09/20/2023

Issue Spotlight: Next Generation 9-1-1 Changes

At CCAO, we are continually looking to educate our members on key issues being discussed in the state. The goal of Issue Spotlight is to concentrate on an issue that will be discussed in the legislature and provide our members with information and talking points to assist with your advocacy efforts.

9-1-1 Fee Change and Distribution Change

House Bill 33, the state’s operating budget, made significant changes to Ohio’s 9-1-1 system. First, it is important to understand the current fee and funding distribution structure at the state level for 9-1-1 funding. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the fee and funding distribution changes between current law and HB 33. Table 2 also includes an estimate of the funding each entity will receive when the new fee amounts are put in place.

Table 1) Fee Structures for 9-1-1 Services, Current Law and House Bill 33
Fee Type	Current Law	House Bill 33 (Effective January 1, 2024)
Monthly Fee	$0.25 on all wireless devices	$0.40 on each wireless telephone, on each VoIP channel (up to 100 channels per user), and on each MTS line (up to 100 per building for a single subscriber)
Prepaid Device Fee	0.5% of the sales price of a prepaid wireless calling service.	0.5% of the sales price of a prepaid wireless calling service.
Estimated Annual Revenue	$28.5 million	$100.0 million
*VoIP = Voice over Internet Protocol **MTS = Multiline Telephone System

 

Table 2) Fee Distribution Formula for 9-1-1 Services, Current Law and House Bill 33
Entity	Current Law	House Bill 33 (Effective October 3, 2023)
Counties	97% ($27.6 million)	72% ($72 million)
State 9-1-1 Office	2% ($570,000)	2% ($2 million)
Department of Taxation	1% ($285,000)	1% ($1 million)
State NG 9-1-1 Program	N/A	25% ($25 million)
*State 9-1-1 Office may move funds between the four pots under House Bill 33

In addition to the funding provided by the state, funding to provide 9-1-1 services at the local level also comes from a variety of sources including property tax levies, sales tax levies, general funds, charges to landline accounts, and some grant funding. The ability to utilize these sources of funding was unchanged by HB 33.

Key Takeaways and Talking Points:

• HB 33 increased the monthly 9-1-1 user fee from $0.25 to $0.40 from January 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025 and expanded the number of services that are now subject to the fee.
• This monthly user fee increase should result in an increase in 9-1-1 funding to counties from the state and allow for the ongoing support of a statewide Next Generation 9-1-1 system.
• Counties are still allowed to supplement the state 9-1-1 funding with levies and other local sources of funding contained in current law.

While the changes made in HB 33 are poised to increase the funding available to counties, there are two items which require advocacy to help rectify.

As noted in the tables above, the new $0.40 fee on a wider universe of devices will begin in January 2024; however, the new distribution formula, which sees the county share of revenue decrease from 97% to 72%, will begin in October 2023. This will result in counties receiving reduced 9-1-1 revenue from the state from October through February. The Department of Administrative Services is aware of this issue and plans to transfer funding from their 9-1-1 lines to make counties whole during this transition period. CCAO has made the legislature aware of this issue as well and will be working to potentially fix this issue in the fall.

Another issue that will need advocacy is the duration of the new $0.40 fee. HB 33 sunsets the $0.40 fee and reverts to the current $0.25 in October 2025. CCAO will be working to remove the reduction and keep the $0.40 fee in continuing law.

Advocacy Issues:

• Keep counties whole during this the transition period to the new fee amount due to the lack of alignment in the fee increase and the new distribution formula.
• Remove the October 2025 reduction in the fee and keep the fee at $0.40 in continuing law.

9-1-1 Plan and Planning Committee

The bill also changes the requirements for a county 9-1-1 plan and 9-1-1 planning committee.

First, HB 33 repeals the language surrounding a county 9-1-1 planning committee, which is currently used to govern 9-1-1 services in the county. The language replaces the planning committee with a newly created 9-1-1 program review committee. The language prescribes several different models for the committee based on the county.

Generally, the program review committee must consist of six voting members as follows:

• A member of the board of county commissioners or a designee (prior law required the president or other presiding officer of the board);
• The chief executive officer (CEO) of the most populous municipal corporation in the county (unchanged from continuing law, including the requirement that population residing outside the county be excluded when calculating population);
• A member of the board of township trustees of the most populous township in the county as selected by a majority vote of the board;
• A member of a board of township trustees selected by the majority of boards of township trustees in the county under resolutions they adopt;
• A member of the legislative authority of a municipal corporation in the county selected by a majority of the legislative authorities of municipal corporations in the county under resolutions they adopt and
• An elected official from within the county appointed by the board of county commissioners.

If your county has fewer than five townships, a population exceeding 750,000, and contains more than one PSAP, your program review committee consists of the following five members:

• A member of the board of county commissioners or a designee to serve as chairperson;
• The CEO of the most populous municipal corporation in the county (population residing outside the county is excluded from the count);
• One of the following, whichever is more populous:
  • The CEO of the second most populous municipal corporation in the county;
  • A member of the board of township trustees of the most populous township in the county as selected by a majority vote of the board;
• The CEO of a municipal corporation in the county selected by the majority of the legislative authorities of municipal corporations in the county under resolutions they adopt; and
• A member of the board of township trustees selected by the majority of the boards of township trustees in the county under the resolution they adopt.

If your county contains only one PSAP, and the board of county commissioners does not operate the PSAP, then your committee consists of three members from the following:

• A member of the board of county commissioners or a designee who will serve as chairperson of the committee;
• One of the following, based on what entity type operates the PSAP:
  • If a township, then a member of that board of township trustees;
  • If a municipal corporation, the CEO of that municipal corporation;
  • If operated by a subdivision that is not a township or municipal corporation, or is operated by a regional council of governments (RCOG), then an elected official of that subdivision or RCOG;
• A member who is an elected official of the most populous township or municipal corporation in the county that does not operate a PSAP (population residing outside the county is excluded for purposes of determining population).

If you have a single PSAP in the county and the board of county commissioners operates it, then that board will serve as the review committee.

Once established, the review committee must maintain and amend a final plan for implementing and operating a countywide 9-1-1 system. Any amendment to the final plan requires a two-thirds vote of the Review Committee, and each review Committee must meet at least once annually to maintain or amend the plan. The initial plan must be submitted to the state 9-1-1 program office by April 3, 2024. Any revisions or amendments to the plan are to be filed not later than 90 days after adoption. The final plan must specify the following: 

• How PSAPs will be connected to a county’s preferred NG 9-1-1 system; 
• If enhanced 9-1-1, NG 9-1-1 service, or a combination of the two, will be provided (providing basic 9-1-1 service is no longer permitted); 
• How originating service providers must connect to the core 9-1-1 system identified by the final plan, and what methods will be used by the providers to communicate with the system; 
• A description of the capability of transferring or otherwise relaying information to the entity that directly dispatches emergency services should a PSAP not correctly deliver the needed services;  
• An explanation of how each emergency service provider will respond to a misdirected call or a false caller location or if the call fails to meet FCC or accepted national standards.

As mentioned in recent issues of Counties Current, the Department of Administrative Services will be hosting events in October across the state to discuss NG 9-1-1 rollout plans and answer questions concerning funding, formation of the new plans, and more.

If you have questions about this information, please contact Managing Director of Policy Kyle Petty at kpetty@ccao.org or 614-220-7977.