with which to handle kind of the basic IT and payroll expenses," Massey said, explaining why the bill would create funds and authorize the $1,000,000 transfer on July 1, 2025.

Massey told the committee she met with Mainstream Nonprofit Solutions, the current LCPA, and that the organization is aware of the transition and interested in continuing to contract if feasible. "They are very aware of the circumstance, and they are aware that we would still love to be able to continue to contract for these fee collection services," Massey said, adding that the role of an LCPA has diminished as more functions move into the state agency.

Senators asked questions about federal grants and the $2,000,000 cap that previously paused transfers to the grant fund. In response to a question about federal funding, Massey said the board has "applied for and received federal grants previously" but does not receive regular federal funding. Senator Pack asked how often the grant fund had reached the previous $2,000,000 cap; Pack answered his own question: "Never. So why would we remove it?" Massey said the grant fund receives about $360,000 a year from the 1‑cent allocation and explained the operational concern that hitting the cap would abruptly redirect those monies back to PSAPs, leaving little for grant awards and reducing the board’s flexibility to move unencumbered operations money into grants.

The committee discussed that, if the board applies for federal grants, 9‑1‑1 fee monies must be used for 9‑1‑1 purposes. Committee members also asked whether the legislature would be able to see annual balances for the operations and grant funds during budget review; Massey said she includes current and estimated balances when submitting the budget and offered to provide those figures on request.

No committee vote on HB 2110 was recorded at the hearing; the committee chair closed the hearing after testimony. A fiscal note was included in committee materials.