Prepaid emergency communications officials say state grant on hold; vendor-hosted 911 system under review

At a meeting of the Prepaid Emergency Communications District in Cleburne County, staff reported the district had processed approximately 26,000 calls through Nov. 30 and described delays in a state grant that would fund a return from a vendor-hosted call-taking system to a standalone system.

The district’s staff member, Miss Kirkland, told board members the district submitted an Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) application and had pursued a state loan/grant of roughly “$200 and something odd thousand” to buy standalone equipment after the vendor recommended moving away from the hosted arrangement. She said the state’s cost-recovery fund process has been paused after the state examiner raised concerns about how the state board handled grant funds, leaving the district “on hold.”

Why it matters: the district’s current hosted arrangement has produced recurring maintenance fees and, according to staff, reliability and connectivity problems that the vendor flagged as reasons to switch back to stand-alone equipment. The board heard that the existing hosted maintenance was previously about $10,800 per year and that some counties are accustomed to a roughly $2,750 hosted fee; staff also said a full standalone replacement had been described to them as “close to over $300,000.”

Staff described operational consequences and mitigation steps. Miss Kirkland said the district had not activated the emergency operations center and that call volume in October was higher than in previous months; she said the district has recently installed Starlink as a backup Internet link to improve connectivity. Board members and staff discussed vendor placement of several counties on a single hosted hub and the district’s poorer connectivity relative to nearby districts as the driver of the problem.

Board members asked whether the district still retained its original equipment and whether the hosted configuration could be converted to new software. Miss Kirkland said original equipment had been removed and returned to the vendor. Questions about whether the vendor might bear liability for a system that did not meet promised performance were raised; a speaker identified as Jason said the contract and its specific terms would need to be reviewed to determine if there were grounds for a fraud or breach claim.

District staff said they had contacted the Alabama Association of County Communications Authorities (ACCA) and that ACCA and the state board were working to change verbiage in the cost-recovery process to get funds flowing again. Staff also said several directors had sent letters documenting funding and staffing problems to the state board.

Board members pressed for outreach to legislators and the state board to change how phone-bill cost-recovery funds are distributed. Miss Kirkland said she would contact ACCA representatives and the state board to identify the best legislative contacts. Members also raised staffing concerns and said increasing call volume — including a large share of calls coming from Interstate 20 — had outpaced the staffing model the district had used in earlier years.

The district did not take a formal vote on equipment procurement or contracts at the meeting; discussion centered on grant timing, vendor options, backup connectivity and pursuing legislative relief or state-board action to restore the grant funding mechanism.