Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State 911 Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State 9-1-1 Board reports near‑exhaustion of $2M mapping grant; highlights hosted solution costs
Summary
The newly formed State 9-1-1 Board told the budget committee the $2 million critical facility mapping grant has largely been awarded (479 PSAP awards covering 443 K–12 institutions) and outlined recurring hosted‑solution costs for 109 PSAPs, noting a $1.5 million GIS update cycle every three years.
The State 9‑1‑1 Board briefed the Legislative Budget Committee on Jan. 28 about its transition to a state agency, ongoing operating costs for a statewide hosted solution, and the status of a $2 million critical facility mapping grant.
KLRD fiscal analyst Kyle Anderson said the 9‑1‑1 board is funded largely by a $0.90 surcharge and a 2.6% prepaid wireless fee; 23¢ of the 90¢ is allocated to board operations, 66¢ goes to PSAPs and 1¢ funds a grant program. He noted FY26 entries are affected by a $2,000,000 critical‑facility mapping grant added the prior year and described a planned $1.5 million contractual increase in FY27 for updating GIS map data.
Executive Director Sherry Massey described the board’s three core functions — fee collection/distribution/auditing, monitoring 9‑1‑1 call paths and services, and pursuing shared technology — and explained the hosted solution that provides telephone, call‑handling software, broadband connectivity and map data to 109 PSAPs. Massey said annual hosted solution costs currently account for the largest share of the operations fund and that GIS aerial imagery procurement (about $1.5 million) typically occurs every three years.
Massey reported that, as of Dec. 11, the board had approved 479 grant awards covering 443 K‑12 schools and that award notifications nearly exhausted the $2 million fund; applications remain open but no further awards will be distributed until full costs are reconciled and remaining funds confirmed.
Committee members pressed whether all applications received by the Dec. 11 cutoff were approved; Massey said they were and noted some applicants worried about future maintenance and update costs for the data. The chair asked why the remaining $2 million was not requested in the next year’s budget; Massey said the original allocation came through a proviso and she believed the proviso was the appropriate vehicle for that funding.
The board closed its presentation and the committee moved on; the committee did not take any immediate action to change fee allocations or operations.
