Page - 1 - of 2

E911 Board Meeting Agenda Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel

*Special Note: Telephone conferencing will be available to allow county participation in meeting and to allow some Board members to participate telephonically when they cannot attend the meetings.

Conference Number (888) 670-3525

Conference Code 2323004133 Wednesday, September 12, 2012 through Thursday, September 13, 2012 Beginning Time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Meeting Minutes for the August 15-16, 2012 E911 Board Meetings 3. Old Business -Board Member Appointments -Metro PCS Letter 4. Discuss confidential data related to provider revenues by county, discrepancies,

disbursements and provider invoices 5. Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data 6. Nex Gen Global Technologies 911 Text, Photo and Video Communications System Presentation

(Wednesday, September 12, 2012 beginning at 1:00 p.m.–1:30 p.m.) 7. Legislative Subcommittee Taskforce (Wednesday, September 12, 2012 beginning

at 1:30 p.m.) 8. E911 Board Rules, Rule Development and Status Report

60FF1-5.002 Rural County Grant 2011 Spring Program Rule Development 60FF1-5.003 E911 State Grant 2011 Program Rule Development 60FF-5.007 Requirement for T1 and Primary Rate Interface Fee

Remittance (deletion) 9. Discuss Rural County and State Grant Program Quarterly Reports and Change

Requests

Page - 2 - of 2

10. Discuss ENHANCE 911 Act Grant 11. Discuss Fee Allocation Percentages and the Emergency Communications Number E911 System Fund (E911 Trust Fund) 12. Other Business Public Comments Staff Reports 13. Adjourn Chairman’s Statement: The E911 Board welcomes comments from citizens and interested parties about any 911 issue(s) or concern(s). Your opinions are valued in terms of providing input to the E911 Board members.

The E911 Board reviews Public Comments at the end of the meeting agenda. However, the E911 Board may elect to receive Public Comments on any scheduled agenda item. Individuals wishing to speak before the E911 Board during the Public Comments portion of the meeting, or on scheduled agenda items, should register the issue on the “Issues List” provided at the sign-up table inside the meeting room. Telephone conference attendees should send an email request to penney.taylor@dms.myflorida.com.

When addressing the Board, please state your name and organization for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. Time permitting, five minutes may be allowed for each speaker.

E911 BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Dates:

E911 Board Meetings August 15-16, 2012

Telephone Conference Tallahassee E911 Board Members participating in telephone conference:

Christopher Campbell, Chairman - Director, Division of Telecommunications Carolyn Dill-Collier, 911 Coordinator, St. Lucie County Charles “Chuck” Freeman, 911 Coordinator, Pinellas County Stan Greer, Area Manager – External Affairs, AT&T Benjamin “Ben” Guthrie, 911 Coordinator, Gulf County Marilyn Haroutunian, Industry Consultant, TracFone Wireless Sandra “Sandy” Khazraee, Regulatory Affairs Director, Southern Region, Century Link Ira Pyles, 911 Coordinator, Hillsborough County Staff participating in telephone conference: Kimberly Bickley, Administrative Support, DMS-Division of Telecommunications Delia Fernandez, Accountant, Law, Redd, Crona & Munroe, P.A. John Ford, Interim Bureau Chief, DMS-Division of Telecommunications Wink Infinger, Statewide 911 Coordinator, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Lynette Norr, Legal Counsel, Office of the Attorney General Kent Raheb, Technical Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Penney Taylor, Administrative Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Two

Public participating in telephone conference: Christine Cooper, Okaloosa County Tim Gundlach, Essential Management Solutions Elmer Holt, Telecommunications Development Corp. Jody Kenyon, Pasco County Rolf Preuss, Flagler County Bruce Thorburn, KOVA/Rave Corporations Dina Walker, Seminole County

(Some telephone conference participants may not be listed as no email was received acknowledging their participation.)

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 beginning time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. The meeting started with staff conducting roll call. All eight (8) members of the current eight (8) member Board participated in the telephone conference which established the quorum. Roll call for staff members was conducted. Public members participating in the telephone conference were requested to acknowledge their participation by email to ensure that they would be properly noted in the meeting minutes. Public members with issue(s) to be presented to the Board for consideration were requested to send the issue(s) via electronic mail to staff. Board Counsel Ms. Norr informed the Board that due to changes within the Office of the Attorney General that she would no longer be assigned to the Board and that Clark Jennings has been re-assigned to the Board effective with the September meeting. Mr. Campbell thanked Ms. Norr for all the support she provided to the Board. 2. Approve Meeting Minutes from the July 10-12, 2012 E911 Board Meetings Meeting minutes from July 10-12, 2012 E911 Board meetings were reviewed by the Board. There were no significant changes or updates received from the Board members or staff after the initial draft was circulated. All updates were incorporated in the draft meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Khazraee made a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as received. Mr. Greer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0).

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Three 3. Approve Meeting Minutes from the August 7, 2012 E911 Board Legislative

Subcommittee Taskforce Meeting Meeting minutes from August 7, 2012 E911 Board Legislative Subcommittee Taskforce meeting was reviewed by the Board. There were no significant changes or updates received from the Board members or staff after the initial draft was circulated. All updates were incorporated in the draft meeting minutes as presented. Mr. Greer made a motion to adopt the meeting minutes as received. Ms. Haroutunian seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). 4. Old Business Board Member Appointments Mr. Ford informed the Board that included in the meeting package for review was the letters that were sent to the CLEC and Wireless Industries announcing the availability of one wireless position and one CLEC position on the Board. Mr. Ford informed the Board that staff has worked with the Governor’s Appointment Office to now send the notifications through the DMS office. DMS is directing interested parties to the website to download the required application and then route the application(s) through DMS and DMS would submit to the Governor’s Appointment Office. Mr. Ford stated that at this point there is one candidate listed for the CLEC position with no indication of any names submitted for the wireless position. Once responses are received from the letters, they will be forwarded to the Governor’s Appointment Office. Mr. Campbell informed the Board that the DMS Chief of Staff had communicated with the Governor’s Appointment Office to make the request that the CLEC position be approved in a timely manner; therefore the Board could be hearing something soon on the appointment for the CLEC position. Ms. Taylor informed the Board that the previous requirement of the Governor’s Appointment Office, in submitting names for vacant seats, was to submit three names per vacancy. Therefore, 5 names would still be outstanding for the 2 industry positions. Ms. Taylor also informed the Board that the name for the county position (1) had been submitted to the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) who would be responsible for submitting the names to the Governor’s Appointment Office.

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Four 5. Discuss confidential data related to provider revenues by county, discrepancies,

disbursements and provider invoices.

All confidential information discussed in a manner as not to disclose any confidential information and/or trade secrets.

Ms. Fernandez reviewed confidential data related to the wireless and non-wireless May 31, 2012 monthly disbursements to counties and financial statements.

The Board was informed that issues continue to be encountered with remittance reports from some companies and with fluctuations of subscribers from some companies. 6. Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data Wireless Wireless financial reports for the period ending May 31, 2012 were reviewed and discussed by the Board. Mr. Guthrie made a motion to authorize distribution of wireless revenues in the amount of $3,951,680.75. Ms. Dill-Collier seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). Nonwireless Nonwireless financial reports for the period ending May 31, 2012 were reviewed and discussed by the Board. Mr. Greer made a motion to authorize distribution of nonwireless revenues in the amount of $3,438,441.81. Ms. Dill-Collier seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). Financial Statement Ms. Fernandez gave an overview of the financial statement for the period ending May 31, 2012 which included a summary of liabilities, trust fund balance, revenues, expenditures and subsequent events. Provider Reimbursement Ms. Fernandez reviewed the Provider Reimbursement spreadsheet which includes a statement of year to date reimbursements to wireless service providers for actual costs incurred to provide 911 or E911 service

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Five

Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data (continued)

Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda The following wireless service provider cost reimbursement invoice was reviewed for payment authorization approval from the 2011/2012 Certification Forward funding: Mr. Freeman made a motion that payment authorization for Item 1 as listed on the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda in the total amount of $294,607.46 be approved. Ms. Dill-Collier seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). Mr. Greer filed Form 8A. Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposal Modifications and 2012/2013 Final Cost Spreadsheet Mr. Infinger provided to the Board modified cost recovery proposals from AT&T and Cellular South which reflected an overall decrease in anticipated costs reimbursement. Mr. Pyles made a motion to accept the modified cost recovery proposals and the anticipated final cost spreadsheet as presented. Ms. Haroutunian seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). 7. Discuss E911 Fee Collection Issues -Metro PCS -Internet-based telephone services -Prepaid wireless telecommunications services Ms. Norr provided an overview to the Board related to the Metro PCS letter and informed the Board that as Mr. Jennings would be returning to the Board as Counsel, he could have a different interpretation of the letter. Unfortunately, it appeared that Ms. Norr did not have the correct document in which the Board had expressed concerns and requested that the Board defer this discussion until Mr. Jennings returns in September. Staff agreed to follow-up to assure that Mr. Jennings had specifics related to the Metro PCS letter to report back to the Board in September. All other issues related to the E911 Fee Collection would be addressed in the legislative subcommittee taskforce meeting which currently is pending feedback from the industry and retail federation.

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Six 8. E911 Board Rules, Rule Development and Status Report 60FF1-5.002 Rural County Grant 2012 Fall Program Rule Development 60FF1-5.003 E911 State Grant 2012 Program Rule Development 60FF1-5.004 Requirement for Fee Remittance Submitted by or on Behalf of

Wireless and Nonwireless Service Providers (Prepaid Modification)

60FF1-5.007 Requirement for T1 or Primary Rate Interface Fee Remittance (deletion)

60FF1-5.008 Requirement for Fee Remittance Submitted by or on Behalf of Prepaid Wireless Service Providers

Ms. Norr and Mr. Infinger provided the following rule development updates: Rural County Grant 2012 Fall Program Rule Development (60FF1-5.002) E911 State Grant 2012 Program Rule Development (60FF1-5.003) Certified by the Department of State August 7, 2012 and should be effective by September 2, 2012. Requirement for Fee Remittance Submitted by or on Behalf of Wireless and Nonwireless Service Providers (60FF1-5.004) Requirement for Fee Remittance Submitted by or on Behalf of Prepaid Wireless Service Providers (60FF1-5.008) Rule development process temporarily tabled pending legislative language. Requirement for T1 or Primary Rate Interface Fee Remittance (60FF1-5.007) Paperwork for the deletion of this rule is in progress. 9. Discuss Rural County and State Grant Program Quarterly Reports and Change

Requests Mr. Raheb reported for the purposes of grant tracking that reports as required for all active rural and state grants had been received. DeSoto County Change Request DeSoto County submitted a change request for a twelve-month extension due to delay in testing/certification of system installation. The updated anticipated project completion date is scheduled for the second quarter of 2013. Ms. Khazraee made a motion to accept the DeSoto County change request. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0).

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Seven 10. Discuss ENHANCE 911 Act Grant Mr. Infinger provided the following status report for the ENHANCE 911 Act Grant projects: Statewide Routing Project Technical specifications for the statewide routing project are complete and the project is in the progress of completion. Training Project Some delays have been encountered with the training project there are concerns with the project being completed on time. A DOT meeting has been scheduled to discuss the close out process for these grants. 11. Discuss Fee Allocation Percentages and the Emergency Communications Number

E911 System Fund (E911 Trust Fund) E911 Board 2011 Supplemental Report Mr. Infinger provided an overview of the draft 2011 Supplemental Report and requested that any updates be provided to him via electronic mail at the earliest convenience. The draft report, including the cover page and cover letter was discussed in its entirety with some updates. The Board is of the consensus that the Report should be prepared for completion by the end of August 2012. Allocation Changes Mr. Infinger provided Allocation projections for wireless, nonwireless and rural county projections for the Board’s review. Other issue(s) discussed:

New Coordinator Training Mr. Infinger informed the Board that as there was a need to develop training for new 911 coordinators due to new coordinator turn around; a proposal for training funding would be forthcoming.

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Eight 13. Other Business APCO – FL NENA Training Funding Request Request for training funding were received from the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) and the Florida Chapter National Emergency Number Association (NENA). APCO representatives requested that the Stress and Dispatcher Surviving the Console and the Active Shooter training request be removed from their request for funding. Training funding was requested as follows: APCO Crimes in Progress - $2,400 for unlimited attendance Tert Basic - $500 Tert Team Leader - $500 NENA Preparation for PSAP Management: Expanding Your Horizons - $3,500 Government Education: Getting the Word Out - $3,500 Total Training Funding Request: $10,400 Mr. Freeman made a motion to accept the APCO and NENA educational training funding requests as noted. Ms. Khazraee seconded the motion which carried unanimously (8-0). Public Comments There were no Public Comments. Staff Reports There were no additional Staff Reports. 14. Meeting adjourn

E911 Board Meeting 081512 Page Nine Thursday, August 16, 2012 beginning time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business Meeting cancelled as all agenda items discussed in the Tuesday and Wednesday meetings. Next scheduled meeting: September 12-13, 2012, 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business

LOCATION: Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel 9939 Universal Boulevard Orlando

PWT/pwt

1

NEXT GENERATON 2-WAY PHOTO, VIDEO & TEXT TRANSFER TECHNOLOGY

FEATURING

U.S. MOBILE PHONE USAGE According to the FCC

• 70% of the 630k calls received by 9-1-1 are from mobile phones

• 87% (or 548,100 daily) are from mobile phones with cameras

• 90% of Americans are mobile subscribers • 27% of households (and growing) have no landline

• 44% of individuals ages 18 to 40 are wireless only

• 75% of 12 to 17 year olds have mobile phones

PROBLEM

3

Q: How do 9-1-1 Communications Centers receive, manage and disseminate incident related photos, video & text from/to mobile phones? Q: How do you send photos, video & text to personnel? Q: What do you tell a call that has a photo or video? Q: Can you still communication if coverage is disrupted? A: You don’t.

THE NEXGEN SOLUTION • A sole-source, web-based next generation

multimedia emergency notification platform

• Enables 9-1-1 Communication Centers, law enforcement agencies, universities and corporations to send, receive, retrieve, and forward pictures, video with sound, and text, directly to/from cell phones on a large scale

• Features automated severe weather alerts, Amber Alerts, Silver and SAVIN (Statewide Automated Victim Information & Notification) and Sexual Predator Alerts

• Texting capabilities Ideal for helping callers who are speech / hearing impaired or persons in active crisis situation who may not be able to speak openly

• Satellite Assisted Mobility 4

POTENTIAL USES Disseminate MMS to LEOs, First Responder, Security Personnel in a defined area within minutes to: • Expedite search for missing/abducted child or lost senior citizens

• Enhance response to campus and work place violence incidents

• Terrorist Watch List Stop Confirmations

• Hostage Rescue Operations

• Medical Emergencies (send photo or video of injured ) • Rural transport can take up to 1 hour

• Man-Made or Natural Disaster Management

• Intelligence/Fusion Center Support

• Special Event Mobile Command Post Support

• Multiple Location Search/Arrest Operations

• General Public Crime Alerts/Podcasts Many, many more... ... ...

5

SAMPLE NOTIFICATIONS

6

• Accidents • Major Incidents

• Alternate Traffic Route • Faculty/Staff Notifications

• Classes Cancelled • Special Announcements

• Bio Hazard Warnings • Major Disasters

• Crimes • Terrorist Acts

• Hazardous Conditions • Suspicious Activities

• Health Hazards • Road Blocks

• Minor Incidents • Severe Weather

• Fires • Icy Roads

• Chemical Spills • Security Personnel Call-up

• Active Shooter • Missing Persons

WHY SAM ALERTS IS UNIQUE

7

• Easily integrated into existing 9-1-1 Communication Centers

• Compatible across all wireless carriers and networks • Citizens do not have to install any mobile apps • Number of photos/video/text transfer rate is scalable

• Web-based stand alone application

• No software installation • Requires client imaging server • 24/7 technical support

OTHER MODULES

8

Multimedia Incident Retrieval Multimedia Search & link

Automated Alerts:

Severe Weather/Amber/Sexual Predator SAVIN (Statewide Automated Victim Information & Notification)

CALL TAKER INITIATES MIR

9

• Call Taker initiates MIR sending a message to the 9-1-1 caller’s cell phone (Call for Service or Case Number)

• Caller attaches photo or video to MIR message and sends it back to 9-1-1 Communications Center

• Photo or video retrieved, forwarded, then linked to logger entry(s)

THE FUTURE OF SAM ALERTS

10

• More Voice Logger Integrations • CAD Integrations • Photos / video/text directly to 9-1-1 • Facial/Automobile Recognition • Text Talk • Fixed Location Video Streaming • Streaming live video from mobile phones • Targeted Cell Broadcast to all mobile phones

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Nationwide the Framework for

Next Generation 9-1-1 still

needs to be built and is a ten

year proposal

2. Currently 70% of calls to 9-1-1

are generated from cell

3. Except 9-1-1 Communications

Centers can’t accept photos,

videos or text

4. NexGen’s standalone solution

uses existing infrastructure

5. Can be installed quickly, is

cost effective, and offers

both immediate and long

range solutions to bridge the

emergency communications

chasm.

11

IS THERE A TRUE NEED?

12

April 2012- Chicago Sun and Times reported that Chicago had become

the first U.S. city to allow residents calling 911 to send (using email)

photos and videos of the incidents from their cell phones, officials

say. “All the images are sent to the police department’s crime-

prevention information center, which reviews them to see whether

they should be distributed to first responders or detectives

investigating the incident.” “No other city does that right now,” said

Jose Santiago, executive director of the city’s Office of Emergency

Management and Communication.

INTERCONNECTIVITY

13

The NexGen system can be placed in each of the 258 PSAPs in the

state so that all Communication Centers (regardless of size) ensuring

complete interconnectivity.

All residents regardless of the size of the municipality would be

ensured equal level of service from their respective 9-1-1

Communications Center.

FCC COMMENTS

14

Federal Communications Commission’s (Commission) goal of

text photo video to 911EmergencyAccess Advisory Committee

(EAAC) developed recommendations, which it submitted to the

Commission which covers “text-to-911” mobile solutions that

can be rapidly deployed to provide nationwide access to 9-1-1

services to people with disabilities.

FLORIDA E911 TRUST FUND E911 Trust Fund Requirements, F.S. 365.172 Expenses that may be submitted by counties to E911 Board for reimbursement, as specified in Florida Statues: • E911 Telecommunications Systems • Visual Call Information and Storage Devices • Recording Equipment • Devices for Hearing Impaired • Full time Equivalent Mapping or Geographical Data Position • E911 system • Next Generation E911 Equipment • Next Generation E911 Routing System

15

IN CLOSING

16

Thank you for your time today.

NexGen Global Technologies 1511 E State Road 434

Winter Springs, Florida 32708

800-932-6751 x 201 http://NGGT.us info@NGGT.us

365.172 Emergency communications number “911.”—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Emergency Communications Number 911 Act.”

(2) LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is the intent of the Legislature to:

(a) Establish and implement a comprehensive statewide emergency telecommunications number system that will provide users of voice communications services within the state rapid direct access to public safety agencies by accessing the number “911.”

(b) Provide funds to counties to pay certain costs associated with their 911 systems, to contract for 911 services, and to reimburse wireless telephone service providers for costs incurred to provide 911 services.

(c) Levy a reasonable fee on users of voice communications services, unless otherwise provided in this section, to accomplish these purposes.

(d) Provide for an 911 board to administer the fee, with oversight by the office, in a manner that is competitively and technologically neutral as to all voice communications services providers.

(e) Ensure that the fee established is used exclusively for recovery by wireless providers and by counties for costs associated with developing and maintaining 911 systems and networks in a manner that is competitively and technologically neutral as to all voice communications services providers.

It is further the intent of the Legislature that the fee authorized or imposed by this section does not necessarily provide the total funding required for establishing or providing 911 services.

(3) DEFINITIONS.—Only as used in this section and ss. 365.171, 365.173, and 365.174, the term:

(b) “Authorized expenditures” means expenditures of the fee, as specified in subsection (9).

(c) “Automatic location identification” means the capability of the 911 service which enables the automatic display of information that defines the approximate geographic location of the wireless telephone, or the location of the address of the wireline telephone, used to place a 911 call.

(d) “Automatic number identification” means the capability of the 911 service which enables the automatic display of the service number used to place a 911 call.

(e) “Board” or “911 Board” means the board of directors of the 911 Board established in subsection (5).

(f) “Building permit review” means a review for compliance with building construction standards adopted by the local government under chapter 553 and does not include a review for compliance with land development regulations.

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Comment [E9111]: Change to communications not implemented. Remained telecommunication based on previous legislative concerns and comments.

Deleted: and private

Deleted: telephone

Deleted: E911 or 911 and NG-911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: NG-911

Deleted: or E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911 and NG-911

Deleted: E911 and NG-911

Deleted: (a) “Answering point” means the public safety agency that receives incoming 911 calls and dispatches appropriate public safety agencies to respond to the calls.¶

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

(g) “Collocation” means the situation when a second or subsequent wireless provider uses an existing structure to locate a second or subsequent antennae. The term includes the ground, platform, or roof installation of equipment enclosures, cabinets, or buildings, and cables, brackets, and other equipment associated with the location and operation of the antennae.

(h) “Designed service” means the configuration and manner of deployment of service the wireless provider has designed for an area as part of its network.

(i) “911” is the designation all forms of 911 services including enhanced 911 and next generation 911 service that is an emergency telephone system or telecommunication service that provides a subscriber with 911 service and, in addition, directs 911 calls and requests for assistance to the appropriate public safety answering points by selective routing based on the geographical location from which the request originated, or as otherwise provided in the state plan under s. 365.171, and that provides for automatic number identification and automatic location-identification features. 911 service provided by a wireless provider means 911 as defined in the FCC order.

(j) “Existing structure” means a structure that exists at the time an application for permission to place antennae on a structure is filed with a local government. The term includes any structure that can structurally support the attachment of antennae in compliance with applicable codes.

(k) “Fee” means the 911 fee authorized and imposed under subsection (8).

(l) “Fund” means the Emergency Communications Number 911 System Fund established in s. 365.173 and maintained under this section for the purpose of recovering the costs associated with providing 911 service, including the costs of implementing the order. The fund shall be segregated into wireless and nonwireless categories.

(m) “Historic building, structure, site, object, or district” means any building, structure, site, object, or district that has been officially designated as a historic building, historic structure, historic site, historic object, or historic district through a federal, state, or local designation program.

(tbd) "911 IP-based services and networks" means services, equipment and applications using Internet Protocol (IP) for provisioning subscribers and public agencies with the capability for communicating to public safety answering points using the number 911.

(n) “Land development regulations” means any ordinance enacted by a local government for the regulation of any aspect of development, including an ordinance governing zoning, subdivisions, landscaping, tree protection, or signs, the local government’s comprehensive plan, or any other ordinance concerning any aspect of the development of land. The term does not include any building construction standard adopted under and in compliance with chapter 553.

(o) “Local exchange carrier” means a “competitive local exchange telecommunications company” or a “local exchange telecommunications company” as defined in s. 364.02.

Deleted: E911

Deleted: for an enhanced 911 system or enhanced 911 service

Deleted: call

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: (tbd) "Emergency medical, fire and police dispatch" means emergency assistance for medical, fire and law enforcement response using pre-arrival first aid or other medical instructions provided by trained 911 public safety telecommunicators.¶

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: service or E911

(p) “Local government” means any municipality, county, or political subdivision or agency of a municipality, county, or political subdivision.

(q) “Medium county” means any county that has an unincarcerated population of 75,000 or more but less than 750,000.

(r) “Mobile telephone number” or “MTN” means the telephone number assigned to a wireless telephone at the time of initial activation.

(tbd) “Next Generation 911 (NG-911)” means the designation for an advanced 911 emergency communications system or service that provides a communications service subscriber with 911 service and, in addition, directs 911 emergency requests for assistance to appropriate public safety answering points based on the geographical location from which the request originated, or as otherwise provided in the State 911 Plan under s. 365.171, and that automatically provides emergency data information including number identification and location identification features through managed 911 IP-based services and networks.

(s) “Nonwireless category” means the revenues to the fund received from voice communications services providers other than wireless providers.

(t) “Office” means the Technology Program within the Department of Management Services, as designated by the secretary of the department.

(u) “Order” means:

1. The following orders and rules of the Federal Communications Commission issued in FCC Docket No. 94-102:

a. Order adopted on June 12, 1996, with an effective date of October 1, 1996, the amendments to s. 20.03 and the creation of s. 20.18 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to such order.

b. Memorandum and Order No. FCC 97-402 adopted on December 23, 1997.

c. Order No. FCC DA 98-2323 adopted on November 13, 1998.

d. Order No. FCC 98-345 adopted December 31, 1998.

2. Orders and rules subsequently adopted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the provision of 911 services, including Order Number FCC-05-116, adopted May 19, 2005.

(v) “Prepaid calling arrangements” has the same meaning as defined in s. 212.05(1)(e).

(w) “Public agency” means the state and any municipality, county, municipal corporation, or other governmental entity, public district, or public authority located in whole or in part within this state which provides, or has authority to provide, firefighting, law enforcement, ambulance, medical, or other emergency services.

Deleted: a

Deleted: E911

(x) “Public safety agency” means a functional division of a public agency which provides firefighting, law enforcement, medical, or other emergency services. This also includes private companies, corporations, or institutes authorized by a public agency to provide firefighting, law enforcement, ambulance, medical, or other emergency services.

(tbd) “Private company, corporation or institution, authorized by a public agency to provide, firefighting, law enforcement, ambulance, medical, or other emergency services” means an adjunct to public safety response and as such must provide incident reporting to the public agencies. Private company, corporation or institution shall comply with federal, state and local requirements, including those defined in ss. 365.171, 365.172, 365.173, 365.174 and 911 public safety telecommunicator training as defined in s. 401.465.

“Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)” means the public safety agency that receives incoming 911 calls or request for assistance and dispatches appropriate public safety agencies to respond to the request in accordance with the Statewide Emergency Communications 911 System Plan and ss. 365.171.

(y) “Rural county” means any county that has an unincarcerated population of fewer than 75,000.

(z) “Service identifier” means the service number, access line, or other unique subscriber identifier assigned to a subscriber and established by the Federal Communications Commission for purposes of routing calls whereby the subscriber has access to the 911 system.

(aa) “Tower” means any structure designed primarily to support a wireless provider’s antennae.

(bb) “Voice communications services” means two-way voice service, through the use of any technology, which actually provides access to 911 services, and includes communications services, as defined in s. 202.11, which actually provide access to 911 services and which are required to be included in the provision of 911 services pursuant to orders and rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission. The term includes voice-over-Internet-protocol service. For the purposes of this section, the term “voice-over-Internet-protocol service” or “VoIP service” means interconnected VoIP services having the following characteristics:

1. The service enables real-time, two-way voice communications;

2. The service requires a broadband connection from the user’s locations;

3. The service requires IP-compatible customer premises equipment; and

4. The service offering allows users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls on the public switched telephone network.

(cc) “Voice communications services provider” or “provider” means any person or entity providing voice communications services, except that the term does not include any person

Comment [E9112]: Need to verify compliance with FS 365.171, (4)(10) State E911 Plan; (12) 911 Call Confidentiality; 934.03(2) 911 recording; 119.07 public records request, records retention General Records Schedule GS-1

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Deleted: safety agency" means a private

Moved (insertion) [1]

Deleted: are

Deleted: .

Deleted: safety agencies

Comment [E9113]: Being reviewed for legal issues.

Deleted: Private safety agencies

Moved up [1]: are an adjunct to public safety response and as such must provide incident reporting to the public agencies.

Deleted: or private

Deleted: or private

Deleted: calls

Deleted: E911

Deleted: a

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

or entity that resells voice communications services and was assessed the fee by its resale supplier.

(dd) “Wireless 911 system” or “wireless 911 service” means an emergency telephone system or service that provides a subscriber with the ability to reach an answering point by accessing the digits “911.”

(ee) “Wireless category” means the revenues to the fund received from a wireless provider.

(ff) “Wireless communications facility” means any equipment or facility used to provide service and may include, but is not limited to, antennae, towers, equipment enclosures, cabling, antenna brackets, and other such equipment. Placing a wireless communications facility on an existing structure does not cause the existing structure to become a wireless communications facility.

(gg) “Wireless provider” means a person who provides wireless service and:

1. Is subject to the requirements of the order; or

2. Elects to provide wireless 911 service in this state.

(hh) “Wireless service” means “commercial mobile radio service” as provided under ss. 3(27) and 332(d) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. ss. 151 et seq., and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, August 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 312. The term includes service provided by any wireless real-time two-way wire communication device, including radio-telephone communications used in cellular telephone service; personal communications service; or the functional or competitive equivalent of a radio-telephone communications line used in cellular telephone service, a personal communications service, or a network radio access line. The term does not include wireless providers that offer mainly dispatch service in a more localized, noncellular configuration; providers offering only data, one-way, or stored-voice services on an interconnected basis; providers of air-to-ground services; or public coast stations.

(4) POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.—The office shall oversee the administration of the fee authorized and imposed on subscribers of voice communications services under subsection (8).

(5) THE 911 BOARD.—

(a) The 911 Board is established to administer, with oversight by the office, the fee imposed under subsection (8), including receiving revenues derived from the fee; distributing portions of the revenues to wireless providers, counties, and the office; accounting for receipts, distributions, and income derived by the funds maintained in the fund; and providing annual reports to the Governor and the Legislature for submission by the office on amounts collected and expended, the purposes for which expenditures have been made, and the status of 911 service in this state. In order to advise and assist the office in implementing the purposes of this section, the board, which has the power of a body corporate, has the powers enumerated in subsection (6).

Deleted: or E911 service

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

(b) The board shall consist of 11 members, one of whom must be the system director designated under s. 365.171(5), or his or her designee, who shall serve as the chair of the board. The remaining 10 members of the board shall be appointed by the Governor and must be composed of 5 county 911 coordinators, consisting of a representative from a rural county, a representative from a medium county, a representative from a large county, and 2 at-large representatives recommended by the county 911 coordinators; 3 local exchange carrier member representatives, one of whom must be a representative of the local exchange carrier having the greatest number of access lines in the state and one of whom must be a representative of a certificated competitive local exchange telecommunications company; and 2 member representatives from the wireless telecommunications industry, with consideration given to wireless providers that are not affiliated with local exchange carriers. Not more than one member may be appointed to represent any single provider on the board. Board member nominations will be submitted to the office, which shall submit the names to the Governor, based on the Board member appointment process. If the telecommunications industry does not provide representatives for consideration, the Board member nominations may be sought from the commercial sector in the emergency 911 communications field.

(c) The system director, designated under s. 365.171(5), or his or her designee, must be a permanent member of the board. Each of the remaining eight members of the board shall be appointed to a 4-year term and may not be appointed to more than two successive terms. However, for the purpose of staggering terms, two of the original board members shall be appointed to terms of 4 years, two shall be appointed to terms of 3 years, and four shall be appointed to terms of 2 years, as designated by the Governor. A vacancy on the board shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(6) AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD; ANNUAL REPORT.—

(a) The board shall:

1. Administer the 911 fee.

2. Implement, maintain, and oversee the fund.

3. Review and oversee the disbursement of the revenues deposited into the fund as provided in s. 365.173.

a. The board may establish a schedule for implementing wireless 911 service by service area, and prioritize disbursements of revenues from the fund to providers and rural counties as provided in s. 365.173(2)(d) and (g) pursuant to the schedule, in order to implement 911 services in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

b. Revenues in the fund which have not been disbursed because sworn invoices as required by s. 365.173(2)(d) have not been submitted to the board may be used by the board as needed to provide non-federal matching funds for federal grants and for grants to all counties for the purpose of upgrading 911 systems. The counties must use the funds only for capital expenditures or hosted 911 PSAP call taking equipment and network services directly attributable to establishing and provisioning 911 services, in accordance with the

Deleted: Florida Association of Counties in consultation with the

Deleted: the 911 industry

Comment [E9114]: Define 911 industry

Deleted: (d) The first vacancy in a wireless provider representative position occurring after July 1, 2007, must be filled by appointment of a local exchange company representative. Until the appointment is made, there shall be only one local exchange company representative serving on the board, notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary.¶

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Statewide Emergency Communications 911 System Plan and ss. 365.171, which may include next-generation 911 deployment. Prior to the distribution of grants, the board shall provide 90 days’ written notice to all counties and publish electronically an approved application process. County grant applications shall be prioritized based on the availability of funds, current system life expectancy, system replacement needs, and Phase II compliance per the Federal Communications Commission. The board shall take all actions within its authority to ensure that county recipients of such grants use these funds only for the purpose under which they have been provided and may take any actions within its authority to secure county repayment of grant revenues upon determination that the funds were not used for the purpose under which they were provided. The board shall take all actions within its authority to ensure that county recipients of such grants use these funds for the economical purpose under which they have been provided and may take any actions within its authority to assure that grant funds are used for consolidated public safety answering points.

c. The board shall reimburse all costs of a wireless provider in accordance with s. 365.173(2)(d) before taking any action to transfer additional funds.

e. After taking the action required in sub-subparagraphs a.-d., the board may review and, with all members participating in the vote, adjust the percentage allocations or adjust the amount of the fee, or both, under paragraph (8)(h), and, if the board determines that the revenues in the wireless category exceed the amount needed to reimburse wireless providers for the cost to implement 911 services, the board may transfer revenue to the counties from the existing funds within the wireless category. The board shall disburse the funds equitably to all counties using a timeframe and distribution methodology established by the board.

4. Review documentation submitted by wireless providers which reflects current and projected funds derived from the fee, and the expenses incurred and expected to be incurred in order to comply with the 911 service requirements contained in the order for the purposes of:

a. Ensuring that wireless providers receive fair and equitable distributions of funds from the fund.

b. Ensuring that wireless providers are not provided disbursements from the fund which exceed the costs of providing 911 service, including the costs of complying with the order.

c. Ascertaining the projected costs of compliance with the requirements of the order and projected collections of the fee.

d. Implementing changes to the allocation percentages or adjusting the fee under paragraph (8)(i).

5. Meet monthly in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, including telephonically when practical, for the business to be conducted, to review and approve or reject, in whole or in part, applications submitted by wireless providers for recovery of moneys deposited

Deleted: E911

Deleted: No grants will be available to any county for next-generation deployment until all counties are Phase II complete.

Deleted: d. By September 1, 2007, the board shall authorize the transfer of up to $15 million to the counties from existing money within the fund established under s. 365.173(1). The money shall be disbursed equitably to all of the counties using a timeframe and distribution methodology established by the board before September 1, 2007, in order to prevent a loss to the counties in the ordinary and expected time value of money caused by any timing delay in remittance to the counties of wireline fees caused by the one-time transfer of collecting wireline fees by the counties to the board. All disbursements for this purpose must be returned to the fund from future remittances by the nonwireless category.¶

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

into the wireless category, and to authorize the transfer of, and distribute, the fee allocation to the counties.

6. Hire and retain employees, which may include an independent executive director who shall possess experience in the area of telecommunications and emergency 911 issues, for the purposes of performing the technical and administrative functions for the board.

7. Make and enter into contracts, pursuant to chapter 287, and execute other instruments necessary or convenient for the exercise of the powers and functions of the board.

8. Sue and be sued, and appear and defend in all actions and proceedings, in its corporate name to the same extent as a natural person.

9. Adopt, use, and alter a common corporate seal.

10. Elect or appoint the officers and agents that are required by the affairs of the board.

11. The board may adopt rules under ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement this section and ss. 365.173 and 365.174.

12. Provide coordination, support, and technical assistance to counties to promote the deployment of advanced 911 systems in the state.

(tbd) Issue a request for proposals as provided in Chapter 287 for the purpose of retaining independent consulting services that shall possess experience in the area of telecommunications and emergency 911 issues, for the purposes of performing the technical studies and reports on Next Generation 911 and other E911 issues.

13. Provide coordination and support for educational opportunities related to E911 issues for the E911 community in this state.

(tbd) The Board and office may plan, implement and coordinate a statewide public education program designed to generate public awareness at all levels of the E911 and NG-911 systems and display of 911 may be in accordance with standards established by the office.

14. Act as an advocate for issues related to 911 system functions, features, and operations to improve the delivery of 911 services to the residents of and visitors to this state.

15. Coordinate input from this state at national forums and associations, to ensure that policies related to 911 systems and services are consistent with the policies of the 911 community in this state.

16. Work cooperatively with the system director established in s. 365.171(5) to enhance the state of 911 services in this state and to provide unified leadership for all 911 issues through planning and coordination.

17. Do all acts and things necessary or convenient to carry out the powers granted in this section in a manner that is competitively and technologically neutral as to all voice communications services providers, including, but not limited to, consideration of emerging

Deleted: and E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

technology and related cost savings, while taking into account embedded costs in current systems.

18. Have the authority to secure the services of an independent, private attorney via invitation to bid, request for proposals, invitation to negotiate, or professional contracts for legal services already established at the Division of Purchasing of the Department of Management Services.

(b) Board members shall serve without compensation; however, members are entitled to per diem and travel expenses as provided in s. 112.061.

(c) By February 28 of each year, the board shall prepare a report for submission by the office to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives which addresses for the immediately preceding state fiscal year and county fiscal year:

1. The annual receipts, including the total amount of fee revenues collected by each provider, the total disbursements of money in the fund, including the amount of fund-reimbursed expenses incurred by each wireless provider to comply with the order, and the amount of moneys on deposit in the fund.

2. Whether the amount of the fee and the allocation percentages set forth in s. 365.173 have been or should be adjusted to comply with the requirements of the order or other provisions of this chapter, and the reasons for making or not making a recommended adjustment to the fee.

3. Any other issues related to providing 911 services.

4. The status of 911 services in this state.

(7) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM.— The board may secure the services of an independent accounting firm to provide material administrative and accounting tasks and functions required for administering the fee. These services may be secured via invitation to bid, request for proposals, invitation to negotiate, or professional contracts already established at the Division of Purchasing, Department of Management Services, for certified public accounting firms, or the board may hire and retain professional accounting staff to accomplish these functions.

(8) 911 FEE.—

(a) Each voice communications services provider shall collect the fee described in this subsection. Each provider, as part of its monthly billing process, shall bill the fee as follows. The fee shall not be assessed on any pay telephone in the state.

1. Each voice communications service provider other than a wireless provider shall bill the fee to a subscriber based on the number of access lines having access to the 911 system, on a service-identifier basis, up to a maximum of 25 access lines per account bill rendered.

Deleted: calendar

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: ¶(a)

Deleted: shall issue a request for proposals as provided in chapter 287 for the purpose of retaining an independent accounting firm. The independent accounting firm shall perform all material administrative and accounting tasks and functions required for administering the fee. The request for proposals must include, but need not be limited to: ¶1. A description of the scope and general requirements of the services requested.¶2. A description of the specific accounting and reporting services required for administering the fund, including processing checks and distributing funds as directed by the board under s. 365.173.¶3. A description of information to be provided by the proposer, including the proposer’s background and qualifications and the proposed cost of the services to be provided.¶(b) The board shall establish a committee to review requests for proposals which must include the statewide E911 system director designated under s. 365.171(5), or his or her designee, and two members of the board, one of whom is a county 911 coordinator and one of whom represents a voice communications services provider. The review committee shall review the proposals received by the board and recommend an independent accounting firm to the board for final selection. By agreeing to serve on the review committee, each member of the review committee shall verify that he or she does not have any interest or employment, directly or indirectly, with potential proposers which conflicts in any manner or degree with his or her performance on the committee.¶(c) After July 1, 2004, tThe board

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

2. Each voice communications service provider other than a wireless provider shall bill the fee to a subscriber on a basis of five service-identified access lines for each digital transmission link, including primary rate interface service or equivalent Digital-Signal-1-level service, which can be channelized and split into 23 or 24 voice-grade or data-grade channels for communications, up to a maximum of 25 access lines per account bill rendered.

3. Except in the case of prepaid wireless service, each wireless provider shall bill the fee to a subscriber on a per-service-identifier basis for service identifiers whose primary place of use is within this state. Before July 1, 2013, the fee shall not be assessed on or collected from a provider with respect to an end user’s service if that end user’s service is a prepaid calling arrangement that is subject to s. 212.05(1)(e).

a. A 911 fee shall not be collected from the sale of prepaid wireless service before July 1, 2013.

b. For purposes of this section, the term:

(I) “Prepaid wireless service” means the right to access telecommunications services, which must be paid for in advance and sold in predetermined units or dollars enabling the originator to make calls such that the number of units or dollars declines with use in a known amount.

(II) “Prepaid wireless service providers” includes those persons who sell prepaid wireless service regardless of its form, as a retailer or reseller.

4. The voice communications services providers not addressed under subparagraphs 1., 2., and 3. shall bill the fee on a per-service-identifier basis for service identifiers whose primary place of use is within the state up to a maximum of 25 service identifiers for each account bill rendered.

The provider may list the fee as a separate entry on each bill, in which case the fee must be identified as a fee for 911 services. A provider shall remit the fee to the board only if the fee is paid by the subscriber. If a provider receives a partial payment for a monthly bill from a subscriber, the amount received shall first be applied to the payment due the provider for providing voice communications service.

(b) A provider is not obligated to take any legal action to enforce collection of the fees for which any subscriber is billed. A county subscribing to 911 service remains liable to the provider delivering the 911 service or equipment for any 911 service, equipment, operation, or maintenance charge owed by the county to the provider.

(c) For purposes of this section, the state and local governments are not subscribers.

(d) Each provider may retain 1 percent of the amount of the fees collected as reimbursement for the administrative costs incurred by the provider to bill, collect, and remit the fee. The remainder shall be delivered to the board and deposited by the board into the fund. The board shall distribute the remainder pursuant to s. 365.173.

Deleted: n

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

(e) Effective September 1, 2007, voice communications services providers billing the fee to subscribers shall deliver revenues from the fee to the board within 60 days after the end of the month in which the fee was billed, together with a monthly report of the number of service identifiers in each county. Each wireless provider and other applicable provider identified in subparagraph (a)4. shall report the number of service identifiers for subscribers whose place of primary use is in each county. All provider subscriber information provided to the board is subject to s. 365.174. If a provider chooses to remit any fee amounts to the board before they are paid by the subscribers, a provider may apply to the board for a refund of, or may take a credit for, any such fees remitted to the board which are not collected by the provider within 6 months following the month in which the fees are charged off for federal income tax purposes as bad debt.

(f) The rate of the fee shall be set by the board after considering the factors set forth in paragraphs (h) and (i), but may not exceed 50 cents per month per each service identifier. The fee shall apply uniformly and be imposed throughout the state, except for those counties that, before July 1, 2007, had adopted an ordinance or resolution establishing a fee less than 50 cents per month per access line. In those counties the fee established by ordinance may be changed only to the uniform statewide rate no sooner than 30 days after notification is made by the county’s board of county commissioners to the board.

(g) It is the intent of the Legislature that all revenue from the fee be used as specified in s. 365.173(2)(a)-(i).

(h) No later than November 1, 2007, the board may adjust the allocation percentages for distribution of the fund as provided in s. 365.173. When setting the percentages and contemplating any adjustments to the fee, the board shall consider the following:

1. The revenues currently allocated for wireless service provider costs for implementing 911 service and projected costs for implementing 911 service, including recurring costs for Phase I and Phase II and the effect of new technologies;

2. The appropriate level of funding needed to fund the rural grant program provided for in s. 365.173(2)(g); and

3. The need to fund statewide, regional, and county grants in accordance with sub-subparagraph (6)(a)3.b.

(i) The board may adjust the allocation percentages or adjust the amount of the fee, or both, if necessary to ensure full cost recovery or prevent overrecovery of costs incurred in the provision of 911 service, including costs incurred or projected to be incurred to comply with the order. Any new allocation percentages or reduced or increased fee may not be adjusted for 1 year. The fee may not exceed 50 cents per month per each service identifier. The board-established fee, and any board adjustment of the fee, shall be uniform throughout the state, except for the counties identified in paragraph (f). No less than 90 days before the effective date of any adjustment to the fee, the board shall provide written notice of the adjusted fee amount and effective date to each voice communications services provider from which the board is then receiving the fee.

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

(j) State and local taxes do not apply to the fee.

(k) A local government may not levy the fee or any additional fee on providers or subscribers for the provision of 911 service.

(l) For purposes of this section, the definitions contained in s. 202.11 and the provisions of s. 202.155 apply in the same manner and to the same extent as the definitions and provisions apply to the taxes levied under chapter 202 on mobile communications services.

(9) AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES OF 911 FEE.—

(a) For purposes of this section, 911 service includes the functions of database management, call taking, location verification, and call transfer. Department of Health certification and recertification and training costs for 911 public safety telecommunicators, including dispatching, is considered a function of 911 service.

(b) All costs directly attributable to the establishment or provision of 911 service and contracting for 911 services are eligible for expenditure of moneys derived from imposition of the fee authorized by this section. These costs include the acquisition, implementation, and maintenance of Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) equipment and 911 service features, as defined in the State 911 Plan related to the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of other 911 equipment, including 911 circuits, 911 IP network routing equipment and service, 911 call answering equipment, call transfer equipment, 911 GIS information displays, station instruments, 911 telecommunications systems, visual call information and storage devices, recording equipment, telephone devices and other equipment for the hearing impaired used in the 911 system, voice interpreting services PSAP 911 system backup power systems, call taker workstation furniture, 911 automatic call distributors, 911 GIS system and software equipment, and 911 hardware and software interfaces for computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, integrated CAD systems for that portion of the systems used for 911 call taking, network clocks, salary and associated expenses for 911 call takers for that portion of their time spent taking and transferring 911 calls, salary and associated expenses for a county to employ County 911 coordinator and 911 GIS mapping, 911 technical system maintenance, 911 database and 911 administration personnel for the portion of their time spent administrating the 911 system, vehicle costs for 911 GIS mapping and administration, emergency medical, fire, and law enforcement pre-arrival instruction software, charts and training costs, training costs for PSAP call takers, supervisors, and managers in the proper methods and techniques used in taking and transferring 911 calls, costs to train and educate PSAP employees regarding 911 service or 911 equipment, including fees collected by the Department of Health for the certification and recertification of 911 public safety telecommunicators as required under s. 401.465, and expenses required to develop and maintain all information, including 911 caller databases and other information source repositories, necessary to properly inform call takers as to location address, type of emergency, and other information directly relevant to the 911 call-taking and transferring function.

(c) The moneys may not be used to pay for any item not listed in this subsection, including, but not limited to, any capital or operational costs for emergency responses which occur after the call transfer to the responding public safety entity and the costs for constructing,

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911

Deleted: dispatching,

Deleted: E911

Deleted: E911…11 service and contracting ...

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Deleted: Public Service Commission’s lawfully approved 911 and E911 and ...

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Deleted: call

Deleted: ANI controllers, ALI controllers,

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Deleted: ANI…displays, ALI …isplays, ...

Formatted ...

Deleted: consoles,

Formatted: Font color: Text 1

Deleted: E911

Deleted: , including hardware and software,

Deleted: E911…11 call taking, network ...

Deleted: a full-time equivalent E911 coordinator position and a full-time equivalent mapping or geographical data position and a staff assistant position

Deleted: E911…11 GIS mapping, ...

Deleted: E…ergency mM…dical, fF…re, and ...

Deleted: Emergency Medical, Fire, and Police Dispatch …re-arrival instruction ...

Deleted: ALI and ANI…11 caller databases ...

Deleted: .

Deleted: ¶

leasing, maintaining, or renovating buildings, except for those building modifications necessary to maintain the security and environmental integrity of the PSAP and 911 equipment rooms.

(d) The board shall take all actions within its authority to ensure that county recipients of such grants use these funds for the economical purpose under which they have been provided and may take any actions within its authority to assure that grant funds are used for consolidated public safety answering points.

(10) LIABILITY OF COUNTIES.—A county subscribing to 911 service remains liable to the local exchange carrier for any 911 service, equipment, operation, or maintenance charge owed by the county to the local exchange carrier. As used in this subsection, the term “local exchange carrier” means a local exchange telecommunications service provider of 911 service or equipment to any county within its certificated area.

(11) INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—Local governments may indemnify telecommunications services providers against liability in connection to 911 service provision. Notwithstanding an indemnification agreement, telecommunications services provider, or other service provider that provides 911 or 911 service on a retail or wholesale basis is not liable for damages resulting from or in connection with 911 service, or for identification of the telephone number, or address, or name associated with any person accessing 911 service, unless the telecommunications provider acted with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of the rights, safety, or property of a person when providing such services. A carrier or provider is not liable for damages to any person resulting from or in connection with the carrier’s or provider’s provision of any lawful assistance to any investigative or law enforcement officer of the United States, this state, or a political subdivision thereof, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, in connection with any lawful investigation or other law enforcement activity by such law enforcement officer. For purposes of this subsection, the term “911 or 911 service” means a telecommunications service, voice or nonvoice communications service, or other wireline or wireless service, including, but not limited to, a service using Internet protocol, which provides, in whole or in part, any of the following functions: providing members of the public with the ability to reach an answering point by using the digits 911; directing 911 calls to answering points by selective routing; providing for automatic number identification and automatic location-identification features; or providing wireless 911 services as defined in the order.

(12) FACILITATING E911 SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION.—To balance the public need for reliable E911 services through reliable wireless systems and the public interest served by governmental zoning and land development regulations and notwithstanding any other law or local ordinance to the contrary, the following standards shall apply to a local government’s actions, as a regulatory body, in the regulation of the placement, construction, or modification of a wireless communications facility. This subsection shall not, however, be construed to waive or alter the provisions of s. 286.011 or s. 286.0115. For the purposes of this subsection only, “local government” shall mean any municipality or county and any agency of a municipality or county only. The term “local government” does not, however, include any airport, as defined by s. 330.27(2), even if it is owned or controlled by

Deleted: E911

Deleted: A l

Deleted: local exchange carriers

Deleted: E911 or NG-911

Deleted: in accordance with the published schedules of the company

Deleted: a local exchange carrier, voice

Deleted: , or E911

Deleted: NG-

Deleted: or E911

Deleted: or E911

Deleted: carrier or

Deleted: E911

Deleted: 9-1-1

Deleted: E911

or through a municipality, county, or agency of a municipality or county. Further, notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, this subsection does not apply to or control a local government’s actions as a property or structure owner in the use of any property or structure owned by such entity for the placement, construction, or modification of wireless communications facilities. In the use of property or structures owned by the local government, however, a local government may not use its regulatory authority so as to avoid compliance with, or in a manner that does not advance, the provisions of this subsection.

(a) Collocation among wireless providers is encouraged by the state.

1.a. Collocations on towers, including nonconforming towers, that meet the requirements in sub-sub-subparagraphs (I), (II), and (III), are subject to only building permit review, which may include a review for compliance with this subparagraph. Such collocations are not subject to any design or placement requirements of the local government’s land development regulations in effect at the time of the collocation that are more restrictive than those in effect at the time of the initial antennae placement approval, to any other portion of the land development regulations, or to public hearing review. This sub-subparagraph shall not preclude a public hearing for any appeal of the decision on the collocation application.

(I) The collocation does not increase the height of the tower to which the antennae are to be attached, measured to the highest point of any part of the tower or any existing antenna attached to the tower;

(II) The collocation does not increase the ground space area, commonly known as the compound, approved in the site plan for equipment enclosures and ancillary facilities; and

(III) The collocation consists of antennae, equipment enclosures, and ancillary facilities that are of a design and configuration consistent with all applicable regulations, restrictions, or conditions, if any, applied to the initial antennae placed on the tower and to its accompanying equipment enclosures and ancillary facilities and, if applicable, applied to the tower supporting the antennae. Such regulations may include the design and aesthetic requirements, but not procedural requirements, other than those authorized by this section, of the local government’s land development regulations in effect at the time the initial antennae placement was approved.

b. Except for a historic building, structure, site, object, or district, or a tower included in sub-subparagraph a., collocations on all other existing structures that meet the requirements in sub-sub-subparagraphs (I)-(IV) shall be subject to no more than building permit review, and an administrative review for compliance with this subparagraph. Such collocations are not subject to any portion of the local government’s land development regulations not addressed herein, or to public hearing review. This sub-subparagraph shall not preclude a public hearing for any appeal of the decision on the collocation application.

(I) The collocation does not increase the height of the existing structure to which the antennae are to be attached, measured to the highest point of any part of the structure or any existing antenna attached to the structure;

(II) The collocation does not increase the ground space area, otherwise known as the compound, if any, approved in the site plan for equipment enclosures and ancillary facilities;

(III) The collocation consists of antennae, equipment enclosures, and ancillary facilities that are of a design and configuration consistent with any applicable structural or aesthetic design requirements and any requirements for location on the structure, but not prohibitions or restrictions on the placement of additional collocations on the existing structure or procedural requirements, other than those authorized by this section, of the local government’s land development regulations in effect at the time of the collocation application; and

(IV) The collocation consists of antennae, equipment enclosures, and ancillary facilities that are of a design and configuration consistent with all applicable restrictions or conditions, if any, that do not conflict with sub-sub-subparagraph (III) and were applied to the initial antennae placed on the structure and to its accompanying equipment enclosures and ancillary facilities and, if applicable, applied to the structure supporting the antennae.

c. Regulations, restrictions, conditions, or permits of the local government, acting in its regulatory capacity, that limit the number of collocations or require review processes inconsistent with this subsection shall not apply to collocations addressed in this subparagraph.

d. If only a portion of the collocation does not meet the requirements of this subparagraph, such as an increase in the height of the proposed antennae over the existing structure height or a proposal to expand the ground space approved in the site plan for the equipment enclosure, where all other portions of the collocation meet the requirements of this subparagraph, that portion of the collocation only may be reviewed under the local government’s regulations applicable to an initial placement of that portion of the facility, including, but not limited to, its land development regulations, and within the review timeframes of subparagraph (d)2., and the rest of the collocation shall be reviewed in accordance with this subparagraph. A collocation proposal under this subparagraph that increases the ground space area, otherwise known as the compound, approved in the original site plan for equipment enclosures and ancillary facilities by no more than a cumulative amount of 400 square feet or 50 percent of the original compound size, whichever is greater, shall, however, require no more than administrative review for compliance with the local government’s regulations, including, but not limited to, land development regulations review, and building permit review, with no public hearing review. This sub-subparagraph shall not preclude a public hearing for any appeal of the decision on the collocation application.

2. If a collocation does not meet the requirements of subparagraph 1., the local government may review the application under the local government’s regulations, including, but not limited to, land development regulations, applicable to the placement of initial antennae and their accompanying equipment enclosure and ancillary facilities.

3. If a collocation meets the requirements of subparagraph 1., the collocation shall not be considered a modification to an existing structure or an impermissible modification of a nonconforming structure.

4. The owner of the existing tower on which the proposed antennae are to be collocated shall remain responsible for compliance with any applicable condition or requirement of a permit or agreement, or any applicable condition or requirement of the land development regulations to which the existing tower had to comply at the time the tower was permitted, including any aesthetic requirements, provided the condition or requirement is not inconsistent with this paragraph.

5. An existing tower, including a nonconforming tower, may be structurally modified in order to permit collocation or may be replaced through no more than administrative review and building permit review, and is not subject to public hearing review, if the overall height of the tower is not increased and, if a replacement, the replacement tower is a monopole tower or, if the existing tower is a camouflaged tower, the replacement tower is a like-camouflaged tower. This subparagraph shall not preclude a public hearing for any appeal of the decision on the application.

(b)1. A local government’s land development and construction regulations for wireless communications facilities and the local government’s review of an application for the placement, construction, or modification of a wireless communications facility shall only address land development or zoning issues. In such local government regulations or review, the local government may not require information on or evaluate a wireless provider’s business decisions about its service, customer demand for its service, or quality of its service to or from a particular area or site, unless the wireless provider voluntarily offers this information to the local government. In such local government regulations or review, a local government may not require information on or evaluate the wireless provider’s designed service unless the information or materials are directly related to an identified land development or zoning issue or unless the wireless provider voluntarily offers the information. Information or materials directly related to an identified land development or zoning issue may include, but are not limited to, evidence that no existing structure can reasonably be used for the antennae placement instead of the construction of a new tower, that residential areas cannot be served from outside the residential area, as addressed in subparagraph 3., or that the proposed height of a new tower or initial antennae placement or a proposed height increase of a modified tower, replacement tower, or collocation is necessary to provide the provider’s designed service. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the local government from reviewing any applicable land development or zoning issue addressed in its adopted regulations that does not conflict with this section, including, but not limited to, aesthetics, landscaping, land use based location priorities, structural design, and setbacks.

2. Any setback or distance separation required of a tower may not exceed the minimum distance necessary, as determined by the local government, to satisfy the structural safety or aesthetic concerns that are to be protected by the setback or distance separation.

3. A local government may exclude the placement of wireless communications facilities in a residential area or residential zoning district but only in a manner that does not constitute an actual or effective prohibition of the provider’s service in that residential area or zoning district. If a wireless provider demonstrates to the satisfaction of the local government that the provider cannot reasonably provide its service to the residential area or zone from

outside the residential area or zone, the municipality or county and provider shall cooperate to determine an appropriate location for a wireless communications facility of an appropriate design within the residential area or zone. The local government may require that the wireless provider reimburse the reasonable costs incurred by the local government for this cooperative determination. An application for such cooperative determination shall not be considered an application under paragraph (d).

4. A local government may impose a reasonable fee on applications to place, construct, or modify a wireless communications facility only if a similar fee is imposed on applicants seeking other similar types of zoning, land use, or building permit review. A local government may impose fees for the review of applications for wireless communications facilities by consultants or experts who conduct code compliance review for the local government but any fee is limited to specifically identified reasonable expenses incurred in the review. A local government may impose reasonable surety requirements to ensure the removal of wireless communications facilities that are no longer being used.

5. A local government may impose design requirements, such as requirements for designing towers to support collocation or aesthetic requirements, except as otherwise limited in this section, but shall not impose or require information on compliance with building code type standards for the construction or modification of wireless communications facilities beyond those adopted by the local government under chapter 553 and that apply to all similar types of construction.

(c) Local governments may not require wireless providers to provide evidence of a wireless communications facility’s compliance with federal regulations, except evidence of compliance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration requirements under 14 C.F.R. s. 77, as amended, and evidence of proper Federal Communications Commission licensure, or other evidence of Federal Communications Commission authorized spectrum use, but may request the Federal Communications Commission to provide information as to a wireless provider’s compliance with federal regulations, as authorized by federal law.

(d)1. A local government shall grant or deny each properly completed application for a collocation under subparagraph (a)1. based on the application’s compliance with the local government’s applicable regulations, as provided for in subparagraph (a)1. and consistent with this subsection, and within the normal timeframe for a similar building permit review but in no case later than 45 business days after the date the application is determined to be properly completed in accordance with this paragraph.

2. A local government shall grant or deny each properly completed application for any other wireless communications facility based on the application’s compliance with the local government’s applicable regulations, including but not limited to land development regulations, consistent with this subsection and within the normal timeframe for a similar type review but in no case later than 90 business days after the date the application is determined to be properly completed in accordance with this paragraph.

3.a. An application is deemed submitted or resubmitted on the date the application is received by the local government. If the local government does not notify the applicant in writing that the application is not completed in compliance with the local government’s

regulations within 20 business days after the date the application is initially submitted or additional information resubmitted, the application is deemed, for administrative purposes only, to be properly completed and properly submitted. However, the determination shall not be deemed as an approval of the application. If the application is not completed in compliance with the local government’s regulations, the local government shall so notify the applicant in writing and the notification must indicate with specificity any deficiencies in the required documents or deficiencies in the content of the required documents which, if cured, make the application properly completed. Upon resubmission of information to cure the stated deficiencies, the local government shall notify the applicant, in writing, within the normal timeframes of review, but in no case longer than 20 business days after the additional information is submitted, of any remaining deficiencies that must be cured. Deficiencies in document type or content not specified by the local government do not make the application incomplete. Notwithstanding this sub-subparagraph, if a specified deficiency is not properly cured when the applicant resubmits its application to comply with the notice of deficiencies, the local government may continue to request the information until such time as the specified deficiency is cured. The local government may establish reasonable timeframes within which the required information to cure the application deficiency is to be provided or the application will be considered withdrawn or closed.

b. If the local government fails to grant or deny a properly completed application for a wireless communications facility within the timeframes set forth in this paragraph, the application shall be deemed automatically approved and the applicant may proceed with placement of the facilities without interference or penalty. The timeframes specified in subparagraph 2. may be extended only to the extent that the application has not been granted or denied because the local government’s procedures generally applicable to all other similar types of applications require action by the governing body and such action has not taken place within the timeframes specified in subparagraph 2. Under such circumstances, the local government must act to either grant or deny the application at its next regularly scheduled meeting or, otherwise, the application is deemed to be automatically approved.

c. To be effective, a waiver of the timeframes set forth in this paragraph must be voluntarily agreed to by the applicant and the local government. A local government may request, but not require, a waiver of the timeframes by the applicant, except that, with respect to a specific application, a one-time waiver may be required in the case of a declared local, state, or federal emergency that directly affects the administration of all permitting activities of the local government.

(e) The replacement of or modification to a wireless communications facility, except a tower, that results in a wireless communications facility not readily discernibly different in size, type, and appearance when viewed from ground level from surrounding properties, and the replacement or modification of equipment that is not visible from surrounding properties, all as reasonably determined by the local government, are subject to no more than applicable building permit review.

(f) Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, the Department of Management Services shall negotiate, in the name of the state, leases for wireless communications facilities that

provide access to state government-owned property not acquired for transportation purposes, and the Department of Transportation shall negotiate, in the name of the state, leases for wireless communications facilities that provide access to property acquired for state rights-of-way. On property acquired for transportation purposes, leases shall be granted in accordance with s. 337.251. On other state government-owned property, leases shall be granted on a space available, first-come, first-served basis. Payments required by state government under a lease must be reasonable and must reflect the market rate for the use of the state government-owned property. The Department of Management Services and the Department of Transportation are authorized to adopt rules for the terms and conditions and granting of any such leases.

(g) If any person adversely affected by any action, or failure to act, or regulation, or requirement of a local government in the review or regulation of the wireless communication facilities files an appeal or brings an appropriate action in a court or venue of competent jurisdiction, following the exhaustion of all administrative remedies, the matter shall be considered on an expedited basis.

(13) MISUSE OF 911 OR 911 SYSTEM; PENALTY.—911 and 911 service must be used solely for emergency communications by the public. Any person who accesses the number 911 for the purpose of making a false alarm or complaint or reporting false information that could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency; any person who knowingly uses or attempts to use such service for a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance; or any person who knowingly uses or attempts to use such service in an effort to avoid any charge for service, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. After being convicted of unauthorized use of such service four times, a person who continues to engage in such unauthorized use commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. In addition, if the value of the service or the service charge obtained in a manner prohibited by this subsection exceeds $100, the person committing the offense commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(14) STATE LAW NOT PREEMPTED.—This section and ss. 365.173 and 365.174 do not alter any state law that otherwise regulates voice communications services providers.

History.—s. 1, ch. 99-367; s. 2, ch. 2001-133; s. 7, ch. 2002-48; s. 19, ch. 2003-32; s. 1, ch. 2003-182; s. 4, ch. 2005-171; s. 2, ch. 2007-78; s. 68, ch. 2010-5; s. 1, ch. 2010-50; s. 1, ch. 2010-188; s. 2, ch. 2012-177.

Deleted: E

Deleted: E

E911 State County Grant Application, effective 3/1/2011 Page 1 W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Fla. Admin. Code R. 60FF1-5.003 E911 State County Grants

Request for Change

Name of County: Sumter (S4-11-07-20)

Wildwood PSAP Upgrade

BUDGET LINE ITEM CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO Viper 4.1 Upgrade for Wildwood PSAP Microsoft Licenses (2) Symantec AntiVirus Installation

$63,121.53

$0.00

$63,121.53 ($2,918.88)

$815.42

TOTAL $63,121.53 $61,018.07

Justification For Change: This is a change request for a line item change and substitute antivirus software funding for the State 2011 Grant for the Wildwood PSAP Upgrade. Two of the quoted database licenses for the upgrade were not needed. During the course of the upgrade process, it was determined that antivirus protection was not present on the system. Sumter County is requesting authorization to use the credit from the returned licenses to subsidize the cost of the antivirus installation. The total funds needed for the antivirus are less than the credit for the extra database licenses resulting in a net decrease of grant funds needed for the project. The remaining funds and any interest will be returned at project completion.

____________________________________ 09/04/2012 Signature of Authorized Official Date

For E911 Board use only.

Approved: Yes No _____________________________________ _____________________ E911 Board’s Authorized Representative Date

Appendix II

E911 State County Grant Application, effective 3/1/2011 Page 1 W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Fla. Admin. Code R. 60FF1-5.003 E911 State County Grants

Request for Change

Name of County: Sumter (S4-11-07-21)

Bushnell PSAP Upgrade

BUDGET LINE ITEM CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO Viper 4.1 Upgrade for Bushnell PSAP Symantec Antivirus Installation

$157,691.52

$0.00

$157,691.52

$402.52

TOTAL $157,691.52 $158,094.04

Justification For Change: During the course of the grant project for the Viper 4.1 upgrade process, it was determined that antivirus protection was not present on the system. Sumter County is requesting authorization to use $402.52 of interest funds accrued through the end of July 31, 2012 to subsidize the $1,240.49 cost of the antivirus software installation. The remaining $837.97 cost of implementation will be funded from the Sumter County E911 general budget.

____________________________________ 09/04/2012 Signature of Authorized Official Date

For E911 Board use only.

Approved: Yes No _____________________________________ _____________________ E911 Board’s Authorized Representative Date

Appendix II

Board Members: Christopher J. Campbell • L. Carolyn Dill-Collier • Charles C. Freeman • Benjamin S. Guthrie

Stan L. Greer • Marilyn M. Haroutunian • Sandra A. Khazraee • Ira U. Pyles

MEMORANDUM TO: Polk County Fire Rescue FROM: E911 Board SUBJECT: Disposal of grant-purchased equipment DATE: August 27, 2012

This is notification that the E911 Board and staff reviewed the Polk County issue regarding disposal of a component of the Consolidated PSAP Equipment Grant application, S2-08-10-8. The 911 equipment consisted of:

Hewlett Packard Monitor, S/N CNK9280X89, Asset #73962, Tag #52359, Cost $2,171.37, Date in Service 03/03/2010

Based on the 2008 Grant conditions:

16. Responsibility for property and equipment obtained under a grant cannot be transferred under any circumstances. If a sale or transfer of such property or equipment occurs within three years after a grant ends, funds must be returned on a pro rata basis. 17. The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or part by grant funds will be maintained. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION: The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or part by grant funds, will be maintained. No substantial changes or departures from the original proposal shall be permitted unless the E911 Board gives prior written authorization. Any unauthorized change will necessitate the return of grant funds, plus interest (if any) accrued.

The E911 Board does not have any concerns with the disposal of the monitor, since it was not being transferred but disposed of with no sale or transfer. Based on the information provided there is no unauthorized change in the grant and the equipment can be disposed of in accordance with the county policies. Should you have any additional concerns, please contact: Wink Infinger, Statewide 911 Coordinator, Division of Telecommunications, Building 4030/Suite 160D, Florida Department of Management Services, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950, (850) 921-0041, Wink.Infinger@dms.MyFlorida.com

Advertiser Login.

Navigation

VBS Home

VBS Search

Advertisement Detail

Department of Management Services Request for Information

Florida Statewide NG-911 Routing Services Advertisement Number: DMS-12/13-002-1

Version Number: 000 Advertisement Begin Date/Time: 09/07/2012 - 03:00 P.M. Advertisement End Date/Time: 09/14/2012 - 03:00 P.M.

Last Edit: Friday, September 7, 2012 at 10:07:38 A.M.

Amendment 2 (answers to questions received) has been uploaded. Please see the pdf document below. Request for Information will be opened at the below address at 03:00 P.M., September 14, 2012. Please direct all questions to: Christina Espinosa Phone: (850) 410-2404 Departmental Purchasing Tallahassee FL, 32399 Email: christina.espinosa@dms.myflorida.com

indicates a required (not withdrawn) file

Commodities:

252-030-000-0000 730-230-000-0000 730-300-000-0000 973-010-000-0000 973-800-000-0000 991-140-000-0000 991-155-000-0000

Downloadable Files for Advertisement

Version Description Type Uploaded Required

Original Amendment 2 (Open/Save/View) Amendment 09-07-2012 10:06:52 A.M.

Original Amendment 1 (Open/Save/View) Amendment 09-07-2012 10:07:10 A.M.

Original Request for Information No.: DMS-12/13-002 (Open/Save/View)

Complete Document

09-07-2012 10:07:38 A.M.

Page 1 of 2VBS - Advertisement Detail

9/10/2012http://myflorida.com/apps/vbs/vbs_www.ad.view_ad?advertisement_key_num=102822

For questions on a specific bid advertisement, contact the agency advertisement owner. Advertisements include the contact information for the agency advertisement. The agency advertisement owner is the point of contact for vendors with specific questions.

Copyright© 2000 State Of Florida Privacy Statement

Page 2 of 2VBS - Advertisement Detail

9/10/2012http://myflorida.com/apps/vbs/vbs_www.ad.view_ad?advertisement_key_num=102822

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 1 of 8

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION STATE OF FLORIDA

Florida Statewide NG-911 Routing Services

RFI NO.: DMS-12/13-002

I. INTRODUCTION

The State of Florida, Department of Management Services (the “Department”), hereby issues this Request for Information (“RFI”) seeking information from interested parties who can provide statewide Next Generation 911 routing services. The goal of this RFI is to provide the Department with the latest information on National Emergency Number Association (“NENA”) i3 standard compliant Next Generation 911 routing services. The information requested is intended to determine potential vendor’s development status, offerings and compliance with NENA recommendations, requirements, and standards. Please do not provide any specific cost or pricing information at this time; this is not a solicitation for an offer. However, general pricing information may be provided (e.g., price ranges and variable factors that impact the price). After the Department receives responses to this RFI, and at the sole discretion of the Department, one or more respondents may be selected to demonstrate to the Department the respondent’s products and services relating to the information submitted in the RFI response. The purpose is to learn about the most current solutions available. Subsequently, the Department anticipates releasing a competitive solicitation.

II. PURPOSE OF AN RFI

Rule 60A-1.042, Florida Administrative Code, provides that an agency may request information by issuing a written RFI. Agencies are authorized to use an RFI in circumstances including, but not limited to, determining whether or not to competitively procure a commodity or contractual services, determining what solicitation process to use for a particular need, or researching general, special, and/or technical specifications for a solicitation. A vendor’s response to a RFI is not an offer and the agency may not use the vendor’s submission to justify a contract with that vendor without otherwise complying with Chapter 287, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule 60A-1.042, F.A.C. Vendors submitting a response to an agency’s RFI are not prohibited from responding to any related subsequent solicitation. Any future purchase of the services will be conducted in accordance with chapter 287, F.S.

III. DEFINITIONS

a. E911 means Enhanced 911, a telephone system service which includes network switching, database and Public Safety Answering Point premises elements capable of providing automatic location identification data, selective routing, selective transfer, fixed transfer, and a call back number for 911 calls. The term also includes any enhanced 911 service so designated by the Federal Communications Commission. (NENA)

b. ECON means Emergency Call Originating Network, The network of the call origination provider that is used to process and deliver 911 calls to the 911 provider’s network.

c. ESInet means Emergency Services IP Network, an IP-based inter-network shared by all agencies which may be involved in any emergency. (NENA)

d. CPE means Customer Premises Equipment, communications or terminal equipment located in the customer’s facilities – terminal equipment at a PSAP

e. IETF means Internet Engineering Task Force, the lead standard setting authority for Internet protocols. (NENA)

f. IP means Internet Protocol, the method by which data is sent from one computer to another on the Internet or other networks. (NENA)

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 2 of 8

g. MyFloridaNet means the statewide IP network provided by the Department. h. NENA means the National Emergency Number Association. i. NENA i3 means the capability to receive IP-based SIP signaling and media for delivery of

emergency calls and for originating calls conformant to the NENA standards including NENA 08-003. j. NG-911 means Next Generation 911, the next advancement in Enhanced 911 systems designed to

handle voice, data, and video developed on a standardized managed IP based platform for routing and delivery of 911 emergency requests (calls or messages) from a variety of devices and services, including text messaging and telematics, to the appropriate PSAP and resolve interoperability issues to provide the capability of an emergency communications network.

k. PSAP means Public Safety Answering Point, a public safety agency answering center that receives incoming 911 calls and dispatches appropriate public safety agencies to respond to the calls.

l. QoS means Quality of Service, as related to IP data transmission a measurement of latency, packet loss and jitter.

m. SIP means Session Initiation Protocol, an IETF defined protocol (RFC3261) which defines a method for establishing multimedia sessions over the Internet and is used as the call signaling protocol in VoIP and NENA i3. (NENA)

n. Sub-state Routing System means an existing IP capable NG-911 routing network in Florida. These systems are typically provided to one or more county.

o. SUNCOM means the brand name used by the Department to provide voice, data and conferencing telecommunications services for government pursuant to section 282.702, Florida Statutes.

p. Vendor means the individual submitting the response to this RFI. q. VoIP means Voice over Internet Protocol, the element that provides distinct packetized voice

information in digital format using the Internet Protocol. The IP address assigned to the user’s telephone number may be static or dynamic.

IV. BACKGROUND

The Department of Management Services, through the Division of Telecommunications, is tasked with ensuring the reliability and consistency of the state’s E911 system plan. With a stable E911 system in place statewide, the recent focus of the Department has been on improving the ability of PSAP’s to process E911 calls between counties and incorporate new types of communications from citizens throughout the state. The inability to receive and process emergency text messages, images, and video presents new challenges. The Department is developing strategies to implement a state NG-911 NENA i3 compliant routing network through its SUNCOM MyFloridaNet Network to accommodate these NG-911 media.

The Department seeks to develop an ESInet providing IP routing of landline, wireless and VoIP 911 calls and requests for assistance through MyFloridaNet network connections incorporating routing directly to counties or through the existing Sub-state Routing Systems that were funded by grants provided by the E911 Board. The anticipated competitive solicitation, in conjunction with the State E911 Plan, will provide the framework requirements for the new SUNCOM service. All NG-911 functional element equipment, software, databases, services, and data centers are to be included in the system for a complete NENA i3 standard compliant system.

The diagram below provides a functional illustration of the NG-911 NENA i3 system. Definition of the functional elements and components in the diagrams are included in the NENA standards and the glossary is available on the NENA website at http://www.nena.org/?page=Standards.

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 3 of 8

The network design should be capable of delivering 911 calls and requests for assistance from all ECONs including all legacy service providers providing service in Florida. Call termination functionality varies throughout the state and the design should be capable of connecting to Sub-state Routing System and external state or federal agency ESInets, and PSAPs with legacy and new equipment capable of IP network connectivity. The Department’s desire is to obtain a dedicated NG-911 routing system located at data centers within Florida but will entertain the use of dedicated partitions of currently available commercial NG-911 routing systems. The objective is to obtain an economical service with the performance characteristics needed to support a statewide 911 public safety infrastructure. With either method, read-only access is required to all dedicated components and partitions for the state.

The design needs to address QoS, and high-level security-applications including the latest border control function equipment. Protections for the routing system are required, including a minimum of next generation firewalls at all perimeter connections.

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 4 of 8

The diagrams provided above and below provide a functional illustration of network layouts, and illustrate how 911 calls and data will flow through the network. Network diagrams are simply illustrative, and do not include all call flow processes detailing the various wireline, wireless, and VoIP 911 call origination and terminations.

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 5 of 8

V. REQUESTED INFORMATION

The Department intends to use responses to this RFI to prepare a competitive solicitation bid document. The Department requests information from your organizations as specified below. Please reprint each request with your response.

Tab 1 - Introduction

a. Please provide a cover letter and primary point of contact for information.

Tab 2 – Description of Services

a. Provide a description and supporting information regarding products, services, and options that are offered by your organization that are relevant to the NG-911 services discussed above.

b. Explain in detail how products and services offered by your organization can help the Department to provide NG-911 NENA i3 service through SUNCOM utilizing MyFloridaNet circuits via a geographically redundant NG-911 routing system meeting 99.999% availability. Include information on supporting an end-to-end IP based application and intermediate devices which may be required to accommodate legacy wireline and wireless origination networks and PSAPs.

c. Provide information on the differences between dedicated equipment versus dedicated partitioning, including the pros and cons of each.

d. Specifically explain how products and services offered by your organization will facilitate the ability to interconnect legacy equipment utilizing IP version 4 with new technology utilizing IP version 6.

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 6 of 8

e. Specifically explain how products and services offered by your organization handle congestion caused by either multiple or simultaneous 911 requests. Include information on how to accommodate queuing, overflows, default routing and alternate routing.

f. An additional item that is being considered is requiring a vendor provide a turn-key, end-to-end hosted service solution for the PSAP call taking and call handling equipment. Describe all options for a facility hosted solution running NG-911 PSAP remote CPE within the PSAPs. Full diversity and redundancy of hosted solutions should also be addressed.

g. Provide a list of all billable units that will be required by the state to complete implementation of your NG-911 NENA i3 service. The list should include each billable element of the service, such as customer support, technical support, training, and system maintenance.

h. Provide suggestions for chargeback through a government enterprise aggregator, like SUNCOM, where services are bought in bulk, paid for through a single vendor invoice and rebilled to other government entities. The chargeback units should be repeatedly countable and attributable to the user entity. They should also be equitable (charges should correspond to costs) and incentivize government entities to be frugal.

Tab 3 – Scoring and Methodology

a. Provide a copy of, or a hyperlink to, one or more governmental solicitations in which your organization was a respondent.

b. Provide copies of other recent procurement documents for statewide NG-911 NENA i3 routing services that you believe were facilitated through an open, fair, and competitive procurement.

Tab 4 – Contract Performance and Guarantees

a. Provide a copy of one or more existing contracts for NG-911 i3 routing services offered by your organization.

b. Provide a list of actual contracted performance metrics and service level guarantees that are being used to measure the quality of NG-911 i3 routing services offered by your organization.

Tab 5 – Additional Information

a. Please provide additional information you think should be considered.

VI. TIMELINE

Listed below are important dates / times on which actions should be taken or completed. If the Department finds it necessary to update any of the dates/times noted it will be accomplished by an Amendment to the RFI. All times listed below are daylight saving times in Tallahassee, Florida.

DATE TIME 08/27/2012 Monday

Release of RFI

09/03/2012 Monday

5:00 p.m.

Questions are due to the Procurement Officer

09/10/2012 Monday

Answers to questions received are posted to VBS

09/17/2012 Monday

3:00 p.m.

Responses are due

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 7 of 8

09/19/2012 - 09/25/2012 TBD Meet with vendors

VII. AMENDMENTS TO THE RFI

The Department will post amendments on the Florida Vendor Bid System (VBS) at http://vbs.dms.state.fl.us/vbs/search.criteria_form. Each Vendor must monitor VBS for new or changing information.

VIII. RFI QUESTIONS AND CONTACT WITH THE STATE

Please submit questions about this RFI in writing by e-mail to the Procurement Officer, identified in Section XII of this RFI, by the date and time specified in the timeline or as amended by the Department. Questions will not be answered via telephone. Please monitor the Florida Vendor Bid System for new or changing information.

IX. SUBMISSION LAYOUT

Responses shall be submitted in portable document format (“PDF”) on a compact disc (“CD”) labeled with Vendor’s organization’s name and the RFI number. Submit responses to the Procurement Officer noted below within the required date and time. The cover sheet of the PDF must reference RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002, Florida Statewide NG-911 Routing Services. Please organize your responses to this RFI by including the information requested in a corresponding tab for each subsection (e.g., the information requested in section V must be placed behind the respective tabs of Vendor’s response, etc.) as follows.

Tab 1 Introduction

Tab 2 Description of Services

Tab 3 Scoring and Methodology

Tab 4 Contract Performance and Guarantees

Tab 5 Additional Information

X. SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS

Any person requiring a special accommodation at Departmental Purchasing because of a disability should call Departmental Purchasing at (850) 413-7190 at least five (5) workdays prior to the scheduled event. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact Purchasing by using the Florida Relay Service at (800) 955-8771 (TDD).

XI. CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY OR TRADE SECRET MATERIAL

If Vendor considers any portion of any documents, data, or records submitted to the Department to be confidential, proprietary, trade secret or otherwise not subject to disclosure pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the Florida Constitution or other authority, Vendor must simultaneously provide the Department with a separate redacted copy of it’s the information it claims as Confidential and briefly describe in writing the

RFI No.: DMS-12/13-002 Page 8 of 8

grounds for claiming exemption from the public records law, including the specific statutory citation for such exemption. This redacted copy shall contain the Contract RFI name and number, and shall be clearly titled “Confidential.” The redacted copy should only redact those portions of material that the Vendor claims is confidential, proprietary, trade secret or otherwise not subject to disclosure. In the event of a public records or other disclosure request pursuant to chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the Florida Constitution or other authority, to which documents that are marked as “Confidential” are responsive, the Department will provide the Vendor-redacted copies to the requestor. If a requestor asserts a right to the Confidential Information, the Department will notify the Contract such an assertion has been made. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to assert that the information in question is exempt from disclosure under chapter 119 or other applicable law. If the Department becomes subject to a demand for discovery or disclosure of the Confidential Information of the Vendor under legal process, the Department shall give the Vendor prompt notice of the demand prior to releasing the information labeled “confidential” (unless otherwise prohibited by applicable law). Vendor shall be responsible for defending its determination that the redacted portions of its response are confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise not subject to disclosure. Vendor shall protect, defend, and indemnify the Department for any and all claims arising from or relating to Vendor’s determination that the redacted portions of its response are confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise not subject to disclosure. If Vendor fails to submit a redacted copy of information it claims is Confidential, the Department is authorized to produce the entire documents, data, or records submitted to the Department in answer to a public records request for these records.

XII. PROCUREMENT OFFICER

Christina Espinosa, Procurement Officer Departmental Purchasing 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 380.9z Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Telephone No.: (850) 410-2404 E-mail to: christina.espinosa@dms.myflorida.com

This contact person is the only authorized individual to respond to RFI comments and questions.

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION STATE OF FLORIDA

Florida Statewide NG-911 Routing Services

RFI NO.: DMS-12/13-002

AMENDMENT 1

The Department hereby amends Section VI., of the Request for Information as follows: VI. TIMELINE

Listed below are important dates / times on which actions should be taken or completed. If the Department finds it necessary to update any of the dates/times noted it will be accomplished by an Amendment to the RFI. All times listed below are daylight saving times in Tallahassee, Florida.

DATE TIME 08/27/2012 Monday

Release of RFI

09/03/2012 Monday 09/04/2012 Tuesday

5:00 p.m.

Questions are due to the Procurement Officer

09/10/2012 Monday 09/07/2012 Friday

Answers to questions received are posted to VBS

09/17/2012 Monday 09/14/2012 Friday

3:00 p.m.

Responses are due

09/19/2012 - 09/25/2012 09/17/2012 – 09/21/2012

TBD Meet with vendors

 

Page 1 of 4 DMS-12/13-002 Amendment 2

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

STATE OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA STATEWIDE NG-911 ROUTING SERVICES

RFI NO.: DMS-12/13-002

AMENDMENT 2

The Department hereby formally provides written responses to questions received on the following pages.

Page 2 of 4 DMS-12/13-002 Amendment 2

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED

All written questions are reproduced in the same format as submitted by the Respondent. Questions from TeleCommunication Systems Inc. (TCS)

Question #1

Reference: Section V Requested Information, Tab 2, b. Question: Does the State consider the service currently offered by MyFloridaNet to meet the 99.999% availability requirement? Do you want the proposal to include a second, diverse network infrastructure in order to meet the 99.999% availability requirement?

Answer #1

First Question: Yes Second Question: No

Question #2

Reference: Section V Requested Information, Tab 2, e. Question: In the NENA terms, we are familiar with E9-1-1 Calls that are either Selectively Routed to the primary PSAP, Alternately Routed when the PSAP is not available, or Default Routed when the information required for routing is not available. NENA defines E9-1-1 Overflow as a required feature within the originating service provider’s (ECON) network, which would be outside the scope of the NG9-1-1 service provider. Please elaborate on what “overflow” means for the NG9-1-1 service provider in this RFI?

Answer #2

Please provide your interpretation for the response as a NG-911 service provider handling multiple ECON network connections both from the receiving side (access lines/wireless and VoIP) and the distribution side to the PSAPs.

Question #3

Reference: Section VI Timeline Question: Will the State of Florida grant a two week extension by moving the response due date to Monday, October 1, 2012 at 3PM? If this extension is not possible, may we submit our response to the State of Florida in soft copy (via email) on Monday, September 17, 2012 with the CD to follow 2 days later via FedEx?

Answer #3

Response date is as provided. Soft copies are allowable.

Question #4

Reference: Section IV, Background, 3rd Paragraph Question: What are the current QoS performance values (latency, packet loss, and jitter) of MyFloridaNet?

Answer #4

Information on the MyFloridaNet and information is available at the Department of Management Services > SUNCOM > SUNCOM Products and Pricing > Data Services > MyFloridaNet website at URL: http://www.dms.myflorida.com/suncom/suncom_products_and_pricing/data_services/myfloridanet

Question #5

Reference: Section V Requested Information, Tab 2 b. Question: Please describe MyFloridaNet’s statewide IP network? Is MyFloridaNet comprised of a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)? Or is it blend of both public and private facilities?

Answer #5

The enterprise infrastructure is based on a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) technology and see Answer #4 for location of MyFloridaNet information.

Question #6

Reference: Section V Requested Information, Tab 2 c. Question: Please provide additional context to this requirement, “Provide information on the differences between dedicated equipment versus dedicated partitioning, including the pros and cons of each.”

Answer #6

Information is requested on whether the vendor’s current system is dedicated to the individual clients or common equipment partitioned for the various clients with any pros or cons to the solutions.

Question #7

Reference: Section IV Background Question: The Department desires to receive a network design that meets its requirements.

Page 3 of 4 DMS-12/13-002 Amendment 2

Would the department provide an electronic list of the State’s PSAPs that includes name, physical address (street, city, state, zip code), number of positions, and number of trunks, and type of PSAP (primary, secondary, state, training, other, etc.), and the total count of PSAPs?

Answer #7

This information will be available for the system procurement; specific details are not required for response to the RFI. As part of the RFI, please provide specific information needed in a procurement document.

Question #8

Reference: Section IV Background, Paragraph 3 Question: Is this a correct interpretation? Respondent has interpreted that the State does not offer its own data centers for NG-911 functional element equipment to collocate and that the provider shall provide the data centers.

Answer #8

Interpretation may not be correct. This RFI should provide information on the vendor’s alternatives including possibility of vendor data center or utilization of state data centers, including applicable requirements needed if state data centers are desired and recommended by the vendors.

Question #9

Reference: Tab 5 Additional Information Question: Does the State have a statewide master GIS, also known as an enterprise geospatial database management system? If yes, what boundaries does it contain, such as one or more of the following: primary PSAPs, secondary PSAPs, EMS, etc.? If no, does the State require the creation of a master GIS to be created for the State? Please elaborate the Department’s GIS environment as detailed as possible.

Answer #9

There currently is no Statewide 911 Geographic Information System. Inclusion of a state routing GIS is being reviewed as part of this NENA (i3) solution. Please provide alternative methods of including these services as part of the NENA (i3) solution, if applicable.

Question #10

Reference: Section VI Timeline Question: Where is the intended meeting with vendors? Will it occur at 4050 Esplanade Way, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950?

Answer #10

Meeting will be held in Tallahassee, at the CCOC complex and could include the specified location listed.

Question #11

Reference: Section IV Background, “all ECONs”. Question: What is the current count of all ECONs operating in Florida?

Answer #11

The information sources for this information will be available for the system procurement; specific details are not required for response to the RFI. As part of the RFI, please provide specific information needed in a procurement document.

Question #12

Reference: Tab 2, h. Question: Would the State provide additional context or guidance to this request? For example, would it be correctly interpreted that SUNCOM is equivalent to the State’s datacomm/IT network provider and the State is interested in the NG9-1-1 vendor performing the invoicing function such that it would bill various Florida counties, cities, and other government authorities for the network circuits?

Answer #12

The current plan is for the Department to handle the ordering and billing services. The state expects the vendor to issue a single invoice to the state with sufficient electronic detail to enable the state to ebill other Government entities.

Questions from inetwork, a division of Bandwidth Question #13

There is a line item in the schedule for meetings. How will you determine who will be invited to meet with you? When will those selected for a meeting know? Where will the meetings be held?

Answer #13

Meetings will be determined by the Department based on the Vendor’s Response. Subsequent to the review of the responses, selected vendors will be informed and scheduling will be coordinated. See response to Question #10 for location.

Question #14

Is there a general timeline for the issuance of an RFP if one is, in fact, issued?

Page 4 of 4 DMS-12/13-002 Amendment 2

Answer #14

No, this timeline is dependent on numerous steps and the responses to the RFI. Information will be available when developed for the system procurement.

Questions from Motorola Solutions, Inc. Question #15

Who will be the State of Florida source for GIS data for the 67 counties?

Answer #15

See response to Question #9.

Question #16

Because Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF) Data requires ongoing additions and maintenance for it to properly service an ESINet operation, is this one of the services for which the State is requesting information, or is this something that will be provided and maintained by the State of Florida?

Answer #16

The Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF) provision and maintenance is included in the vendor services for the statewide NG-911 (i3) routing system.

Question #17

In Section V, Tab 2.c, the RFI requests information on the differences between dedicated equipment versus dedicated partitioning. For the sake of clarity, will you please further expand on this request?

Answer #17

See response to Question #6.

Question #18

In Section V, Tab 2.h, the RFI mentions chargeback through the use of an entity like SUNCOM. Does this mean the State is willing to look at having a complete statewide ESINet with applications and appliance elements totally expensed in a complete Managed Services Option that would be paid thru SUNCOM as an OPEX program?

Answer #18

Inclusion of a statewide NG-911 (i3) routing system is being considered as part of the SUNCOM Managed Service offerings. With the service-based solution constant changes are expected to allow for new technologies and services.

Question #19

Will the State of Florida be the arbitrator to bring all required Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) provided circuits to the Data Centers for connections?

Answer #19

Connectivity with all ECONs is considered part of the statewide NG-911 (i3) routing system. As part of the RFI, please provide specific information or concerns provisioning 911 calls, connections, location data and any relevant cost issues related to the service offered.

NOTE: The Department has received a public records request for a document created by a consultant that relates to the prospective NG-911 competitive solicitation. This document may be viewed at URL http://www.dms.myflorida.com/suncom/public_safety_bureau/florida_e911/e911_grant_information under the ENHANCE 911 Act Grant Program, Florida NG‐911 Routing Service Technical Specifications. However, please note that the final competitive solicitation will contain the requirements that are relevant to the procurement.

  

RegionalE911MappingSupport

fortheENHANCE911ActGrant 

FloridaDepartmentofManagementServices 

 

ReportofWorkCompleted

September1,2011–February20,2012 

Preparedby:

UniversityofFloridaGeoPlanCenter 

 

 

i  

ExecutiveSummary

In 2004, the ENHANCE (Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers Employing) 911 Act was passed by 

the 108th U.S. Congress to promote implementation of upgraded emergency call systems to handle 

location of wireless callers.  In 2009, the E911 Act Grant Program, authorized by the ENHANCE 911 ACT, 

was established to help states improve their call centers and implement next‐generation 911 

technologies.  The grant funds were made available from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  In 2009, the Florida Department 

of Management Services’ Division of Telecommunications submitted a grant application for the E911 Act 

Grant Program and was awarded funding.   A major focus of Florida’s grant application was to support 

enhanced Phase II location of 911 callers through development of a regional Geographic Information 

System (GIS) database.  The University of Florida GeoPlan Center was contracted by DMS to assist with 

development of the proposed GIS database. 

 

GeoPlan’s scope of work involved compilation of GIS mapping data from six pilot counties into a 

standards‐compliant regional GIS database that could be utilized to locate E911 callers and provide 

surrounding counties with neighboring maps to assist 911 call takers.  The regional database was to be 

designed and developed following guidelines specified by the National Emergency Number Association 

(NENA), a professional organization dedicated to 9‐1‐1 policy, technology, operations, and education 

issues.  The NENA standards outline the ideal GIS data layers to be included in a 911 GIS mapping 

system, and the common format of GIS data for more efficient sharing of emergency service GIS data 

between neighboring public safety agencies or jurisdictions.  

 

In February 2012, the GeoPlan was issued a stop work order and this contract was terminated under the 

Termination of Convenience Clause.  The Governor’s office expressed concern over utilizing one‐time 

grant funds for projects that require ongoing funding.  Additional funding would be needed to maintain 

the database developed for this contract, but no funding source had been identified.  Because of early 

project termination, GeoPlan did not complete all tasks listed in the Scope of Work.  This report details 

the status of work completed as of February 2012, and could prove helpful for future work, should the 

funding and interest be revived.   

 

In order for a regional, standards‐compliant E911 GIS database to be developed and maintained, there 

needs to be commitment and participation by the individual counties to move towards adopting a 

standard at the local level.  While the current economic climate may not permit the level of 

commitment necessary to develop and maintain such a database, the need still exists.  Emergency 

situations are not confined to county or state boundaries, and the ability of counties to have access to 

neighboring counties’ data will increase response times for situations occurring at or across 

administrative boundaries.  Adopting a common standard will leverage existing investments in GIS by 

allowing data, resources, and contracting to be shared across county boundaries.     

ii  

TABLEOFCONTENTS

 

                      Page 

Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………….…………. i 

 

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 

 

Report of Work Completed …………………………………………………………….……………………….. 3 

Task 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 

Task 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 

Task 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 

Task 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 

Task 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 

Task 6 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 

 

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 

 

 

Appendices 

 

1  List of GIS Data to be collected 

2  Status of Data Collection 

3  Description of NENA Standardization Tool 

4  Flowchart describing steps in NENA Standardization Tool 

5  NENA Schema documentation  

6  Non‐NENA Schema documentation 

7  Status of Regional GIS Layers  

 

 

 

1  

Introduction

The use of GIS has become a critical component in 9‐1‐1 systems, assisting with identification of caller 

locations, routing to the proper emergency service responder, and dispatching and response.  The 

proliferation of wireless mobile devices has also increased the need for GIS to help identify callers’ 

locations, which were historically linked to the physical address of the wired phone lines.  Furthermore, 

the FCC has mandated the use of GIS in their E‐9‐11 Phase I & II regulations, making the need for 

accurate GIS data more relevant.   

 

At least two major challenges exist for 9‐1‐1 GIS data:  (1) Adopting a common standard so data and 

resources can be shared; and (2) Integrating maintenance of GIS databases with the maintenance of 

MSAG databases.  Adopting a common standard for the GIS data used in 9‐1‐1 systems would allow data 

to be shared regionally and even statewide to support major emergencies that cross county boundaries.  

Integration of GIS and MSAG databases could increase accuracy and efficiency of locating callers and 

assist with meeting the federal requirements of E‐9‐1‐1 regulations. 

 

This project involved compiling and converting county data to be consistent with national standards, and 

synchronizing the GIS street centerline data to be consistent with the county’s MSAG (Master Street 

Address Guide). 

 

ScopeofWork

The  University  of  Florida  GeoPlan  Center  was  tasked  with  building  a  regional  E911  GIS  database, 

synchronizing GIS data  from  six pilot  counties  into  a  standards  compliant  regional GIS database  that 

could serve as the foundation from which a future statewide E911 GIS database can be built.  The pilot 

area  included  the  following  six  Florida  counties:    Brevard,  Flagler,  Orange,  Osceola,  Seminole,  and 

Volusia. 

 

The  resulting  regional GIS database was  to  include  synchronized E911 data  collected  from each pilot 

county,  including  administrative  boundary  data,  public  safety  answering  point  data,  and  emergency 

service zone data, and existing E911 databases.   The pilot counties were responsible for initial creation 

of  the  E911 mapping  data,  providing  the  data  to  the GeoPlan  Center,  and  updating  the  data  layers 

incorporated  in  the  regional mapping  system.  The GeoPlan Center was  responsible  for  synchronizing 

and compiling the county data into a regional standards compliant database. 

 

The resulting database schemas and attribute values were  intended to be compliant with the National 

Emergency  Number  Association  (NENA)  Data  and  GIS  Standards.    The  NENA  standards  outline  the 

common  schema  in which GIS data  layers  should be  stored  for more  efficient  sharing  of  emergency 

service  GIS  data  between  neighboring  public  safety  agencies  or  jurisdictions.    It  was  noted  at  the 

beginning of the project that full compliance of data content may not be possible, as data gaps may exist 

where additional data collection may be needed.   Data collection was not  in  the scope of  this project 

2  

and any missing attributes and features would need to be collected by the individual counties, who are 

the creators and stewards of the original data.  

 

The GeoPlan Center was also tasked with working with the pilot counties to develop an update process 

which  could  be used  for  regularly updating  the  regional database.    This update process  is  critical  to 

maintaining an accurate and current regional database, and ensuring a successful transition from a pilot 

regional database to a statewide E911 database. 

AbouttheCentralFloridaPilotArea

The pilot area for this project included the following six counties, located in Central Florida:  Brevard, 

Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.  The Central Florida pilot area is a good cross section of 

governmental GIS systems of varying sizes and organizational structures.  Orange County, the most 

urbanized and populated of the six pilot counties, has an approximate population of 1,145,956 and 

houses a large enterprise GIS system.  Flagler County, the least populated of the pilot counties, has an 

approximate population of 95,696 and a smaller GIS system.  Working with different sized counties 

allows exposure to a range of potential issues when adopting a common data standard.  In some cases, 

smaller counties with a smaller organizational structure can respond quicker to changes to meet the 

needs of a standard, while larger counties with a larger organizational structure, more departments, and 

data users can take longer to respond due to coordination with more users. 

 

Stewardship of local data resides in varying County departments, such as Growth Management, 9‐1‐1, 

Addressing, and the Property Appraiser’s office.  Coordination between these County departments is 

one hurdle in establishing a common data standard.  Individual departments have specific needs and 

requirements of the data, which may not easily mesh with the format of the standard. Careful planning 

and coordination between each department’s data users must be undertaken to make sure the data can 

both meet the standard and the needs of the users. 

 

The Central Florida pilot area has established relationships for data sharing and data coordination 

amongst the GIS community through mechanisms like Central Florida GIS (CFGIS) Users Group and USGS 

Critical Infrastructure regional GIS layer.  The USGS Critical Infrastructure layer is a compilation of data 

on critical facilities for sixteen counties in Central Florida.  All of the pilot counties for this project are 

captured in the USGS infrastructure layer and the data follows the USGS Best Practices Model.  Hence, 

the pilot counties have experience working together to compile data into a regional standard.  In 

addition, CFGIS hosts a quarterly meeting for GIS users in the area, which facilitates communication and 

coordination amongst Central Florida GIS users.  These mechanisms which are already in place made 

Central Florida an ideal candidate as the pilot area, as counties can leverage their existing relationships 

and share ideas and resources.  

 

3  

ReportofWorkCompleted

Task1:DataGatheringandAssessment/QAQC

GeoPlan was tasked with collecting the following GIS data, where available, from the pilot counties and 

other sources.  Appendix 1 describes the data lists in more detail. 

a. PSAP Call Data Layers: 

Roads Data Layer 

Railroad Layer  

Hydrology Layer 

Mile Marker Locations  

Site/ Structure Locations (Building/ Address Point File)  

Municipality Boundaries  

b. Emergency Service Data Layers: 

Emergency Service Agency Locations  

Emergency Service Zone Boundaries  

Public safety responding agency locations 

Jurisdictional boundaries for county and city response zones 

Wireless cell tower site locations 

Cell Site Coverage polygons (including cell sector radio frequency) 

Landmarks/ significant structure layers  

c. Ancillary Data: 

Water and channel markers  

Beach points 

Marinas  

Boat Ramps  

Parks & Golf Courses 

Trails  

Fire Stations   

GeoPlan staff received data from county personnel and also downloaded data from county websites.  

Where data was not available from county or municipal sources, state and national sources were 

reviewed to fill the data gaps.  GeoPlan evaluated the collected GIS data for spatial accuracy, attribute 

accuracy, and completeness.   Appendix 2 contains a list of all data collected from the counties and 

other sources. 

 

The availability of base layers for 911 mapping varied for each county.  Data such as centerlines, 

emergency service agency locations, emergency service zones, address points, significant structures and 

municipality boundaries were generally available and complete from each county.  Data such as water 

and channel markers, trails, and beach points were generally not available from each county.  With the 

4  

exception of Brevard County, cell tower location data and cell sector coverage data was not available 

from the counties.  Cell tower data received for this pilot project was collected from AT&T and the 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Task2:SynchronizationofCountyStreetCenterlineDataandMSAG(MasterStreetAddressGuide)

One major task in building the regional E911 GIS database was synchronization, or comparison, of the 

county street centerline GIS data and the Master Street Address Guide (MSAG).  The MSAG, a database 

of street names and house address ranges with their associated emergency service zone numbers, has 

long been integral in routing traditional wireline 9‐1‐1 calls to the appropriate call center (PSAP – public 

safety answering point).  Once calls are routed to the appropriate PSAP, the address of the caller is 

identified using the ALI (Automatic Location Identification) database, which lists the physical addresses 

associated with each landline phone number.  

 

Since the proliferation of wireless devices, additional methods, namely GIS, must be employed to locate 

a 9‐1‐1 caller’s location.  The FCC has mandated the use of GIS in their E‐9‐11 Phase I & II regulations, 

making the need for accurate GIS data more relevant.  MSAGs for the pilot area are maintained by the 

local telephone companies, while the GIS centerline data are maintained by the county government.   

Both of these databases are still needed for 9‐1‐1 routing, so both need to be maintained.   

 

For this task, GeoPlan was developing a partially automated process to synchronize the centerline data 

and the MSAG.   This process would assist in identifying the inconsistencies between the centerline data 

and the MSAG, and vice versa.  Some automation of the synchronization process is ideal as both the 

MSAG database and the centerline database will change over time, and the synchronization will need to 

be repeated.  The process was near complete at the time of project termination, but production version 

of scripts and tools developed were not fully complete.   

 

In order to compare the MSAG, which is a non‐spatial database, and the GIS centerline data, which is a 

spatial database, GeoPlan created a “spatial” MSAG so that MSAG data could be spatially overlaid with 

the GIS centerline data.  A spatial MSAG was created by geo‐coding the high and low address ranges in 

the MSAG in order to create a spatial representation of the address ranges in the MSAG.  The 

methodology is explained is more detail below. 

MethodologyforMSAG/CenterlineSynchronization

The following methodology was used for synchronizing the MSAG and Centerline data: 

Data Standardization:  Centerline Data and MSAG  

Creation of a Spatial MSAG  

Spatial Join of Spatial MSAG to Street Centerlines 

Error Flagging 

 

5  

Data Standardization:  Centerline Data and MSAG 

The attributes of the GIS Street Centerline data and the county MSAGs were both standardized so that 

road naming conventions and community names would be consistent.   Centerline data and MSAG were 

standardized following the guidelines in the NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic 

Information System databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA 71‐501, Version 1.1, September 8, 2009.  The 

street centerline data was also formatted to fit the schema specified in NENA Standard Data Formats for 

9‐1‐1 Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA 02‐010, Version 9, December 16, 2010.  Street suffix 

abbreviations were standardized using the USPS Publication No. 28, Appendix C1. 

 

According to the NENA 71‐501 standard document, standardization of the GIS road centerline data and 

the MSAG data should incorporate the following: 

• N, S, E, W, NE, NW, SE, or SW are the only prefix and suffix directional abbreviations which are 

used, when a prefix and / or suffix directional is present. 

• All punctuation should be avoided. 

• Remove special characters (dash, underscore, apostrophe, quotes or any other special 

characters that could cause problems in any of the software or databases). 

• Use only whole numbers in the house number fields (fractional house numbers belong in the 

House Number Suffix field). 

• Use complete spelling of the legal street name assigned by the addressing authority (e.g. Saint 

Albans versus St Albans). 

• Spell out the complete MSAG and Postal Community name. 

• Prefix directional is only abbreviated when not part of the actual street name (North Dr would 

not be abbreviated to N Dr). 

• Post directional abbreviated when they are not the actual street name. (Lone Pine Dr South 

would be abbreviated to Lone Pine Dr S, but Loop West Dr would not be abbreviated to Loop W 

Dr). 

• Standardize street suffix according USPS Publication No. 28 

 

The rules above were used for standardization of the centerline GIS data and the MSAG data.  GeoPlan 

staff developed a tool to automate the standardization using these NENA rules.  The tool was written in 

Python scripting language to be deployed from ArcGIS 10.  The tool accepts an input table or shapefile, 

adds the fields specified in the NENA 02‐010 schema, and transforms the input data according to the 

NENA 71‐501 rules.  All original input data is preserved.  See Appendix 3 & 4 for more detail of the tool.  

Appendix 3 gives a description of NENA Standardization Tool, and Appendix 4 is a flowchart displaying 

the work flow of the NENA Standardization Tool.  The tool can also be downloaded from this project’s 

website (http://e911.geoplan.ufl.edu); access described in Task 4.  The tool was still in development at 

the time of project termination; however a working version of the tool is available for the counties and 

public to use as is.   

 

Create a Spatial MSAG  

In order to compare the MSAG, which is a non‐spatial database, to the street centerline data, which is a 

spatial database, GeoPlan created a Spatial MSAG so that MSAG data could be spatially overlaid with the 

6  

GIS centerline data.  A Spatial MSAG (also called a “Graphic” MSAG), is a spatial representation of the 

address ranges in the MSAG, and was created by geo‐coding the high and low addresses.  Geocoding is 

the term used to describe the act of address matching, or finding a geographic location (x, y point) for an 

address on a map. Geocoding is based off the typical address scheme in the US, in which one side of the 

street contains even house numbers, while the other side of the street contains odd house numbers.  

The geocoding process uses an algorithm to find the geographic location of the address. First, a street 

segment is identified using the zip code and street name. Next, the geographic location of the address is 

matched using the building number to determine how far down the street and on which side of the 

street the building is located.  

 

Before geocoding the MSAG, some data preparation was needed to insure accurate geocoding results.  

The MSAG data included Community Name with each address, but not corresponding Zip code 

information for each address.  Address matching based on the Community Name field would have 

yielded a lower level of accuracy than using zip codes.  In order to increase MSAG address matching 

capabilities, GeoPlan first used the ArcGIS 10 GeoCoding Online Server Locator to add the appropriate 

zip code information to the MSAG.  The locator is based on 2010 Q2 TomTom (Tel Atlas) reference data 

for the United States. 

 

The high and low address ranges were then geocoded to county centerline data using the zipcodes as 

the zone locator.  Results were reviewed and match ties were checked for accuracy. 

 

Spatial Join of Spatial MSAG to Street Centerlines 

After the MSAG high and low address ranges were geocoded to the county centerlines, the geocoded 

MSAG was then spatially joined to the Centerlines.  This allowed for the attributes of the MSAG to be 

spatially attached to the centerlines and records between the two could be compared.  From there, ESN 

numbers contained in the MSAG were assigned to centerline segments.  Attributes of both databases 

could then be compared to identify differences and inconsistencies. 

 

Error Flagging 

In this step, records in both the MSAG and centerlines were marked with a code, so the data could be 

reviewed later by the data steward.  The purpose of the error flagging is to identify inconsistencies 

between the two data sources and errors in the data.  Each error code denotes a particular issue.  Every 

record marked with a code does not necessary represent an error, but a difference or inconsistency with 

the other data source (i.e. – where MSAG and centerline data vary).  Full error flagging of all six pilot 

counties was not completed at this time of project termination.  

 

Full synchronization of the MSAG and street centerline data for all six pilot counties was not completed 

due to early termination of the project.  Below is a list of some of the common issues encountered 

during the synchronization process:  

Lack of address ranges: NENA standards require that high and low address ranges be assigned to 

all street centerline segments.  Many street centerline databases are not designed in this way. 

Incorrect address ranges.  

7  

Actual versus theoretical or continuous address ranges.  Some address ranges represented 

actual address ranges, which correspond to physical addresses. Other address ranges 

represented the continuous or “theoretical” address range which could occur on a street 

segment (eg: 1 – 99).  

No ESNs assigned to Centerlines. None of the street centerline data layers contained an ESN 

designation.  

Task3:DatabaseSchemaCreation,DataStandardizationandCompilation

Task three involved creating and populating common database schemas for the regional E911 database. 

After initial QA/QC of the pilot counties’ GIS data, data was processed and compiled in three general 

steps: (1) Creation of GIS database schemas; (2) Conversion and standardization of data to match 

schemas and NENA guidelines where applicable; and (3) Compilation of county data into a regional 

database.   Where applicable, the GIS database was made consistent with the National Emergency 

Number Association (NENA) Standard Data Formats for ALI Related Data Exchange, MSAG & GIS 

Mapping (NENA 02‐010), Version 9.  A common schema was created for ancillary data which are not 

specified in NENA standards. 

 

Creation of GIS Database Schemas 

A common database schema for 911 GIS Mapping is specified in the document ‐ NENA Standard Data 

Formats for 9‐1‐1 Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA 02‐010, Version 9, December 16, 2010.  GIS 

database schemas, as specified in NENA standard 02‐010, were created for the following layers: 

• Street Centerlines 

• Railroads 

• Railroad Grade Crossings 

• Hydrology Features (Line) 

• Hydrology Features (Polygons) 

• Mile & Water/ Channel Markers 

• Site/ Structure Locations (Address/ Building Points) 

• County Boundaries 

• Municipality Boundaries 

• Emergency Service Agency Locations 

• Emergency Service Zone Boundaries (ESNs) 

• Emergency Service Agency Response Zones 

• Cell Tower Location 

• Cell Sector Cover 

 

   

8  

GeoPlan created a common schema for the following layers (these were not listed in the NENA standard 

02‐010): 

• Boat Ramps 

• Marinas 

• Beach Points/ Beach Access 

• Parks and Golf Courses 

 

A common schema was not created for Trails, as the regional trails layer was not compiled and 

completed before project termination.  Complete schema documentation of the NENA standard layers 

are described in Appendix 5.  Complete schema documentation of the additional layers (non‐NENA 

standard) are described in Appendix 6. 

 

Conversion and Standardization of Data  

After the schemas were created, the existing data was matched to the schemas and NENA guidelines 

where applicable.   Attributes values were checked and transformed to valid values according to 

standard.  This was done at the county level.  At the date of project termination, not all data had been 

converted and standardized.  Appendix G lists the status of the data standardization and compilation. 

 

Compilation of county data into a regional database 

Once the individual county data was converted to the standard schemas, the county data was then 

loaded into a regional database.  At the date of project termination, not all data had been compiled into 

a regional database.   Appendix 7 lists the status of the data standardization and compilation.  The layers 

that have been completed (or completed with as much data as was available at the time of termination) 

are available for download via the following website: 

http://e911.geoplan.ufl.edu 

  

Common Coordinate System/ Spatial Reference 

A common coordinate system or spatial reference system was used for the compiled county data.  

Review of the source data collected from the counties revealed that most counties stored their data in 

the State Plane East coordinate system.  Some counties used the HARN/HPGN revision of the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83 HARN) and others used the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).  

NAD83 HARN is a state level readjustment of NAD83 coordinates to increase accuracy, but in Florida, 

there is only a slight difference (According to National Geodetic Survey, an average difference of 0.008 – 

0.014 Meter ) between NAD83 and NAD83 HARN.  For purposes of this pilot, State Plan East with NAD83 

HARN was used for this project.  The specific parameters are as follows: 

  Well‐known ID: 2881 

Name:   NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Florida_East_FIPS_0901_Feet 

Projection: Transverse_Mercator 

False_Easting: 656166.666667 

False_Northing: 0.000000 

Central_Meridian: ‐81.000000 

Scale_Factor: 0.999941 

9  

Latitude_Of_Origin: 24.333333 

Linear Unit: Foot_US (0.304801) 

 

Geographic Coordinate System: GCS_North_American_1983_HARN 

Angular Unit: Degree (0.017453292519943299) 

Prime Meridian: Greenwich (0.000000000000000000) 

Datum: D_North_American_1983_HARN 

  Spheroid: GRS_1980 

    Semimajor Axis: 6378137.000000000000000000 

    Semiminor Axis: 6356752.314140356100000000 

    Inverse Flattening: 298.257222101000020000 

 

Task4:DataDistribution

To facilitate data sharing, coordination, and future updates to the regional E911 GIS database, the 

GeoPlan Center was tasked with building and hosting a secure, password‐protected website, from which 

the pilot counties and their PSAPs could download their original county data, standardized county data, 

and the synchronized regional E911 GIS database.  Website plans also included a web map from which 

the E911 data could be viewed. 

 

At the time of project termination, the following work had been completed:   

• A base website with project information and some data layers available for download in 

shapefile and geodatabase format. 

• A web map built using ArcGIS Server, which displays the compiled regional data layers that were 

complete or near completion at time of project termination. 

 

The website URL is: 

http://e911.geoplan.ufl.edu 

 

The website does require a password.  For access, send a request to email e911@geoplan.ufl.edu. 

 

Task5:DevelopmentofUpdateProcessandScheduleforRegionalE911GISDatabase

GIS databases are dynamic, especially those representing locations and features of the built 

environment (such as roads, parcels, schools, hospitals, fire stations, etc).  The urban environment is 

constantly changing, and GIS databases need to be regularly updated to capture and reflect these 

changes.  The GIS data used for 911 data are extremely dynamic; some street centerlines and building 

address points data are updated every day.  Having up to date and accurate street centerlines, address 

points, and accompanying base layers for navigation is vital to quickly and successfully locating a person 

or persons in need of emergency assistance. 

10  

 

Keeping a standards‐compliant, regional E911 GIS database up to date is one of the biggest hurdles in 

this pilot project process.  As stated in the Task 1 report section, stewardship of local data resides in 

varying County departments, such as Growth Management, 911, Addressing, and the Property 

Appraiser’s office.  Individual departments have specific needs and requirements of the data, which may 

not easily mesh with the format of the standard.  Careful planning and coordination between each 

department’s data users must be undertaken to make sure the data can both meet the standard and the 

needs of the local users.  Keeping the database up to date not only requires coordination amongst these 

county departments who maintain and use the data, but also between the counties and the entity 

responsible for compiling the data into a regional database.   

 

Before project termination, GeoPlan was exploring approaches to updating the regional 911 database, in 

an attempt to design realistic and accessible methods for updating the regional database.  As each 

county’s GIS system is structured and organized differently, there is not a one‐size fits all method to 

updating a regional database.  Each county’s unique work flow must be accounted for in the design 

process.  Furthermore, the level of effort for updating the database will vary greatly depending on the 

level of participation by each county.  Some counties may have interest in adopting the standard, but 

not have the resources to do so.  Some counties will have both the interest to adopt the standard and 

the resources maintain the data in the standard.  Some counties may decide that the standard does not 

fit the needs of their users and business model and may choose not to adopt the standard. 

The following lists some of the major issues in adopting a common standard at the county level.  These 

hurdles are not insurmountable, but are real and must be addressed for a regional, standards‐compliant 

database to move forward. 

Lack of resources (financial, staff time, technological) to implement/ convert county data to a 

common standard. 

Lack of resources (financial, staff time, technological) to collect additional data detailed by NENA 

standards, and to correct existing data. 

Data tied to existing business processes amongst numerous departments. Specific fields and 

data structure/schema are required by many departments.  Changing the data’s schema 

requires laborious and time intensive coordination between all stakeholders.  

 

Full adoption of the NENA Standard involves creation and maintenance of the eight required GIS layers 

and their minimum attributes indicated in GIS Data Model, Version 2.0 (listed in NENA Standard Data 

Formats for 9‐1‐1 Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA 02‐010, Version 9, December 16, 2010.)  In 

addition, there are six optional GIS layers listed in the GIS Data Model.  The NENA standard lists the 

minimum attributes that must be present in the GIS layers, but does not require that these be the only 

fields.  Most counties and governmental entities will need to maintain additional fields required of their 

existing business processes.  

 

Following here are recommendations and example work flows for keeping a regional E911 database 

updated.  Please note, these recommendations and work flows have not fully been fleshed out and were 

11  

still in development at time of project termination.  These represent a cursory workflow which attempt 

to address some of the hurdles discussed above.   

 

Recommendations for Update Process: 

Designate an entity (“the compiler”) responsible for coordination and compilation of the data.  

Some entity (whether public or private) will need to be responsible for compilation of the data 

and coordination of the updates.  The amount of work to be done by the compiler will depend 

on the level of participation by each county. 

Develop tools and scripts for import and standardization of data. These tools can be used by 

the counties and the compiler. Counties which have the resources and interest to pursue the 

standard can use the tools/ scripts to assist in meeting the standards.  The compiler could use 

the tools/ script to standardize data for the counties which do not have the resources and/or 

interest to pursue the standard. 

Set a realistic update schedule/ timeline.  In an ideal world would, updates would occur daily. 

However, given the current status of data in varying formats, the amount of time and work 

involved in keeping the database current prohibits daily updates to a regional database.  To 

begin, a quarterly update would likely be the most realistic time frame for coordinating updates, 

then working towards monthly and weekly updates.  While some might argue that time frame is 

too long, and the data is “out of date”, consider that we are starting with no regional data and 

that this is a pilot.  Once the kinks of an update process are worked out, updates can happen in 

a more timely fashion.  If all pilot counties were keeping their data consistent with the NENA 

standard, then automation of updates to the regional database could be designed and 

implemented, and updates could happen in more frequent time schedules.  

 

Work Flow 1:  

This approach requires the least participation on part of the individual county, but offloads the 

standardization work to an entity (the “compiler”) responsible for standardizing and compiling the 

regional data.  This approach involves developing tools and scripts to import the data into the NENA 

standard schema.  Tools, such as the NENA standardizer developed as part of Task 2, would be used 

here to transform data to the NENA standard.  The data compiler would need a detailed crosswalk of 

original fields to NENA fields, and have a clear understanding of if and how values would need to be 

transformed. 

County and Compiler work together to develop a crosswalk of original fields to NENA fields, and 

a time schedule for updates. 

County maintains and updates data consistent with its usual business process. 

County sends data or posts data to web accessible folder or FTP space (for complier to 

“harvest”). 

Compiler makes copy of original data and performs cursory data check and QAQC 

12  

For street centerline data:  Compiler runs NENA standardizer tool to add and populate NENA 

standard fields to county data. 

For other NENA data layers:  Compiler imports original data into NENA fields based on 

crosswalk, and makes any necessary changes to attributes to fit NENA valid attribute values. 

Data is exported with NENA standard fields and compiled with other county data into regional 

layer. 

Regional database is posted and available for use. 

 

This approach could work for those counties who either do not have the resources to implement a 

common standard, or those counties whose data has existing ties to business processes of numerous 

departments.  But there would need financial commitment from some county, state, or federal agency 

to fund an entity to standardize and compile the data. 

 

Work Flow 2:  

This approach involves a greater commitment on part of the County, as they will have to ensure that 

changes made for NENA compatibility fit within their existing business processes, or they will need to 

modify existing business processes. 

 

County works within its department to develop a plan for adoption of NENA compliant fields/ 

schemas for one or more GIS data layers. 

County maintains and updates data with NENA fields.  County may or may not use tools/ scripts 

to assist with NENA data standardization. 

County and Compiler work together to develop an update schedule. 

County sends data or posts data to web accessible folder or FTP space (for complier to 

“harvest”). 

Compiler performs cursory data check and QAQC. 

Compiler imports data into regional database. 

Regional database is posted and available for use. 

Task6:BackupProcess/Method

Based on the Update Process and Schedule determined in Task 5, a backup and method process was to 

be developed to ensure redundancy and availability of the original and synchronized data.  Due to early 

termination of this project, Task 5 and 6 were not completed and hence a full backup and redundancy 

plan was not implemented.   

 

13  

Conclusion

In order for a regional, standards‐compliant E911 GIS database to be developed and maintained, there 

needs to be commitment and participation by the individual counties to move towards adopting a 

standard at the local level.  While the current economic climate may not permit the level of 

commitment necessary to develop and maintain such a database, the need still exists.  Investing in a 

common standard for the GIS data used in 9‐1‐1 systems would allow data to be shared regionally and 

even statewide to support major emergencies that cross county boundaries.  It would be in the best 

interest of the state to help the counties move towards adoption of a common standard through 

financial assistance and development of technical tools and resources.   

 

Furthermore, GIS has become a critical and required component in 9‐1‐1 systems, and the maintenance 

of GIS data should to be integrated and coordinated with 9‐1‐1 business processes and workflows.  

Street centerline data and the MSAG should be maintained in tandem, instead of being maintained 

separately.  This integrated maintenance approach would yield a more accurate and efficient database 

for locating and responding to citizens in need. 

 

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 1 , Page 1

Layer Description Type Standard  Category

CENTERLINES (ROAD DATA LAYER) Centerline Roads Data Layer (streets, roads, highways including 

geocode accuracy based on the existing centerline data.

Line NENA/ 

MSAG

PSAP Call Layers

RAILROADS National and local railroad databases Line NENA PSAP Call Layers

HYDROLOGY (LINE) Streams, lakes or rivers, WMD features Line NENA PSAP Call Layers

HYDROLOGY (POLY) Streams, lakes or rivers, WMD features Polygon NENA PSAP Call Layers

MILE MARKERS Mile Marker Locations (highway transportation markers) Point NENA PSAP Call Layers

SITE/ STRUCTURE LOCATIONS (Building 

Point File)

Site/Structure Locations including existing county data. Point NENA PSAP Call Layers

COUNTY BOUNDARIES County boundaries Polygon NENA PSAP Call Layers

MUNICIPALITY BOUNDARIES Municipality boundaries. This layer maintains only the jurisdictional 

boundaries for use in the map display. Attribute infor for this layer 

must include municipality, county and state. If it is not part of the ESZ 

coverage, it must align with this coverage where necessary.

Polygon NENA PSAP Call Layers

EMERGENCY SERVICE AGENCY 

LOCATIONS

Location of each responding emergency service provider (Law 

Enforcement, Fire, Emergency Medical Service).  Used to route 

emergency service calls from the correct emergency service provider to 

the emergency location.

Point NENA Emergency 

Service Data 

Layers

EMERGENCY SERVICE ZONE 

BOUNDARIES

Emergency Service Zone Boundary layer (ESNs).   Polygon NENA Emergency 

Service Data 

LayersPUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDING AGENCY 

LOCATIONS

Public safety responding agency locations (PSAPs, i.e. ‐ call centers) Point N/A Emergency 

Service Data 

LayersEMERGENCY SERVICE AGENCY 

BOUNDARIES

Jurisdictional boundaries for county and city response zones (Fire 

response zones, police zones, etc)

Polygon NENA Emergency 

Service Data 

Layers

Regional E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act Grant

List of All GIS Data Layers to be collected

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 1 , Page 2

CELL SITE LOCATIONS Wireless cell tower site locations. Point NENA Emergency 

Service Data 

LayersCELL SITE COVERAGE Cell Site Coverage polygons: including wireless carrier cell sector radio 

frequency. 

Polygon NENA Emergency 

Service Data 

LayersLANDMARKS/ SIGNIFICANT 

STRUCTURES

Names of place points within a 9‐1‐1 Authority for navigational aids.  Point USGS Emergency 

Service Data 

Layers

WATER AND CHANNEL MARKERS Water and Channel Markers Point N/A OTHER

BEACH POINTS Beach Points Point N/A OTHER

MARINAS Marinas Point N/A OTHER

BOAT RAMPS Boat Ramps Point N/A OTHER

PARKS & GOLF COURSES Parks & Golf Courses Point N/A OTHER

TRAILS  Trails & Trail Markers  Line N/A OTHER

FIRE STATIONS Fire Stations (Included with Emergency Service Agency Locations layer) Point N/A OTHER

RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING 

(OPTIONAL)

Railroad grade crossings (OPTIONAL LAYER listed in NENA standards)  Point NENA OTHER

ANCILLARY DATA

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 2, Page 1

Central Florida Regional Mapping System Project for ENHANCE 911 GrantData Inventory, as of February 20, 2012

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Once a week Brevard Cnty

FLAGLER Y Monthly Flagler Cnty

ORANGE Y Daily Orange Cnty Growth Mgmt

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty

SEMINOLE Y DailySem Cnty Addressing & Growth 

Mgmt

VOLUSIA Y As needed Volusia Cnty Growth Mgmt

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y USDOT/ BTS/ FDOT USDOT and FDOT rail databases

FLAGLER Y USDOT/ BTS/ FDOT USDOT and FDOT rail databases

ORANGE Y Orange County, USDOT/ BTSUSDOT and FDOT rail databases, and County rails 

layer

OSCEOLA Y USDOT/ BTS/ FDOT USDOT and FDOT rail databases

SEMINOLE YSem Cnty Planning, USDOT/ 

BTS

USDOT and FDOT rail databases, and County rails 

layer

VOLUSIA Y USDOT/ BTS/ FDOT USDOT and FDOT rail databases

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y County, USGSCounty water layer + USGS NHD (National 

Hydrology Dataset)

FLAGLER Y USGS USGS NHD

ORANGE Y USGS USGS NHD

OSCEOLA Y USGS USGS NHD

SEMINOLE Y Sem Cnty Planning County water layer + USGS NHD

VOLUSIA Y USGS USGS NHD

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty I‐95 & SR 528

FLAGLER Y Flagler CntyPoint gps‐located prior to I‐95 widening; metadata 

needed

ORANGE NNot available from County. GeoPlan trying to 

locate from other sources (FDOT RCI & NAVTEQ)

OSCEOLA N Osceola Cnty Waiting on data for Turnpike and I‐4 from County

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty I‐4 & SR 417

VOLUSIA Y Volusia Cnty I‐95/ I‐4 only

Road Centerline Data Layer 

The following GIS data has been collected from County, State, and National data sources as part of the Central FL 

Railroad Layer (national and local railroad databases)

Hydrology Layer(s): WMD features, i.e.; streams, lakes or rivers

Mile Marker Location Layer

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 2, Page 2

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Prop Appraiser

FLAGLER N Flagler Cnty2/12: In process of updating w/ Prop Appraiser. 

Will not be avail until later in 2012

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty Zoning Division

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty GIS

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty GIS

VOLUSIA Y Volusia Cnty Growth Mgmt

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty Municipality bnds/ CNTBND (Prop Appraiser)

FLAGLER Y Flagler Cnty Municipality bnds

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty Municipality bnds

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty Municipality bnds

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty  County and municipality bnds

VOLUSIA Y Volusia Cnty Municipality bnds

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Once a week Brevard CntyFire Stations, Law Enforcement locations in 

Landmarks layer

FLAGLER Y Flagler Cnty Fire Stations, Law Enforcement locations, EMS 

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty Fire Stations, Law Enforcement locations

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty Fire Stations, Law Enforcement locations

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty public safety Fire Stations

VOLUSIA Y As needed Volusia Cnty Fire Stations, Law Enforcement locations

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Once a week Brevard Cnty ESN layer

FLAGLER N Flagler CntyContacted Gayle Starling in Dec & Jan, ESNs not 

available yet.

ORANGE Y As needed Orange Cnty ESN layer

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty Same as FIRE ZONES

SEMINOLE Y As needed Seminole Cnty public safety ESN layer

VOLUSIA Y As needed Volusia Cnty ESN layer

Emergency Service Agency Location layer (point layer)

Emergency Service Zones layer (polygon) ESNs

Municipality and county boundaries

Site/Structure Location Layer (Address Points)

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 2, Page 3

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

FLAGLER Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

ORANGE Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

OSCEOLA Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

SEMINOLE Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

VOLUSIA Y DMS Spreadsheet of PSAPs provided by Wink/ DMS

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty 911 County Sheriff Zones

FLAGLER Y Flagler Cnty Law Enforcement & Fire Reponse Zones

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty Sheriff Zones and Sectors

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty Fire and Law Zones

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty Fire Response Zones, Sheriff Patrol Boundaries

VOLUSIA Y Volusia Cnty Fire Response Zones, Police Zones

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty, FCC, AT&T

FLAGLER Y FCC, AT&T

ORANGE Y FCC, AT&T

OSCEOLA Y FCC, AT&T

SEMINOLE Y FCC, AT&T

VOLUSIA Y FCC, AT&T

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source   Notes

BREVARD Y AT&T, Brevard Cnty

FLAGLER Y AT&T

ORANGE Y AT&T

OSCEOLA Y AT&T

SEMINOLE Y AT&T

VOLUSIA Y AT&T

Avg Sector Radius Range & Beam width not 

included in ATT data. Brevard County is working 

on calculating their own cell sector coverage 

polygons and have shared.  GP is working on mock‐

up of sector coverage polygons from ATT points.

Emergency Service Agency Boundary layer (polygons of jurisdictional boundaries for county and city response zones) 

Public safety responding agency locations (PSAPs)

Wireless cell tower site locations

Cell Site Coverage polygon data layer: including wireless carrier cell sector radio frequency

Multiple points/records per tower in ATT data. 

Every tower has been spatially verified to greatest 

extent possible (rooftop antennea structures 

cannot be verified as good from high res aerials). 

Created regional layer of unique tower locations. 

Waiting on more data

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 2, Page 4

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD YUSGS Structures/ Brevard 

County

USGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer. Also have 

layers of Brevard landmarks, schools and parks.

FLAGLER Y USGS StructuresUSGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer. Also have 

Flagler Schools

ORANGE Y USGS Structures USGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer

OSCEOLA Y USGS Structures USGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer

SEMINOLE Y As neededSeminole Cnty Public Safety, 

USGS Structures

USGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer. Also have 

layers of Seminole apartments, bus stops, 

cemeteries, churches, schools, daycares, hotels

VOLUSIA Y

As needed/ 

annual review 

(April)

Volusia Cnty, USGS Structures

USGS_STRUCTURES a good base layer. Volusia has 

good coverage of landmarks/ structures in USGS 

Structures layer

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD N FWRI

FLAGLER N FWRI

ORANGE N FWRI

OSCEOLA N FWRI

SEMINOLE N FWRI

VOLUSIA N FWRI

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y Various Compiiled from web sources of beach access

FLAGLER Y Various Compiiled from web sources of beach access

ORANGE N/A N/A Not a coastal county

OSCEOLA N/A N/A Not a coastal county

SEMINOLE N/A N/A Not a coastal county

VOLUSIA Y annual review Volusia Cnty

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y FWRIFWRI Marine Facilities includes marinas for coastal 

counties

FLAGLER Y FWRIFWRI Marine Facilities layer includes marinas for 

coastal counties

ORANGE N N/A

OSCEOLA N N/A

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty GIS

VOLUSIA Y annual review Volusia Cnty, FWRIFWRI Marine Facilities layer includes marinas 

for coastal counties

FL Aids to Navigation from FWRI used for channel 

markers (FGDL Layer CGATON_JAN09 Version)

Water and Channel Markers

Landmarks/Significant Structure Layers (names of place points within a County for navigational aids)

Marinas

Beach Points

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 ActAttachment 2, Page 5

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y FWRI FWRI Boat Ramps Layer

FLAGLER Y FWRI FWRI Boat Ramps Layer

ORANGE Y USGS Structures/ FWRIUSGS Structures has boatramps, FWRI Boat Ramps 

Layer

OSCEOLA Y FWRI  FWRI Boat Ramps Layer

SEMINOLE YSeminole Cnty GIS/ USGS 

Structures/ FWRI

USGS Structures has boatramps, FWRI Boat Ramps 

Layer

VOLUSIA Y annual reviewVolusia Cnty/ FWRI

FWRI Boat Ramps Layer

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty/ GeoPlan Parks polygon layer (golf courses included)

FLAGLER Y Flagler Cnty/ GeoPlan Parks polygon layer (golf courses included)

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty/ FDOR/ GeoPlan

Parks point layer for County.  Parks polygon layer 

for City of Orlando. Completed rest of county 

parks polygons using parcel data. No Golf Course 

layer ‐ used parcel data to identify.

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty Parks layer (golf courses included)

SEMINOLE YSeminole Cnty GIS/ FDOR/ 

GeoPlan

Parks point layer. Golf course polygon layer. 

Created park polygons using parcel data.

VOLUSIAY

Volusia CntyParks polygon layer, separate Golf Courses 

polygon layer

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y GeoPlanGeoPlan has Rec Trails layer. Local sources would 

be good to supplement

FLAGLER Y GeoPlanGeoPlan has Rec Trails layer. Local sources would 

be good to supplement

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty/ GeoPlan Can use local source + GeoPlan layer

OSCEOLA Y GeoPlanGeoPlan has Rec Trails layer. Local sources would 

be good to supplement

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty GIS/ GeoPlan Can use local source + GeoPlan layer

VOLUSIA Y Volusia Cnty/ GeoPlan Can use local source + GeoPlan layer

CountyHave 

data?

Update 

ScheduleData Source  Notes

BREVARD Y Brevard Cnty

FLAGLER Y Flagler Cnty

ORANGE Y Orange Cnty

OSCEOLA Y Osceola Cnty

SEMINOLE Y Seminole Cnty

VOLUSIA Yas needed 

annual reviewVolusia Cnty Fire hydrants too

Parks & Golf Courses

Fire Stations (will be included with Emergency Service Agency Locations layer)

Trails

Boat Ramps

Regional E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act, Attachment 3, Page 1  

 

NENA Standardization Tool (Version .7) 1 

University of Florida GeoPlan Center 

Overview 

The NENA Standardization tool is an Arcgis 10 tool that standardizes street names according to the following NENA documents:  NENA Standard Data Formats for 9‐1‐1. Data Exchange & GIS Mapping NENA, 02‐010, Version 9, March 28, 2011 and NENA Information Document for Synchronizing Geographic Information system databases with MSAG & ALI, NENA 71‐501, Version 1.1, September 8, 2009. 

The NENA GIS Data Model, as specified in the NENA 02‐010 standards document, identifies the minimal attributes required in a spatial dataset.  The NENA71‐501 standards document lists the format which the street centerline data should include.  It also includes standardization rules to follow to ensure that street attributes are formatted according to the NENA GIS Data Model schema and valid attribute values.   

The NENA standardization tool can be used on any address field to transform the address to the NENA standard. The tool takes the street name text and scrubs it of any unwanted characters and formats.  After cleaning the street name, the script parses out the street name into its components (required fields) according to the NENA standard found. The output of the NENA standardization tool is a new table or feature class that contains all of the Standard NENA fields as well as the fields contained in the original input table.  

 This tool was written to assist with a pilot project entitled “Regional E911 Mapping Support for 

Enhanced 911 Act Grant”.  This tool was written to assist in standardizing and synchronizing GIS street centerline data and MSAG data.  

Requirements 

Software:  ArcGIS 10  

Input Details 

Input:  A Table or Feature Class that contains a street address 

Input2:  Street Name field  (do not include house numbers or address ranges) 

Output:  NENA_”input_table_name” (same location as input) 

NENA Standard Fields added to input table:  2 

"LOWADDRESSLEFT", "HIGHADDRESSLEFT", "LOWADDRESSRIGHT","HIGHADDRESSRIGHT", 

"PREFIXDIRECTIONAL", "STREETNAMEPRETYPE", "STREETNAME", "STREETSUFFIX", "POSTDIRECTIONAL", 

"ROADCLASS", "ONEWAY", "POSTALCOMMUNITYLEFT", "POSTALCOMMUNITYRIGHT", 

                                                            1 This script is not complete, and is provided as is. Please look to the following pages to review what cases the script has been tested with.  2 Fields in red are modified and overwritten by the NENA Standardization Script 

Regional E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act, Attachment 3, Page 2  

"POSTALCODELEFT", "POSTALCODERIGHT", "MSAGCOMMUNITYLEFT","MSAGCOMMUNITYRIGHT", 

"ESNLEFT", "ESNRIGHT", "SEGMENTID", "COUNTYNAMELEFT", "COUNTYNAMERIGHT", "COUNTYIDLEFT",  

"COUNTYIDRIGHT", "STATEPROVINCELEFT", "STATEPROVINCERIGHT", "DATASOURCE", "LASTUPDATE" 

Unique Street Case Details 

Unique Street Names are handled according to USPS Addressing Standards  

(SR‐35, SR 35, ST RD 35, State Rd 35) becomes State Road 35 

o This includes similar changes to streets like County Roads(CR‐7), US Highways(US‐1), and 

Interstates(“I‐4”) 

Hyphens, periods, commas, underscores, and backslashes are removed. 

Characters contained in parenthesis and after forward Slashes are moved to an Alternate 

StreetName Field.  

 

  

NENA StandardizerE911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 4, Page 1

Script

Database

Output Table

Input Table

NENA Standardizer Script LogicE911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 4, Page 2

Input Table

Input Street Name

Process loop 1Scrub Addresses

Get AltnameAdd fields

Calculate field

Add field

Standardize & Parse Address

Loop Process Flags ill handled street

names

Output table Created

Standardized StreetName

Loop Process for mapping to NENA

fields

Cleanup processing

fields

Output table

Scrubbed StreetName

Alternate Streetname

Prefix Direction

Prefix Type

Street Name

Suffix Type

Suffix Direction

NENA Parsed Street

PreDir

PreType

StreetName

SufType

SufDir

Parsed Street

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 1

CELL_COVERAGE: Cell Site Coverage

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4  Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0  Feature geometry.

ACCESSPROVIDERID  String 8  LDT Provider Identification Code

CELLSITENUMERICID  String 255  Carrier's Cell site ID

CELLSITEUNIQUEID  String 255  Cell Site Identifier provided by the wireless service provider  it 

is unique to the cell site.

CELLSITESECTORID  String 2  Carrier Sector ID usually indicates Omni or multi‐sectored 

antenna faces.

CELLSITENUMERICSECTORID  SmallInteger 2  Carrier Sector ID usually indicates Omni or multi‐sectored 

antenna faces.

ESRD  Integer 4  ESRD is a 10 digit number used for routing a wireless call and 

is assigned by cell sector. ESRK is a 10 digit number for routing 

and is assigned as a pool of numbers to a PSAP. The first 

number of range is entered here.

SECTORORIENTATIONAZIMUTH  SmallInteger 3  Orientation of the cell sector antenna face,  with North being 

0 degrees and South = 180 degrees.

SECTORCOMPASSORIENTATION  String 3  Cell Sector Antenna orientation compass direction. An alpha 

indicator of the section directional ‐ e.g. NE, WSW, etc.

SECTORBEAMWIDTH  SmallInteger 3  Width of the sector antenna beam in degrees,  under normal 

operating conditions

SECTORAVERAGERADIUS  Integer 8  Average true sector radius range (under average operating 

conditions.) Radius at which cell tower's polygon of influence 

ends and another begins.

Central Florida Regional Mapping System Project for ENHANCE 911 Grant

NENA Standard GIS Data Layers: Draft Schemas

Described below are the draft schema for GIS layers to be compiled as part of the Central Florida Regional 

Mapping System Project for the ENHANCE 911 Grant.  The schemas below are consistent with the NENA Standard 

Data Formats for 9‐1‐1 Data Exchange & GIS Mapping, NENA‐02‐010, Version 9, December 16, 2010.  The schemas 

are listed as "draft" as the field lengths may change to accommodate incoming data.  

This data set represents the maximum Radio Frequency (RF) area of each wireless cell sector as provided by the 

wireless carrier. A cell site may have one or more sectors. This data is for the following 6 central Florida counties 

(Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia).

Compiled by the University of Florida GeoPlan Center

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 2

COVERAGESOURCE  String 1  C=Company map,  D=Digital data from Company,  P=GIS 

Propagation Study,  L=Line of Site analysis,  R=Range Defined

DATASOURCE  String 255  Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8  Date of last update. Format CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8  Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8  Area of feature in internal units squared.

CELLSITE_LOCATION: Cell Tower Locations

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4  Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0  Feature geometry.

ACCESSPROVIDERID  String 5  NENA Company ID (www.NENA.org)

NAME  String 255  Carrier Name

CELLSITENUMERICID  Integer 4  Carrier Cell Site ID

CELLSITECOMMONNAME  String 255  Cell Site Common Name (assigned by wireless carrier)

CELLSITEUNIQUEID  String 255 Cell Site Identifier provided by the wireless service provider,  it 

is unique to the cell site

CELLSITEADDRESS  String 255  The address of the cell tower as provided by the wireless 

service provider. Needs to be MSAG valid

HOUSENUMPREFIX  String 255  House Prefix Number

HOUSENUM  Integer 10  House Number

HOUSENUMSUFFIX  String 4  House Number Suffix

PREFIXDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Prefix Directional ‐ Leading street direction prefix (N, S, E, W, 

NE, NW, SE, SW)

STREETNAMEPRETYPE  String 255  The element of the complete street name preceding the 

street name element indicated the type of street. These are 

typically Street Suffixes according to Appendix C in USPS 

Publication 28. However  they are not abbreviated when used 

in this field.

STREETNAME  String 60  Street Name: Valid street name as assigned by local 

addressing authority.

STREETSUFFIX  String 4  Valid Street abbreviation,  as defined by the US Postal Service 

Publication 28. (e.g. AVE)

POSTDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Trailing street direction suffix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

POSTALCOMMUNITY  String 32  Postal Community Name

MSAGCOMMUNITY  String 32  Valid service community name as identified by the MSAG

POSTALCODE  String 10  Postal or Zip code. format NNNNN or ANANAN

This data set contains locations of cell towers for the following 6 central Florida counties (Brevard, Flagler, Orange, 

Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia).

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 3

STATEPROVINCE  String 2  Two character Alpha U.S. State or Canadian province 

abbreviation as defined by Postal Authority or ISO 3166‐2 i.e. 

TX (Texas),  ON (Ontario)

COUNTYNAME  String 255  County Name as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYID  String 5  FIPS County Code as given in FIPS 6‐4

AIRINTERFACETECHNOLOGY  String 255 A=Analog (900MHz),  P=Digital (PCS),  T=TDMA (Digital AMPs),  

G=GSM ‐Type of RF Voice Technology

DATASOURCE  String 255  Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8  Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

CENTERLINE: Road Centerlines

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4  Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0  Feature geometry.

LOWADDRESSLEFT  Integer 10  Lowest address on left side of street in ascending order.

HIGHADDRESSLEFT  Integer 10  Highest address on left side of street in ascending order

LOWADDRESSRIGHT  Integer 10  Lowest address on right side of street in ascending order

HIGHADDRESSRIGHT  Integer 10  Highest address on right side of street in ascending order.

PREFIXDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Leading street direction prefix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

STREETNAMEPRETYPE  String 15  The element of the complete street name preceding the 

street name element that indicates the type of street. These 

are typically Street Suffixes according to Appendix C in USPS 

Publication 28. However  they are not abbreviated when used 

in this field.

STREETNAME  String 60  Valid street name as assigned by local addressing authority.

STREETSUFFIX  String 4  Valid Street abbreviation,  as defined by the US Postal Service 

Publication 28. (e.g. AVE)

POSTDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Trailing street direction suffix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

ROADCLASS  SmallInteger 2  Road class: Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 

Functional Classifications

This data set contains roadway centerlines for the following 6 central Florida counties (Brevard, Flagler, Orange, 

Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia).

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 4

ONEWAY  String 2 One way road classification. The direction of the line is an 

internal attribute maintained by the GIS database. The 

direction of the line can be displayed by symbolizing the 

beginning (FROM) node and the ending (TO) node of the street 

centerline. The direction of the street centerline should be 

FROM the lowest address range TO the highest address range.

POSTALCOMMUNITYLEFT  String 35  Postal Community Name as identified on the left side of the 

street

POSTALCOMMUNITYRIGHT  String 35  Postal Community Name as identified on the right side of the 

street

POSTALCODELEFT  String 10  Postal or Zip code as identified on the Left side of the street. 

Format: ANANAN or NNNNN

POSTALCODERIGHT  String 10  Postal or Zip code as identified on the Right side of the street. 

Format: ANANAN or NNNNN

MSAGCOMMUNITYLEFT  String 35  Valid service community name as identified by the MSAG on 

the left side of the street

MSAGCOMMUNITYRIGHT  String 35  Valid service community name as identified by the MSAG on 

the right side of the street

ESNLEFT  String 5  3‐5 digit Emergency Service Number associated with street 

segment (left side of street)

ESNRIGHT  String 5  3‐5 digit Emergency Service Number associated with street 

segment (right side of street)

SEGMENTID  Integer 38  Unique Road Segment ID number

COUNTYNAMELEFT  String 255  County Name on the Left side of the street as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYNAMERIGHT  String 255  County Name on the right side of the street as given in FIPS 6‐

4

COUNTYIDLEFT  String 5  County Code on the Left side of the street as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYIDRIGHT  String 5  County Code on the right side of the street as given in FIPS 6‐4

STATEPROVINCELEFT  String 2  Two character Alpha U.S. State or Canadian province 

abbreviation as defined by Postal Authority or ISO 3166‐2  

i.e.TX (Texas),  ON (Ontario)

STATEPROVINCERIGHT  String 2  Two character Alpha U.S. State or Canadian province 

abbreviation as defined by Postal Authority or ISO 3166‐2  

i.e.TX (Texas),  ON (Ontario)

DATASOURCE  String 255  Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8  Dateof last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8  Length of feature in internal units.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 5

COUNTY_BND: County Boundary

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

COUNTYNAME  String 255 County Name as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYID  String 5 FIPS County Code as given in FIPS 6‐4

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8 Area of feature in internal units squared.

ESA_BOUNDARY: Emergency Service Agency Boundary

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

PSAPID  String 4  Code identifying the PSAP as listed in the FCC PSAP registry.

COUNTYNAME  String 255 County Name as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYID  String 5 FIPS County Code as given in FIPS 6‐4

AGENCYID  Integer 9 Emergency Service Agency ID

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8 Area of feature in internal units squared.

This data set contains the boundary of the area served by emergency service agencies for the following 6 central 

Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

This data set contains county boundaries for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, 

Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 6

ESA_LOCATION: Emergency Service Agency Location

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

AGENCYTYPE  String 255 Emergency Service Agency Type (law, Fire,EMS, Other)

COUNTYNAME  String 255 County Name as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYID  String 5 FIPS County Code as given in FIPS 6‐4

COMMUNITYID  Integer 10

 Unique Community ID Number i.e. FIPS,  GEOCODES, etc.

AGENCYID  Integer 9 Emergency Service Agency ID defined with the first 5 digits as 

the County ID code and the last 4 digits as the locally assigned 

agency code

AGENCYNAME  String 35 Name of Agency

AGENCYCONTACT  String 255 Agency Contact Person

HOUSENUMPREFIX  String 255

 House Number Prefix to accommodate Alphanumeric 

characters or fire numbers in house number,  i.e. Wisconsin

HOUSENUM  Integer 38 House number

HOUSENUMSUFFIX  String 10 House Number Suffix

PREFIXDIRECTIONAL  String 255 Leading street direction prefix. Valid entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

STREETNAMEPRETYPE  String 255 The element of the complete street name preceding the street 

name element that indicates the type of street. These are 

typically Street Suffixes according to Appendix C in USPS 

Publication 28. However  they are not abbreviated when used 

in this field.

STREETNAME  String 60

 Valid street name as assigned by local addressing authority.

STREETSUFFIX  String 4  Valid Street abbreviation,  as defined by the US Postal Service 

Publication 28. (e.g. AVE)

POSTDIRECTIONAL  String 255 Trailing street direction suffix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

POSTALCOMMUNITY  String 32 Postal Community Name

MSAGCOMMUNITY  String 32

 Valid service community name as identified by the MSAG

POSTALCODE  String 10 Postal or Zip code. Format: NNNN or ANANAN

STATEPROVINCE  String 2 Two character Alpha U.S. State or Canadian province 

abbreviation as defined by Postal Authority or ISO 3166‐2 i.e. 

TX (Texas),  ON (Ontario)

This data set contains the locations of Emergency Service Agencies (police/ law enforcement stations, fire stations, 

emergency medical services) for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, 

Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 7

TELEPHONENUMBER  String 15

 Telephone Number of Agency. Format: NPA‐NXX‐XXXX

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

ESZ: Emergency Service Zones

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

COMMUNITYID  Integer 10  Unique Community ID Number i.e. FIPS,  GEOCODES, etc.

COUNTYNAME  String 255 County Name as given in FIPS 6‐4

COUNTYID  String 5 FIPS County Code as given in FIPS 6‐4

PSAPID  String 4  Code identifying the PSAP as listed in the FCC PSAP registry

AGENCYID  Integer 9 Emergency Service Agency ID

ESN  Integer 5 Emergency Service Number associated with the ESZ

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8 Area of feature in internal units squared.

HYDRO_LINE: Hydrology (line features)

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

SURFACEWATERLINE  String 255 Type of Surface Water (river, stream, etc.)

SURFACEWATERNAME  String 255 Name of Surface Water feature (river, stream, etc.)

SEGMENTID  Integer 38 Unique Hydrology Segment ID

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

This data set contains Emergency Service Zones for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, 

Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

This data set contains hydrographic line features such as streams and rivers for the following 6 central Florida 

counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 8

HYDRO_POLY: Hydrology (polygon features)

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

SURFACEWATERLINE  String 255

Type of Surface Water (pond, lake, large waterway, reservoir, 

etc.)

SURFACEWATERNAME  String 255 Name of Surface Water feature.

SEGMENTID  Integer 38 Unique Hydrology Segment ID

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record.

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8 Area of feature in internal units squared.

MILE_MARKER: Mile Marker Locations

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

MILEPOSTID  Integer 38 Mile Post Identification Number

MILEMARKERTYPE  String 15 Type of Mile Marker

ROUTESYSTEMNAME  String 255 Name of route system (ex: Interstate 85)

SEGMENTID  Integer 38 Unique Road or Railroad Segment ID number

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update (format CCYY‐MM‐DD)

MUNICIPAL_BND: Municipality Boundaries

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

This data set contains hydrographic polygon features such as streams, rivers and ponds for the following 6 central 

Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

This layer includes mile marker locations of various roads, railroads, trails, waterways, coastlines, and boardwalks 

for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

This data set contains the boundaries of municipalities in the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, 

Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 9

COMMUNITYID  String 10  Unique Community ID Number i.e. FIPS, GEOCODES, etc.

MSAGCOMMUNITYNAME  String 35  Valid service community name as identified by the MSAG

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

SHAPE_Area  Double 8 Area of feature in internal units squared.

RAIL_GRADE_CROSS: Railroad Grade Crossings

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

GRADECROSSINGID  Integer 10 Unique USDOT ID for the Crossing

CROSSINGPOSITION  String 10 Position of Crossing

CROSSINGNAME  String 255 Name given to grade crossing

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

RAILROAD: Railroads

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4 Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0 Feature geometry.

LINEOWNER  String 255

Railroad Line Owner (Code of Association of American 

Railroads)

LINENAME  String 255 Railroad Line Sub‐Division Name

LINETYPE  String 255 Line Type: Main,  Secondary or Siding

LINESTATUS  String 255 Line Status ‐ Active or Inactive

SEGMENTID  Integer 38 Unique Railroad Segment ID

LOWMILEPOST  String 255 Beginning Linear Reference

HIGHMILEPOST  String 255 Ending Linear Reference

PASSENGERRAILINDICATOR  String 255 Passenger Rail Indicator

DATASOURCE  String 255 Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8 Date of last update. Format: CCYY‐MM‐DD

SHAPE_Length  Double 8 Length of feature in internal units.

This data set contains railroads for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, Osceola, 

Seminole, and Volusia.

This data set contains railroad crossings for the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, Flagler, Orange, 

Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 5, Page 10

STRUCTURES: Site/ Structure Locations (Address Points)

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHFIELD DEFINITION

OBJECTID  OID 4  Internal feature number.

SHAPE  Geometry 0  Feature geometry.

COMMUNITYID  Integer 10  Unique Community ID Number i.e. FIPS,  GEOCODES, etc.

SITEID  Integer 6  Unique Site ID Number

HOUSENUMPREFIX  String 255  House Number Prefix to accommodate Alphanumeric 

characters or fire numbers in house number i.e. Wisconsin

HOUSENUM  Integer 38  House number

HOUSENUMSUFFIX  String 4  House Number Suffix

LOCATION  String 60  Additional location information. Abbreviated as shown in 

USPS Publication 28,  Appendix C,  Item C2.

PREFIXDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Leading street direction prefix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

STREETNAMEPRETYPE  String 15  The element of the complete street name preceding the 

street name element that indicates the type of street. These 

are typically Street Suffixes according to Appendix C in USPS 

Publication 28. However they are not abbreviated when used 

in this field.

STREETNAME  String 60  Valid street name as assigned by local addressing authority

STREETSUFFIX  String 4  Valid Street abbreviation,  as defined by the US Postal Service 

Publication 28. (e.g. AVE)

POSTDIRECTIONAL  String 255  Trailing street direction suffix. Valid Entries: N, S, E, W, NE, 

NW, SE, SW

ESN  String 5  Emergency Service Number associated with this House 

Number,  Street Name and Community Name

POSTALCOMMUNITY  String 32  Postal Community Name

MSAGCOMMUNITY  String 35  Valid Service community name as identified by the MSAG

POSTALCODE  String 10  Postal or Zip code. Format: NNNNN or ANANAN

LANDMARK  String 60  Landmark or Vanity address

SITETYPE  String 2  Type of Structure ‐ Classification Field

LEFTRIGHT  String 255  Left/Right side of the road

DATASOURCE  String 255  Agency that last updated the record

LASTUPDATE  Date 8  Date of last update. Format: CCYYMMDD

This data set contains address points for buildings/ structures in the following 6 central Florida counties: Brevard, 

Flagler, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 1

Central Florida Regional Mapping System Project for ENHANCE 911 Grant

Common Schemas Created for Ancillary GIS Data Layers

Explanation of Data Types

String: Text or Character

Integer: NumericDouble: Double‐precision floating point

OID: ObjecID field type ‐ inherent to ESRI software 

E911_BEACH_ACCESS: Beach Access Points

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHDESCRIPTION   

OBJECTID OID 4 Internal feature number.

Shape Geometry Feature geometry.

Status String 1ESRI item which denotes the status of the geocoded address 

whether it was matched or not).

Score Integer 4

ESRI item which denotes the score with which the address 

was matched to a feature in the reference data. Records 

markerd with an "0" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Side String 1

ESRI item which denotes the side of the street to which the 

address was matched (for geocoding service styles that can 

match an address to a particular side of a street). Records 

markerd with an "*" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Match_Addr String 85ESRI item which denotes the full street layer address to 

which the address was matched.

NAME String 100 Beach access point designation.

ADDRESS String 65A description of a facility's physical location providing 

direction for delivery and provision of emergency services.

CITY String 40 City of facility's physical location.

ZIPCODE Integer 9 US postal delivery designation of facility's physical location.

COUNTY String 35 County of facility's physical location.

PHONE String 20 The phone number of the facility.

TYPE_DESC String 40 Category of facility.

REC_USE String 40 Primary focus of recreational activity.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 2

OPERATING String 60The responsible organization for management and operation 

of a facility (e.g., public, private, quasi‐public).

OP_CLASS String 12 Classification of the operating entity.

OWNER String 50 Entity owner of the beach access point.

COMMON_USE String 4Location of two or more uses in one facility or on common 

grounds so as to share common facilities.

USE String 50 Description of co‐located use, if applicable.

WATERBODY String 75Name of the waterbody to which the beach access point 

provides access.

NOTES String 50Notes about the beach access point and/or facility in which 

it is located.

LAT_DD Double 3,7 Latitude in decimal degrees.

LONG_DD Double 3,7 Longitude in decimal degrees.

USNG_FL_1K String 10

Facility's 1‐kilometer United States National Grid (USNG) 

address. The USNG is an alpha‐numeric reference system 

based on the UTM coordinate system and is similar to the 

Military Grid Reference System. Use of the USNG ensures a 

uniform grid mapping and positional reporting system for 

search and rescue, emergency planning, response, and 

recovery. How to Read a United States National Grid (USNG) 

Spatial Address Website ‐ http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/how‐

to‐read‐usng/index_html.

SOURCE String 100 Source of the original data.

DESCRIPT String 100 Field added by FGDL based on NAME.

FLAG String 5

Type of update that occurred.

A = Attribute edit

S = Spatial edit

B = Both attribute and spatial edit

N = New

D = Delete

V = Feature was verified since last update

NV = Feature was not verified since last update

NIN = Not In New

UPDATE_DAY Date 10 The date the data was last updated by the Source.

FGDLAQDATE Date 10 The date FGDL acquired the data from the Source.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 3

E911_BOAT RAMPS: Boat Ramp Locations

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHDESCRIPTION   

OBJECTID OID 4 Internal feature number.

Shape Geometry Feature geometry.

Status String 1ESRI item which denotes the status of the geocoded address 

whether it was matched or not).

Score Integer 4

ESRI item which denotes the score with which the address 

was matched to a feature in the reference data. Records 

markerd with an "0" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Side String 1

ESRI item which denotes the side of the street to which the 

address was matched (for geocoding service styles that can 

match an address to a particular side of a street). Records 

markerd with an "*" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Match_Addr String 85ESRI item which denotes the full street layer address to 

which the address was matched.

NAME String 100 Boat ramp designation.

ADDRESS String 65A description of a facility's physical location providing 

direction for delivery and provision of emergency services.

CITY String 40 City of facility's physical location.

ZIPCODE Integer 9 US postal delivery designation of facility's physical location.

COUNTY String 35 County of facility's physical location.

PHONE String 20 The phone number of the facility.

TYPE_DESC String 40 Category of facility.

REC_USE String 40 Primary focus of recreational activity.

OPERATING String 60The responsible organization for management and operation 

of a facility (e.g., public, private, quasi‐public).

OP_CLASS String 12 Classification of the operating entity.

OWNER String 50 Entity owner of the boat ramp.

COMMON_USE String 4Location of two or more uses in one facility or on common 

grounds so as to share common facilities.

USE String 50 Description of co‐located use, if applicable.

WATERBODY String 75Name of the waterbody to which the boat ramp provides 

access.

NOTES String 50Notes about the boat ramp and/or facility in which it is 

located.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 4

LAT_DD Double 3,7 Latitude in decimal degrees.

LONG_DD Double 3,7 Longitude in decimal degrees.

USNG_FL_1K String 10

Facility's 1‐kilometer United States National Grid (USNG) 

address. The USNG is an alpha‐numeric reference system 

based on the UTM coordinate system and is similar to the 

Military Grid Reference System. Use of the USNG ensures a 

uniform grid mapping and positional reporting system for 

search and rescue, emergency planning, response, and 

recovery. How to Read a United States National Grid (USNG) 

Spatial Address Website ‐ http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/how‐

to‐read‐usng/index_html.

SOURCE String 100 Source of the original data.

DESCRIPT String 100 Field added by FGDL based on NAME.

FLAG String 5

Type of update that occurred.

A = Attribute edit

S = Spatial edit

B = Both attribute and spatial edit

N = New

D = Delete

V = Feature was verified since last update

NV = Feature was not verified since last update

NIN = Not In New

UPDATE_DAY Date 10 The date the data was last updated by the Source.

FGDLAQDATE Date 10 The date FGDL acquired the data from the Source.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 5

E911_MARINAS: Marina Locations

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHDESCRIPTION   

OBJECTID OID 4 Internal feature number.

Shape Geometry Feature geometry.

Status String 1ESRI item which denotes the status of the geocoded address 

whether it was matched or not).

Score Integer 4

ESRI item which denotes the score with which the address 

was matched to a feature in the reference data. Records 

markerd with an "0" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Side String 1

ESRI item which denotes the side of the street to which the 

address was matched (for geocoding service styles that can 

match an address to a particular side of a street). Records 

markerd with an "*" have not been GeoCoded, these 

records have another type of spatial reference source, see 

source field for more information.

Match_Addr String 85ESRI item which denotes the full street layer address to 

which the address was matched.

NAME String 100 Marina designation.

ADDRESS String 65A description of a facility's physical location providing 

direction for delivery and provision of emergency services.

CITY String 40 City of facility's physical location.

ZIPCODE Integer 9 US postal delivery designation of facility's physical location.

COUNTY String 35 County of facility's physical location.

PHONE String 20 The phone number of the facility.

TYPE_DESC String 40 Category of facility.

REC_USE String 40 Primary focus of recreational activity.

OPERATING String 60The responsible organization for management and operation 

of a facility (e.g., public, private, quasi‐public).

OP_CLASS String 12 Classification of the operating entity.

OWNER String 50 Entity owner of the marina.

COMMON_USE String 4Location of two or more uses in one facility or on common 

grounds so as to share common facilities.

USE String 50 Description of co‐located use, if applicable.

WATERBODY String 75Name of the waterbody to which the marina provides 

access.

NOTES String 50 Notes about the marina and/or facility in which it is located.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 6

LAT_DD Double 3,7 Latitude in decimal degrees.

LONG_DD Double 3,7 Longitude in decimal degrees.

USNG_FL_1K String 10

Facility's 1‐kilometer United States National Grid (USNG) 

address. The USNG is an alpha‐numeric reference system 

based on the UTM coordinate system and is similar to the 

Military Grid Reference System. Use of the USNG ensures a 

uniform grid mapping and positional reporting system for 

search and rescue, emergency planning, response, and 

recovery. How to Read a United States National Grid (USNG) 

Spatial Address Website ‐ http://www.fgdc.gov/usng/how‐

to‐read‐usng/index_html.

SOURCE String 100 Source of the original data.

DESCRIPT String 100 Field added by FGDL based on NAME.

FLAG String 5

Type of update that occurred.

A = Attribute edit

S = Spatial edit

B = Both attribute and spatial edit

N = New

D = Delete

V = Feature was verified since last update

NV = Feature was not verified since last update

NIN = Not In New

UPDATE_DAY Date 10 The date the data was last updated by the Source.

FGDLAQDATE Date 10 The date FGDL acquired the data from the Source.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act 

Attachment 6, Page 7

E911_PARKS_GOLF: Parks and Golf Course Locations (polygons)

FIELD NAME FIELD TYPEFIELD 

LENGTHDESCRIPTION   

Shape Geometry Feature geometry.

NAME String 75 Name of the park.

PARCELID String 20 Parcel identification number.

ADDRESS String 250 Address of the park.

CITY String 50 The city name where the park is located.

STATE String 25 The state name where the park is located.

ZIP String 10 The zip code where the park is located.

COUNTY String 25 The county name where the park is located.

PHONE String 20 The phone number of the park.

TYPE String 55 The type of park.

OWNER String 55 The name of the owner of the park.

FSOURCE String 250 The source of the original park layer.

DATASOURCE String 250 The other sourses used to add attributes.

NOTES String 250 Additional comments.

URL String 250 The website of the park.

DESCRIPT String 250 Field added by FGDL based on NAME.

AUTOID Double 8 No description

FLAG String 5

FLAG Type of update that occurred.

A = Attribute edit

B = Spatial and attribute edit

NV = Spatial and attribute not verified

V = Spatial and attribute verified

Shape_Length Double 9 Length of feature in internal units.

Shape_Area Double 9 Area of feature in internal units squared.

E911 Mapping Support for ENHANCE 911 Act

Attachment 7, Page 1

Layer Data Category Type Standard Status Brevard Flagler Orange Osceola Seminole Volusia Notes

CENTERLINES PSAP Call Layers Line NENA In progress ‐ 

not complete

RAILROADS PSAP Call Layers Line NENA Not Complete Have data for all counties, but not converted to NENA 

standard

RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING (OPTIONAL) PSAP Call Layers Point NENA DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

HYDROLOGY PSAP Call Layers Line NENA Not Complete Have data for all counties, but not converted to NENA 

standard

HYDROLOGY PSAP Call Layers Polygon NENA Not Complete Have data for all counties, but not converted to NENA 

standard

MILE MARKERS (Including Water/ Channel 

Markers)

PSAP Call Layers Point NENA DONEDONE DONE No data

Limited 

dataDONE DONE

No highway mile marker data available for Orange and 

Osceola. No water/ channel marker data for Orange 

SITE/ STRUCTURE LOCATIONS (Address Building 

Point File)

PSAP Call Layers Point NENA DONEDONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

All Counties in NENA schema with fields populated. Addresses 

have not scrubbed for USPS compliance

COUNTY BOUNDARIES PSAP Call Layers Polygon NENA DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

MUNICIPALITY BOUNDARIES PSAP Call Layers Polygon NENA DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

EMERGENCY SERVICE AGENCY (ESA) LOCATIONS: 

POLICE, FIRE STATIONS & EMS

Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Point NENA DONE

DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

EMERGENCY SERVICE ZONE BOUNDARIES (ESNs) Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Polygon NENA DONEDONE No data DONE DONE DONE DONE

No data available for Flagler (layer is in process of being 

updated)

PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDING AGENCY 

LOCATIONS

Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Point N/A DONEDONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

EMERGENCY SERVICE AGENCY (ESA) 

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ‐ FIRE ZONES

Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Polygon NENA DONEDONE DONE No data DONE DONE DONE

No fire zones available for Orange County

EMERGENCY SERVICE AGENCY (ESA) 

JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ‐ POLICE & 

SHERIFF ZONES

Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Polygon NENA In progress ‐ 

not complete

CELL SITE LOCATIONS Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Point NENA Partial 

CompletionLimited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

ATT Towers complete

CELL SITE COVERAGE Emergency Service 

Data Layers

Polygon NENA Partial 

CompletionLimited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Limited 

data

Cell sector polygons were derived for the towers in which we 

had enough data

LANDMARKS/ SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES Ancillary Data Point USGS Not Complete Have data for all counties, but not converted to NENA 

standard

BEACH POINTS Ancillary Data Point N/A DONE DONE DONE N/A N/A N/A DONE Orange, Osceola & Seminole not coastal counties

MARINAS Ancillary Data Point N/A DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

BOAT RAMPS Ancillary Data Point N/A DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

PARKS & GOLF COURSES Ancillary Data Point N/A DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE DONE

TRAILS  Ancillary Data Line N/A In progress ‐ 

Not Complete

Status of Compiled and Standardized Regional Data Layers,as of February 20, 2012

PRESENTED TO:Honorable Governor Rick Scott

Honorable President Mike HaridopolosHonorable Speaker Dean Cannon

E911 BOARD MEMBERSChristopher J. Campbell, ChairCharles C. Freeman, Vice Chair

L. Carolyn Dill-CollierStan L. Greer

Benjamin S. GuthrieMarilyn M. Haroutunian

Sandra A. KhazraeeIra U. Pyles

Wireless Prepaid E911 Fee Revenue Reduction Impact

25% - 38% Reduc�on20% - 25% Reduc�on15% - 20% Reduc�on10% - 15% Reduc�on

5% -10% Reduc�onLess than 5%

Reduc�on Covered byRural County Program

Legend

E911 BOARD AUGUST 31, 2012

2011SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT S T A T E O F F L O R I D A

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report - Prepaid Supplement

i

Table of Contents

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2

1. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........................................................................................................................... 3 2. FINANCIAL .......................................................................................................................................... 3 3. LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3

C. E911 BOARD ...................................................................................................................................... 4

D. RESULTS OF E911 DATA EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 4

1. WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDER PROJECTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 4 2. COUNTY PROJECTION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 7 3. RURAL COUNTIES PROJECTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 9 4. WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDER COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS ............................................................... 10 5. TOTAL COST (EXPENDITURE) AND FEE (REVENUE) ANALYSIS ............................................................. 11 6. SPENDING AUTHORITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 13 7. E911 TRUST FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 13

E. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 16

1. LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16 2. E911 BOARD ADMINISTRATION OF PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION ........................................................... 16 3. SPECIAL DISBURSEMENT TO COUNTIES FOR E911 ............................................................................. 16

F. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 16

Appendix 1 County Funding Data - Wireless Prepaid E911 Fee Revenue Reduction Impact Appendix 2 Prepaid Legislative History Appendix 3 Historical Data, Calculation and Projections

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 1 of 16 8/31/2012

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report – Prepaid Supplement A. INTRODUCTION The E911 Board provides this supplement to the E911 Board 2011 Annual Report1 to present and explain modifications required to its annual report to the Governor and Legislature. This update is required because of the significant financial impact caused by the recent suspension by some carriers of E911 fee collections on prepaid wireless service. These carriers had previously collected and remitted E911 fees. This is adversely affecting the Emergency Communications Number E911 System Fund (E911 Trust Fund) and County E911 funding throughout Florida. This supplemental information:

• Provides calculations, projections, and updated information from the 2011 Annual Report;

• Examines future concerns and direction related to providing E911 services; and • Appraises reasons for making or not making an adjustment to the fee.

1 as required by section 365.172(6)(c), Florida Statutes.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 2 of 16 8/31/2012

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report – Prepaid Supplement B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The effect of the suspension of the Enhanced (E911) fee on prepaid wireless services has reached a critical level in the necessary funding of the E911 system. The collection of E911 fees was suspended in 2007, to study prepaid wireless service and determine an E911 fee collection methodology. That suspension continues until July 2013. The status of E911 fee revenue is of paramount importance to the E911 Board and Florida’s counties. This loss of E911 fee revenue has impacted the counties most directly with the escalating costs of E911 and the additional costs for 911 public safety telecommunicator certification and training. As reported in the 2011 Annual Report, the E911 fee revenues continued to decrease in 2011; however, the rate of decrease was projected to be less than the previous two years. The decrease was primarily attributed to a consumer trend to switch to new telecommunication devices and services, such as prepaid wireless service, that do not collect and remit E911 fee revenues but still advertise availability and provide access to public safety 911 services. In April 2012, the E911 Board was notified that the E911 fee revenue from wireless service providers will decrease by approximately 18 percent2 in total wireless fee remittances. This correlates to an approximate $14.2 million decrease this year in funding for the E911 system in Florida, which has a direct impact on public safety for our citizens and visitors. The prepaid E911 fee remittance suspension impact over the last five years has been mitigated by the E911 Board Grant Programs and special E911 trust fund disbursements. With the reduction in the trust fund balance, the latest decrease in prepaid E911 fee remittance has the potential to cause county funding issues that can adversely affect the E911 systems. The E911 Trust Fund can no longer provide the funding necessary to offset the reductions being experienced because of the prepaid fee suspension. With the cost of a major technology migration and the current economic and funding issues, funding is required to manage the transition to Internet Protocol (IP) network-based Next Generation 911 (NG-911) systems. Prepaid fee remittance suspension has shifted all of the cost of the E911 emergency system to the postpaid contract subscribers. The legislative intent of having a competitively and technologically neutral3 telecommunication service cannot be obtained, especially when one section of the market is exempted from E911 fee collections while having access to E911 services. The financial implications to the statewide 911 system of this prepaid fee reduction from two providers helps quantify the fee revenue reduction of the E911 Fee collection suspension on prepaid wireless service and explain the reduction in needed E911 fee revenue experienced during the last five years. The Legislature recognized in the statute4 that the fee may not necessarily provide the total funding required for the E911 service; however, because of the prepaid suspension, the E911 fee revenue disbursed to counties only accounts for 52 percent5 of the actual counties’ costs of allowable E911 fee expenditures. An additional five percent of the allowable county costs were covered with the additional funding from the E911 Trust Fund revenues for E911 Board Grants and Special Disbursements.

2 Forecasted projection based on historical trends of E911 Board Wireless Fee Remittance Data and the average monthly disbursements for the last four months. 3 Section 365.172(2)(d), Florida Statutes. 4 Section 365.173, Florida Statutes. 5 Based on actual county and E911 Board data -See 2011 Annual Report Appendix 2 (Percent E911 Fee & Board Assistance of Total Expense.)

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 3 of 16 8/31/2012

1. Significant Impact • In April 2012, the Board was notified that two wireless service providers, currently

remitting E911 fees, reported they have been remitting the Florida E911 wireless fee in error on their prepaid wireless services. Effective with the January 2012 remittance, the companies no longer remit E911 wireless fees on the sales of prepaid wireless services until collections are authorized on July 1, 2013.

2. Financial

• The E911 Board is projecting a decrease in collected revenue of approximately $14.2 million, a decrease of 18 percent6 in wireless E911 fee revenue in calendar year 2012, which directly reduces support for E911 in Florida.

• In 2012, individual county wireless revenue disbursements are projected to decrease dependent on the coverage area of the providers. The largest impact is expected in Miami-Dade with approximately $3.1 million in Fiscal Year 2012-13, a decrease of 37 percent7 of the county’s wireless E911 fee revenue. The projected effect for each county is provided in Appendix 1.

• It is projected that the Rural County Program funding will decrease by $427,000 per year, an 18 percent8 drop in revenue. This will have an adverse effect on the Rural County Grant Program, which provides additional funding assistance to rural counties throughout Florida.

• In recognition of the potential financial implications to the Florida E911 system, one of the prepaid service providers, who stopped collecting and remitting fees, voluntarily discontinued invoicing the Board for E911 cost recovery to reduce the financial impact on Florida’s E911 system.

• The spending authority amounts will not match current projections as there will be a temporary reduction in revenues and expenditures until prepaid collections resume as anticipated on July 1, 2013.

3. Legislative Recommendations Suspension of collection and remittance of the E911 fee on prepaid service is to expire in July of 2013. If the moratorium is extended the decline in E911 funding will continue resulting in a decline in E911 service unless another funding source is identified. The E911 Board has already established a subcommittee to review prepaid legislative issues for potential 2013 legislative action. The subcommittee meetings are being held in conjunction with the 2012 E911 Board meetings and include the telecommunications industry, retail federation, and counties (through their county 911 coordinators). The critical issue being suggested for inclusion in future legislation:

• Removal of the suspension on prepaid wireless service and authorization of the

resumption of the collection of E911 prepaid wireless fee at the point of sale.

6 Forecasted projection based on historical trends of E911 Board wireless fee remittance data and the average monthly disbursements for the last four months. 7 Forecasted projection based on the actual fee revenue disbursements of the actual first six month disbursements of FY 2011-12 compared to the average monthly disbursements for the last four months- See Appendix 1. 8 Based on sub-section 365.173(2)(g), Florida Statutes and the current allocation percentage (3%) of the estimated E911 wireless fee yearly decrease.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 4 of 16 8/31/2012

C. E911 BOARD The E911 Board, established by the Florida Legislature in 2007, and modified in 2011, is comprised of 11 members. The DMS secretary designates the chair of the E911 Board. The Governor appoints five members who are county 911 coordinators and five members from the telecommunications industry. Currently, there are three open positions. The E911 Board and DMS provide unified leadership for all E911 issues through planning and coordination. The duties and responsibilities of the E911 Board include administering the E911 fee revenue in a fair and consistent manner. D. RESULTS OF E911 DATA EVALUATION

1. Wireless Service Provider Projection Analysis

a. Wireless Revenue Minimal growth was anticipated in the number of wireless subscribers and fees for 2012; however, the additional prepaid wireless service revenue loss became apparent with the notification in April 2012 that the two prepaid carriers had ceased collecting and remitting. That change significantly reduces the wireless E911 fee collections. This is graphed below and is based on the trending and continued exemption on prepaid wireless E911 fee remittances.

Source: Based on E911 Board data

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

Reve

nue

Total Wireless Revenue Reported by Month from April 2010 through April 2012

Wireless Net

Trendline

Actual Remitances

Trend

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 5 of 16 8/31/2012

The E911 wireless fee projection for calendar year 2012 is a decrease in collected revenue of approximately $14.2 million, a decrease of 18 percent9 in wireless E911 fee revenue. The following graph shows the historical wireless E911 fee yearly trending and impact of the continued exemption on prepaid wireless E911 fee remittances.

Source: Based on E911 Board data and projections

9 Forecasted projection based on historical trends of E911 Board wireless fee remittance data and last four months reduced wireless fee remittance data.

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

$90,000,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Subs

crib

ers

Actual & Projected E911 Wireless Fee Revenue

Total Wireless Fee Revenue

Original Projection Wireless Fee Revenue

Revised Projection (Projected Decrease

in Wireless Revenue)

2011 Annual Report Projection Actual Remitances

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 6 of 16 8/31/2012

b. Prepaid Wireless Revenue

Prepaid Wireless has been an issue before the Board since 2005; additional information is provided in the Appendix 2 under Wireless Service Provider Prepaid Service – E911 Fee Remittance History. The basis of this year’s reduction is that some service providers have reconsidered the applicability of the E911 fee on their services given the definition of prepaid wireless.

E911 Prepaid Wireless Timeline (Lines indicate start of State Fiscal Year;

E911 Board Fiscal Year)

1999 2013

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

LegislationWireless emergency telephone number

"E911" Established

LegislationPrepaid wireless

telephone service Defined

Legislation Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Suspended until

7/1/2009

E911 BoardPrepaid Wireless Service Report

submitted 12/1/2008

Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Begin Collection

7/1/2009

LegislationPrepaid wireless service E911 fee Suspended until

7/1/2013

Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Begin Collection

7/1/2013

E911 BoardRule

Development Workshops

Attorney General Opinion onE911 fee

remittance12/12/2005

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 7 of 16 8/31/2012

Since 2006, the wireless industry survey10 reported a national growth in subscribers; the percentage varies depending on the year from five to 13 percent each year. One trend line shows the actual historical total of wireless subscribers reported in Florida11. Another trend line is based on the projected subscriber trend since 2005 utilizing the national trend of wireless subscribers12. The difference is related to the subscribers that are not recorded because of the suspension of prepaid wireless fee collections and state and local government wireless subscriber usage13. The stagnant growth rate in Florida’s historical wireless subscriber’s numbers is primarily attributed to wireless subscribers utilizing wireless prepaid services since only postpaid wireless subscribers are recorded. The following graph reported in the 2011 Annual Report has been updated. An additional trend line provides information on the reduction caused by the recent reclassification of post paid to prepaid subscribers by two companies. It has been included in the report to show the decrease in the total of wireless subscribers.

Source: Based on E911 Board data and CTIA survey information.

2. County Projection Analysis

The analysis of the 2011 Annual Report data indicates that the wireless and non-wireless fees which counties received do not cover their actual costs. On average, wireless and non-

10 CTIA-The Wireless Association – 2010 Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey Results. 11 Based on the actual subscribers actually remitting E911 fees, E911 Board Historical Data. 12 Based on the calculated percentage decreases total subscribers connections in the CTIA-The Wireless Association – 2010 Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey Results. 13 Exact information is not available on the amount of prepaid subscribers and the trend line based on national trend information of wireless subscribers includes State & Local Governments which are exempted in sub-section 365.172(8)(c), Florida Statutes; For purposes of this section, the state and local governments are not subscribers.

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

22,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Subs

crib

ers

Projected vs Actual Wireless Subscribers

Projected Wireless Subscribers

Historical Wireless Fee Subscribers

Projected Wireless Subscriber Decrease

Projected Subscribers not remitting fees based

on National Trend

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 8 of 16 8/31/2012

wireless fee revenues covered 52 percent14 of the actual Florida counties’ costs, in the counties’ fiscal year October 2010 through September 2011. The following map provides a representation of the projected percentage decrease in county E911 wireless fee revenues15. Calculations for the estimated average monthly decrease and projections of the yearly decreases for each county including the estimated total $10.3 million yearly decrease in disbursements are provided in Appendix 1. It should be noted that the decrease in revenue information noticed this year is attributable to two wireless service providers and does not show the effect of the total decrease in revenue caused by prepaid suspension. These providers had limited business development in the north-northwest portions of Florida.

14 Based on actual county and E911 Board data - See 2011 Annual Report - Appendix 2 (Percent E911 Fee of Total Expense). 15 Based on the average month disbursements of the actual first six month disbursements of FY 2011-12 compared to the average monthly disbursements for the last four months- See Appendix 1.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 9 of 16 8/31/2012

The resulting decrease in revenue will reduce the percentage covered by the E911 fee resulting in additional burden on the county’s general revenues. Projecting the impact is dependent on the county budgets and their ability to provide additional funding for the E911 expenditures. The concern exists on what necessary 911 service and needed modifications will not be procured because of the reduction in funding and the negative impact on the Florida’s E911 system. The E911 Board approved a disbursement of more than $6.1 million of trust fund revenues16 to Florida counties in a special disbursement in February 2012. The special disbursement reconciled an overpayment to some counties by a service provider, and it provided additional funding to the counties. This will keep the majority of the counties at their projected funding level for Fiscal Year 2011-12 to help assure funding for E911 expenditures. 3. Rural Counties Projection Analysis The Rural county financial assistance program is required to assure continuation of Enhanced Phase II service in many rural counties. The E911 Board rural county financial assistance program consists of two parts, the Rural County Grant Program and the E911 Board Supplemental Disbursement Program. It is projected that the rural county financial assistance will decrease by $427,00017. This will have an adverse affect on the Rural County Grant Program, which provides needed additional funding assistance to the rural counties for maintenance and equipment for their E911 systems. The E911 Board Supplemental Disbursement Program assists rural counties with low subscriber counts by funding access line and trunking costs, in addition to other associated E911 expenses. Needs are especially apparent on equipment maintenance and circuit costs for rural counties. This program assures that all counties receive a minimum of $7,000 per month. The program costs will increase as a result of the decrease in subscriber E911 fee revenue received by some rural counties. This will result in the need for additional wireless trust fund revenue to maintain the minimum of $7,000 per month. The increased costs to the rural county program are estimated at approximately $40,00018 per year, which will further reduce the amount available for rural county grants. The five-year forecast for funds required to maintain Phase II wireless19 is shown below with the projected decrease in available rural county grant funding. The costs are based on estimated system maintenance, replacement equipment, and additional associated E911 equipment.

16 E911 Board action February 15, 2012. 17 Based on sub-section 365.173(2)(g), Florida Statutes and the current allocation percentage (3%) of the estimated E911 wireless fee revenue yearly decrease. 18 Based on the average month supplemental disbursements of the actual first six month disbursements of FY 2011-12 compared to the average monthly disbursements for the last four months- See Appendix 1. 19 Provided from the 2011 Annual Report.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 10 of 16 8/31/2012

Source: Based on E911 Board data and projections The E911 State Grant program, while primarily developed for medium and large counties, is needed to assist in the funding availability for the rural counties’ equipment needs. This was witnessed in 2011 and will continue in the future.

4. Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Analysis In order to provide the caller location information, the E911 Board approves reimbursement of wireless service provider costs for equipment and circuits20. A letter from one wireless service provider included notification of voluntary discontinuance of cost recovery invoicing for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and all of Fiscal Year 2012-13. The carrier does plan to submit a cost recovery proposal for Fiscal Year 2013-2014 in anticipation that the prepaid E911 fee moratorium will expire on June 30, 2013.

20 Based on sub-section 365.173(2)(d), Florida Statutes.

$-

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Projected Rural County Supplemental Funding and Grants

State Grant Program Assistance

Equipment - Rural County Grants

Maintenance - Rural County Grants

Supplemental Disbursements

Additional Rural County Funding Provided in the State E911 Grant Program

Projected Decrease in Allocated Rural County Grant Revenues

Allocated Rural County Grant

Program Revenues Level

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 11 of 16 8/31/2012

Detailed individual wireless service provider information is confidential and available in accordance with section 365.174, Florida Statutes. Releasable statistical information collected by the E911 Board includes the total wireless service provider costs for 2004 through 2011, total fiscal year data, cost-recovery analysis of actual wireless service provider projections, and actual costs from program inception. The graph below has been updated to reflect the new wireless service provider cost recovery projections.

Source: E911 Board historical data

In 2012, the E911 Board anticipates paying 17 percent21 of the wireless fee to wireless service providers for Phase II implementation and maintenance costs based on their revised cost recovery proposals.

5. Total Cost (Expenditure) and Fee (Revenue) Analysis

This updated analysis summarizes the actual revenues received by Florida counties for wireless and non-wireless E911 fees and counties’ costs to operate and maintain their E911 systems. It includes an updated forecast of these expenditures and revenues based on the systems currently available.

21 Based on decreased projection of E911 wireless fee revenues and modified wireless service provider Cost Recovery Proposals.

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Historical Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Data

Actual Payments

Estimated CRP

Includes voluntarily discontinuance of cost recovery invoicing

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 12 of 16 8/31/2012

Fiscal Year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

County E911 Expenditures 184,793,977$ 191,220,954$ 192,329,766$ 200,022,956$ 208,023,875$

WSP E911 Cost Recovery 14,639,355$ 13,681,513$ 11,364,158$ 12,431,728$ 11,076,662$

Administration Costs 1,076,199$ 995,211$ 840,071$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

Total E911 Expenditures 200,509,531$ 205,897,678$ 204,533,995$ 213,454,684$ 220,100,537$

Fiscal Year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Wireless E911 Fee 76,692,995$ 77,004,396$ 77,231,842$ 70,928,189$ 64,624,536$

Nonw ireless E911 Fee 51,119,855$ 48,197,585$ 46,100,682$ 44,256,655$ 42,486,389$

Total E911 Fees 127,812,850$ 125,201,981$ 123,332,524$ 115,184,844$ 107,110,925$

State of Florida E911 Expenditures

State of Florida E911 Fee Revenue

Actual Amounts Based on E911 Board and County Documentation

Amount Projected Forecasts based on County and Industry Trends

This forecast is based on the projected reduction in revenues based on the wireless provider’s prepaid fee revenue reductions. It is projected that there will be a projected four percent22 decrease in the non-wireless E911 fee revenue and four percent23 increase in county E911 system and operation costs.

Source: E911 Board historical data and projections

22 Forecasted projection based on historical trends of E911 Board data and on County 911 cost data. 23 Forecasted projection based on County E911 cost data.

$-

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

E911 Expenditure and Fee Revenue Forecast

Total E911 Expenditures

Total E911 Fee Revenue

Projected Decrease in E911 Fee Revenue

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 13 of 16 8/31/2012

6. Spending Authority Analysis The reduction in revenue this year significantly affects the reported financial information and the funding requested for spending authority for wireless fee revenue distributions to the counties. The wireless fee revenue disbursed directly to counties based on the current allocation percentage will decrease by approximately $10.3 million per year. It is recommended that the spending authority remain at the current level to provide the E911 Board the opportunity to utilize some of the E911 Trust Fund to offset losses to the counties during the prepaid wireless fee suspension. Also, since the fee revenue suspension is anticipated to be time-limited, until July 1, 2013, a reduction this year would result in a request to increase spending authority next year. 7. E911 Trust Fund Balance Analysis

The E911 Board’s original and updated estimated revenue funds available, based on the reduction in E911 wireless fee revenue, and the funds necessary to implement and maintain E911 service in Florida for this calendar year are presented below.

Anticipated Funds

2012 2012 (Revised)Beginning balance January 1 $ 32,757,068 $ 32,757,068 Receipts Wireless $ 78,845,265 $ 64,624,536 Receipts Nonwireless $ 43,511,046 $ 43,511,046 Interest Earnings $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000

Subtotal: $ 156,113,379 $ 141,892,650

Anticipated Disbursements**24

2012 2012 (Revised)Wireless Fee Revenue to Counties $ 55,980,138 $ 45,883,421 Nonwireless Fee Revenue to Counties $ 42,205,715 $ 42,205,715 Rural County Assistance $ 2,160,579 $ 1,665,544 RC Supplemental $ 1,075,000 $ 1,143,413 Service Provider Reimbursement $ 14,258,000 $ 11,081,534 Board Operations/Administration $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Special Disbursement $ 6,117,098 $ 6,117,098 ENHANCE 911 Act Grant Match $ 270,000 $ 270,000 Interest Disbursement $ 675,000 $ 577,956 E911 State Grants** $ - $ - Subtotal: $ 123,741,530 $ 109,944,681

Projected Ending Balance: $ 32,371,849 $ 31,947,970

It is emphasized that this analysis is cash basis25 and does not reflect the current available balance within the E911 Trust Fund on account of the current Liabilities (Payables to Counties).

24 ** These figures are based on projected disbursements and are contingent on legislative budget authority.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 14 of 16 8/31/2012

The E911 Board’s original and updated estimates for calendar year 2013 are presented below.

Anticipated Funds

2013 2013 RevisedBeginning balance January 1 $ 32,371,849 $ 31,947,970 Receipts Wireless $ 80,422,170 $ 64,624,536 Receipts Nonwireless $ 41,837,544 $ 41,837,544 Interest Earnings $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000

Subtotal: $ 155,631,563 $ 139,410,050

Anticipated Disbursements**26

2013 2013 (Revised)Wireless Fee Revenue to Counties $ 57,099,741 $ 45,883,421 Nonwireless Fee Revenue to Counties $ 40,582,418 $ 40,582,418 Rural County Assistance $ 2,349,416 $ 1,665,544 RC Supplemental $ 900,000 $ 1,143,413 Service Provider Reimbursement $ 13,895,000 $ 12,310,318 Board Operations/Administration $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Special DisbursementENHANCE 911 Act Grant Match $ 90,000 $ - Interest Disbursement $ 675,000 $ 510,868 E911 State Grants**** $ 8,000,000 $ 8,000,000 Subtotal: $ 124,591,575 $ 111,095,982

Projected Ending Balance: $ 31,039,989 $ 28,314,068

It is emphasized that this analysis is cash basis27 and does not reflect the current available balance within the E911 Trust Fund on account of the current Liabilities (Payables to Counties). **** Anticipated Disbursements E911 State Grants – The amount of funding for the E911 State Grant program is currently being reviewed by the E911 Board for possible utilization of some of these funds for a Special Disbursement to counties to help offset the decrease in county wireless fee revenue.

25 See Financial Report in 2011 Annual Report - Appendix 1. County Reserves in the Financial Balance Sheet Report as of the end of calendar year 2011, included $15,773,830 in fee revenue collections pending Board disbursement approval. 26 ** These figures are based on projected disbursements and are contingent on legislative budget authority. 27 See Financial Report in 2011 Annual Report - Appendix 1. County Reserves in the Financial Balance Sheet Report as of the end of calendar year 2011, included $15,773,830 in fee revenue collections pending Board disbursement approval.

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 15 of 16 8/31/2012

The following graphs depict the E911 Trust Fund and projected decrease of the E911 Trust Fund.

Source: E911 Board historical data and projections

Source: E911 Board historical data and projections

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

$90,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

E911 TRUST FUND BALANCE (Cash Basis)

Calendar Year Basis

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

E911 TRUST FUND BALANCE (Compiled Basis)

Fiscal Year Basis

DRAFT

E911 Board 2011 Annual Report Supplement Page 16 of 16 8/31/2012

E. CONCLUSIONS

1. Legislative Recommendations

• The E911 fee should be applied equitably on all communication services.

• Legislation needs to be developed to eliminate the suspension of prepaid service E911 fee collection and to accommodate the prepaid service models.

• The legislation should include definitions of all prepaid calling arrangements and

postpaid mobile service.

2. E911 Board Administration of Percentage Allocation

In accordance with the legislation established in 2007, the E911 Board will be reviewing the amount of the fee to determine if the percentage allocation should be changed.

3. Special Disbursement to Counties for E911

The E911 Board is reviewing the trust fund revenues to determine funding levels for grant programs and to determine if a special disbursement could be authorized from trust fund revenues to Florida counties in January 2013. A special disbursement could provide additional funding to the counties which may reduce the impact of this year’s revenue decreases to the majority of the counties. It is not projected that the funding level for Fiscal Year 2012-13 will be able to be maintained at the previous funding level; however it is being reviewed to help assure funding for E911 expenditures for critical systems for the continued safety of Florida’s citizens and visitors.

F. Acknowledgement

The E911 Board would like to express their sincere appreciation of the Governor and Legislature for their support with Florida’s Statewide Enhanced 911 System.

DRAFT

E911 Board

2011 Annual Report

Prepaid Supplement

Appendix 1.

County Funding Data

Wireless Prepaid E911 Fee Revenue Reduction Impact

DRAFT

Appendix 1Wireless Prepaid E911 Fee Revenue Reduction Impact

2011 E911 Board Supplemental Report Page 1 of 2 8-31-2013

WIRELESS 911 REVENUE DISBURSEMENT SUMMARY

County Name

Total E911 Fee Revenue

Disbursement 1st 6 mths 2011-2012

Avg 1 Mth Fee Revenue based

on 6 mths

Avg Mthly Rural County Supplemental Disbursement

based on 6 mths

Total E911 Fee Revenue

Disbursement 1st 4 mths

2012

Avg 1 Mth Fee Revenue based on 4

mths

Avg Mthly Rural County Supplemental Disbursement

based on 4 mths

Projected County Monthly Fee Revenue Loss

2012-13

Projected County Yearly Fee

Revenue Loss 2012-13

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Estimated EstimatedCounty TOTAL YTD AVG Revenue Supplemental C TOTAL YTD3 AVG Revenue4 Supplemental5 C Difference Yearly Difference % Dif

Miami-Dade $4,180,525.71 $696,754.29 $1,747,838.47 $436,959.62 -$259,794.67 -$3,117,536.01 -37%Broward $2,967,300.09 $494,550.02 $1,452,956.51 $363,239.13 -$131,310.89 -$1,575,730.65 -27%St. Lucie $369,724.77 $61,620.80 $186,381.68 $46,595.42 -$15,025.38 -$180,304.50 -24%Osceola $400,058.26 $66,676.38 $206,611.80 $51,652.95 -$15,023.43 -$180,281.12 -23%Hendry $35,490.50 $5,915.08 $1,084.92 $18,546.28 $4,636.57 $2,363.43 -$1,278.51 -$15,342.16 -22%

Palm Beach $2,046,070.96 $341,011.83 $1,073,722.66 $268,430.67 -$72,581.16 -$870,973.94 -21%Lee $862,392.64 $143,732.11 $453,090.71 $113,272.68 -$30,459.43 -$365,513.15 -21%Polk $763,225.13 $127,204.19 $404,858.13 $101,214.53 -$25,989.66 -$311,875.87 -20%

Monroe $140,125.90 $23,354.32 $74,976.53 $18,744.13 -$4,610.18 -$55,322.21 -20%Hillsborough $2,017,322.02 $336,220.34 $1,080,394.48 $270,098.62 -$66,121.72 -$793,460.60 -20%

Collier $457,613.29 $76,268.88 $250,132.90 $62,533.23 -$13,735.66 -$164,827.88 -18%Pinellas $1,397,520.48 $232,920.08 $783,145.80 $195,786.45 -$37,133.63 -$445,603.56 -16%Martin $215,442.74 $35,907.12 $121,378.93 $30,344.73 -$5,562.39 -$66,748.69 -15%

Manatee $426,903.52 $71,150.59 $241,007.48 $60,251.87 -$10,898.72 -$130,784.60 -15%Orange $1,809,883.82 $301,647.30 $1,024,888.18 $256,222.05 -$45,425.26 -$545,103.10 -15%Duval $1,356,224.39 $226,037.40 $779,967.98 $194,992.00 -$31,045.40 -$372,544.84 -14%

Hernando $209,910.49 $34,985.08 $121,619.18 $30,404.80 -$4,580.29 -$54,963.44 -13%Pasco $623,879.74 $103,979.96 $363,020.73 $90,755.18 -$13,224.77 -$158,697.29 -13%

Brevard $799,812.94 $133,302.16 $465,963.56 $116,490.89 -$16,811.27 -$201,735.20 -13%Indian River $181,287.97 $30,214.66 $106,085.88 $26,521.47 -$3,693.19 -$44,318.30 -12%

Charlotte $196,230.98 $32,705.16 $116,567.56 $29,141.89 -$3,563.27 -$42,759.28 -11%Volusia $672,007.28 $112,001.21 $400,726.39 $100,181.60 -$11,819.62 -$141,835.39 -11%

Sarasota $519,741.11 $86,623.52 $310,580.19 $77,645.05 -$8,978.47 -$107,741.65 -10%Glades $7,499.84 $1,249.97 $5,750.03 $4,523.47 $1,130.87 $5,869.13 -$119.11 -$1,429.27 -10%

Seminole $685,539.78 $114,256.63 $417,137.72 $104,284.43 -$9,972.20 -$119,666.40 -9%Okeechobee $33,182.00 $5,530.33 $1,469.67 $20,239.29 $5,059.82 $1,940.18 -$470.51 -$5,646.13 -9%

Marion $391,448.38 $65,241.40 $238,772.24 $59,693.06 -$5,548.34 -$66,580.04 -9%Clay $278,831.79 $46,471.97 $170,490.85 $42,622.71 -$3,849.25 -$46,191.03 -8%

Flagler $119,296.40 $19,882.73 $73,347.58 $18,336.90 -$1,545.84 -$18,550.06 -8%Alachua $317,732.42 $52,955.40 $196,354.71 $49,088.68 -$3,866.73 -$46,400.71 -7%

Highlands $96,998.64 $16,166.44 $60,163.27 $15,040.82 -$1,125.62 -$13,507.47 -7%Lake $376,781.33 $62,796.89 $235,044.47 $58,761.12 -$4,035.77 -$48,429.25 -6%

Nassau $101,007.33 $16,834.56 $63,237.16 $15,809.29 -$1,025.27 -$12,303.18 -6%Bradford $23,990.01 $3,998.34 $3,001.67 $15,127.09 $3,781.77 $3,218.23 -$216.56 -$2,598.75 -5%Hardee $22,277.65 $3,712.94 $3,287.06 $14,072.04 $3,518.01 $3,481.99 -$194.93 -$2,339.18 -5%Desoto $24,127.91 $4,021.32 $2,978.68 $15,264.88 $3,816.22 $3,183.78 -$205.10 -$2,461.18 -5%Citrus $149,911.57 $24,985.26 $95,652.74 $23,913.19 -$1,072.08 -$12,864.92 -4%Taylor $18,390.64 $3,065.11 $3,934.89 $11,938.37 $2,984.59 $4,015.41 -$80.51 -$966.17 -3%

Holmes $13,841.07 $2,306.85 $4,693.16 $8,994.63 $2,248.66 $4,751.34 -$58.19 -$698.25 -3%Franklin $9,888.04 $1,648.01 $5,351.99 $6,447.68 $1,611.92 $5,388.08 -$36.09 -$433.04 -2%

Levy $40,929.37 $6,821.56 $246.95 $26,704.20 $6,676.05 $416.34 -$145.51 -$1,746.14 -2%Dixie $10,362.44 $1,727.07 $5,272.93 $6,771.03 $1,692.76 $5,307.24 -$34.32 -$411.79 -2%

DRAFT

Appendix 1Wireless Prepaid E911 Fee Revenue Reduction Impact

2011 E911 Board Supplemental Report Page 2 of 2 8-31-2013

WIRELESS 911 REVENUE DISBURSEMENT SUMMARY

County Name

Total E911 Fee Revenue

Disbursement 1st 6 mths 2011-2012

Avg 1 Mth Fee Revenue based

on 6 mths

Avg Mthly Rural County Supplemental Disbursement

based on 6 mths

Total E911 Fee Revenue

Disbursement 1st 4 mths

2012

Avg 1 Mth Fee Revenue based on 4

mths

Avg Mthly Rural County Supplemental Disbursement

based on 4 mths

Projected County Monthly Fee Revenue Loss

2012-13

Projected County Yearly Fee

Revenue Loss 2012-13

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated Estimated EstimatedCounty TOTAL YTD AVG Revenue Supplemental C TOTAL YTD3 AVG Revenue4 Supplemental5 C Difference Yearly Difference % Dif

Gadsden $42,602.11 $7,100.35 $75.30 $27,839.87 $6,959.97 $167.12 -$140.38 -$1,684.61 -2%St. Johns $277,217.28 $46,202.88 $181,175.57 $45,293.89 -$908.99 -$10,907.85 -2%

Gulf $14,146.80 $2,357.80 $4,642.20 $9,252.11 $2,313.03 $4,686.97 -$44.77 -$537.27 -2%Gilchrist $16,608.88 $2,768.15 $4,231.85 $10,880.52 $2,720.13 $4,279.87 -$48.02 -$576.20 -2%

Baker $23,814.88 $3,969.15 $3,030.85 $15,614.21 $3,903.55 $3,096.45 -$65.59 -$787.13 -2%Washington $19,703.09 $3,283.85 $3,716.15 $12,937.97 $3,234.49 $3,765.51 -$49.36 -$592.27 -2%

Lafayette $5,689.94 $948.32 $6,051.68 $3,738.71 $934.68 $6,065.32 -$13.65 -$163.75 -1%Hamilton $10,115.79 $1,685.97 $5,314.04 $6,653.33 $1,663.33 $5,336.67 -$22.63 -$271.59 -1%Calhoun $10,953.90 $1,825.65 $5,174.35 $7,216.29 $1,804.07 $5,195.93 -$21.58 -$258.93 -1%Liberty $6,298.25 $1,049.71 $5,950.29 $4,155.55 $1,038.89 $5,961.11 -$10.82 -$129.85 -1%Union $10,262.25 $1,710.38 $5,289.63 $6,789.66 $1,697.42 $5,302.59 -$12.96 -$155.52 -1%

Jefferson $14,615.37 $2,435.90 $4,564.11 $9,672.20 $2,418.05 $4,581.95 -$17.84 -$214.14 -1%Wakulla $32,087.06 $5,347.84 $1,652.16 $21,256.07 $5,314.02 $1,685.98 -$33.83 -$405.91 -1%

Suwannee $38,435.52 $6,405.92 $594.08 $25,464.67 $6,366.17 $633.83 -$39.75 -$477.03 -1%Bay $209,051.46 $34,841.91 $138,622.60 $34,655.65 -$186.26 -$2,235.12 -1%

Putnam $66,210.22 $11,035.04 $43,950.86 $10,987.72 -$47.32 -$567.86 0%Leon $341,885.53 $56,980.92 $227,361.02 $56,840.26 -$140.67 -$1,688.00 0%

Santa Rosa $206,201.37 $34,366.90 $137,441.35 $34,360.34 -$6.56 -$78.69 0%Madison $14,865.31 $2,477.55 $4,522.45 $9,910.91 $2,477.73 $4,522.27 $0.18 $2.11 0%Columbia $64,618.68 $10,769.78 $43,152.35 $10,788.09 $18.31 $219.69 0%Jackson $42,854.50 $7,142.42 $43.99 $28,643.05 $7,160.76 $67.67 $18.35 $220.15 0%

Escambia $385,235.88 $64,205.98 $257,782.29 $64,445.57 $239.59 $2,875.11 0%Okaloosa $286,773.87 $47,795.65 $192,307.16 $48,076.79 $281.14 $3,373.74 1%Sumter $91,775.42 $15,295.90 $61,550.11 $15,387.53 $91.62 $1,099.49 1%Walton $69,223.81 $11,537.30 $46,465.50 $11,616.38 $79.07 $948.88 1%

TOTAL BY MONTH $27,671,978.51 $4,611,996.42 $91,925.04 $14,994,579.36 $3,748,644.84 $95,284.39 -$863,351.58 -$10,360,218.94

DRAFT

E911 Board

2011 Annual Report

Prepaid Supplement

Appendix 2.

Prepaid Legislative Data

DRAFT

Wireless Service Provider Prepaid Service – E911 Fee Remittance History

A wireless E911 surcharge was established in 1999, which mandates that issues of E911 planning and implementation be updated to reflect the status of the E911 program. E911 legislation was passed that addressed the rapidly expanding wireless industry and its affect on 911 systems. This legislation established a statewide fee of 50 cents per month for each wireless telephone billed within Florida, to be administered by a State Wireless 911 Board appointed by the Governor.

The State of Florida Wireless 911 Board and now the E911 Board have been trying to determine the methods to collect a fair and equitable E911 fee on prepaid mobile service. Based on the belief that all devices with access to E911 services should pay the fee to support the service, the Florida Wireless 911 Board submitted an opinion request to the Office of the Attorney General concerning certain prepaid issues on August 31, 2005. The Office of the Attorney General provided a response to the Florida Wireless 911 Board on December 12, 2005, stating:

In the absence of any statutory language authorizing the Florida Wireless 911 Board to waive the fee assessed by the Legislature and in light of the affirmative duty imposed by the Legislature on wireless E911 providers to calculate and remit a surcharge, the Office of the Attorney General opines that providers are not relieved of their obligation to remit the E911 wireless fee even when they purport not to have the technology to determine whether a wireless service customer has a sufficient positive balance as of the last day of each month.

The Florida Wireless 911 Board continued to implement the prepaid wireless provisions as incorporated within Chapter 2003-182, Laws of Florida, and clarified by Attorney General Opinion 2005-66 and to work with the prepaid wireless service providers on methods to calculate and remit the fees. At the August 2006 Wireless 911 Board meeting an agreement was reached with a major prepaid provider resolving the dispute in past collections and receipts. The current remittance was based on the following model. The prepaid provider divided the total earned revenue received by the prepaid provider within the monthly 911 reporting period by fifty dollars and multiplied the quotient by the monthly service fee of 50 cents. As part of the proposed 2007 combination of the wireline and wireless E911 legislation, changes in the prepaid language were recommended to clarify the collection methods.

In the 2007 legislative session, the legislature suspended the collections of E911 Fee on prepaid wireless service until July 1, 2009. As mandated in the 2007 legislative language of section 365.172, Florida Statutes, the E911 Board developed and completed a study of prepaid wireless collection methods and determined that a fee should be collected from the sale of prepaid wireless service. The study included an evaluation of methods by which E911 fees may be collected from end users and purchasers of prepaid wireless service on an equitable, efficient, competitively neutral, and nondiscriminatory basis and considered whether the collection of fees on prepaid wireless service would constitute an efficient use of public funds

DRAFT

given the technological and practical considerations of collecting the fee based on the varying methodologies prepaid wireless service providers and their agents use in marketing prepaid wireless service.

The E911 Board completed the Prepaid Study required by the 2007 legislation and recommended collections on prepaid wireless. At workshops during the rule making process the E911 Board determined that legislative changes were required to enable collection of the prepaid wireless fee. The E911 Board Task Force worked with representatives of the parties involved to develop potential legislation to address this issue. The E911 Board recommended delaying the date to start collecting prepaid wireless fees to no later than January 1, 2010.

During the 2010 legislative session, the legislature extended the suspension for collections of prepaid calling card arrangements until July 1, 2013. The legislation also suspended collections of all wireless prepaid service.

With the continued consumer trends from wireless contract services to prepaid arrangements, legislative changes are necessary for collection of the exempted E911 fee revenue. There are a variety of prepaid methods and service plans. Each service offering provides a unique set of fee collection issues. Further action is required to assist in the development of statutory language for the collection of this E911 fee revenue. The E911 fee should be competitively neutral among wireless providers and retailers, applied uniformly, and imposed throughout the state. The development of these proposed legislative changes needs to be completed in 2012. Any changes need to be submitted to the legislature for consideration in the 2013 legislative session in preparation of the expiring suspension provision on July 1, 2013, for collection of the prepaid E911 fee.

E911 Prepaid Wireless Timeline (Lines indicate start of State Fiscal Year;

E911 Board Fiscal Year)

1999 2013

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

LegislationWireless emergency telephone number

"E911" Established

LegislationPrepaid wireless

telephone service Defined

Legislation Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Suspended until

7/1/2009

E911 BoardPrepaid Wireless Service Report

submitted 12/1/2008

Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Begin Collection

7/1/2009

LegislationPrepaid wireless service E911 fee Suspended until

7/1/2013

Prepaid wireless service E911 fee Begin Collection

7/1/2013

E911 BoardRule

Development Workshops

Attorney General Opinion onE911 fee

remittance12/12/2005

DRAFT

E911 Board

2011 Annual Report

Prepaid Supplement

Appendix 3.

Historical Data, Calculation and Projections

DRAFT

E911 Board Appendix 3

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NUMBER E911 SYSTEM FUND(E911 TRUST FUND)

WIRELESS SERVICE PROVIDER COST RECOVERY HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

2011 Supplemental Report

Cost Recovery Charts Annual Report 8-7-12.xlsx Exhibit 1 8/31/2012

Calendar Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Actual Payments 33,472,070$ 28,224,226$ 16,364,407$ 21,663,297$ 16,030,627$ 15,421,755$ 12,488,905$ 11,023,176$ -$ -$ Estimated CRP 77,040,579$ 49,343,888$ 24,365,120$ 21,039,944$ 26,861,316$ 16,780,574$ 16,535,460$ 15,184,897$ 11,081,534$ 12,310,318$

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Historical Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Data

Actual Payments

Estimated CRP

DRAFT

E911 Board Appendix 3

E911 EXPENDITURE AND FEE REVENUE FORCAST

2011 Supplemental Report

Copy of E911 Expenditure and Fee Revenue Forecast 8-10-12.xls Exhibit 2 8/31/2012

Fiscal Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13Total E911 Expenditures 189,985,083$ 200,509,531$ 205,897,678$ 204,533,995$ 213,454,684$ 220,100,537$

Total E911 Fee Revenue 129,374,583$ 127,812,850$ 125,201,981$ 123,332,524$ 115,184,844$ 107,110,925$

State of Florida E911 Expenditures

State of Florida E911 Fee Revenue

$-

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

E911 Expenditure and Fee Revenue Forecast

Total E911 Expenditures

Total E911 Fee Revenue

DRAFT

E911 Board Appendix 3

E911 Trust Fund Balance Projections

2011 Supplemental Report

$‐

$10,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$30,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$50,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$70,000,000 

$80,000,000 

$90,000,000 

E911 TRUST FUND BALANCE (Cash Basis)

Calendar Year Basis

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200624,467,376$ 42,713,986$ 63,658,248$ 55,106,232$ 60,630,932$ 59,031,739$ 79,876,876$

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201386,615,681$ $ 52,739,498 $ 37,905,971 $ 40,481,217 $ 32,757,068 $ 31,947,970 $ 28,314,068

$2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

E911 Trust Fund-chart w FY 8-29-12.xls Exhibit 3 8/31/2012

DRAFT

E911 Board Appendix 3

E911 Trust Fund Balance Projections

2011 Supplemental Report

E911 Trust Fund-chart w FY 8-29-12.xls Exhibit 4 8/31/2012

2001-2002 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-0755,520,432$ 52,799,485$ 47,258,613$ 57,466,785$ 60,022,397$ 70,054,201$

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-1338,162,750$ 17,702,605$ 19,988,994$ 16,734,706$ 13,183,935$ 11,411,558$

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

E911 TRUST FUND BALANCE (Compiled Basis)

Fiscal Year Basis

DRAFT

County E911 Fee Revenue(2006-2012)

WIRELESS E911 REVENUE  ‐ DISBURSEMENT SUMMARY  2006 to 2011  2006 to 2012 2006 to 2012Actual Estimated Estimated

Board Approved: Actual Wireless Actual Wireless Estimated Wireless Fee Revenue Fee Revenue Fee RevenueFee Revenue Fee Revenue Fee Revenue % Change % Change 2012‐2006

2006 2011 2012

Column1 Column4 Column19 Column22 Column25 Column26 Column43Miami‐Dade $6,576,502.08 $8,349,428.58 $5,298,798.62 27% ‐19% (1,277,703.46)$

Broward $4,854,084.70 $5,920,266.78 $4,396,281.84 22% ‐9% (457,802.86)$

Orange $3,162,963.97 $3,621,047.26 $3,086,523.24 14% ‐2% (76,440.73)$

Palm Beach $3,314,338.32 $4,070,442.74 $3,259,459.01 23% ‐2% (54,879.31)$

Polk $1,272,232.93 $1,523,012.27 $1,219,835.76 20% ‐4% (52,397.17)$

Hendry $104,398.59 $71,846.95 $56,017.80 ‐31% ‐46% (48,380.79)$

Marion $766,472.14 $780,461.81 $718,223.04 2% ‐6% (48,249.10)$

St. Lucie $612,338.49 $733,149.17 $564,508.22 20% ‐8% (47,830.27)$

Collier $799,051.50 $910,969.31 $756,382.13 14% ‐5% (42,669.37)$

Highlands $207,096.91 $194,524.62 $180,885.84 ‐6% ‐13% (26,211.07)$

Lee $1,394,950.86 $1,713,907.84 $1,368,949.46 23% ‐2% (26,001.40)$

Okeechobee $86,726.67 $67,197.46 $60,878.98 ‐23% ‐30% (25,847.69)$

Desoto $67,286.72 $48,951.93 $45,867.55 ‐27% ‐32% (21,419.17)$

Hardee $56,085.76 $44,839.06 $42,295.44 ‐20% ‐25% (13,790.32)$

Pinellas $2,366,208.35 $2,786,714.58 $2,357,100.41 18% 0% (9,107.94)$

Suwannee $84,351.77 $76,940.02 $76,609.90 ‐9% ‐9% (7,741.87)$

Levy $85,392.05 $82,362.35 $80,179.49 ‐4% ‐6% (5,212.56)$

Martin $372,298.31 $427,613.56 $367,902.41 15% ‐1% (4,395.90)$

Alachua $594,645.41 $633,213.43 $590,337.12 6% ‐1% (4,308.29)$

Putnam $135,943.57 $133,142.73 $132,616.01 ‐2% ‐2% (3,327.56)$

Hillsborough $3,259,530.56 $4,013,004.20 $3,256,786.58 23% 0% (2,743.98)$

Bradford $47,275.32 $48,109.33 $45,354.67 2% ‐4% (1,920.65)$

Glades $15,484.29 $15,044.08 $13,687.92 ‐3% ‐12% (1,796.37)$

Dixie $21,554.52 $20,963.20 $20,596.92 ‐3% ‐4% (957.60)$

Volusia $1,206,458.53 $1,342,414.64 $1,205,719.92 11% 0% (738.61)$

Monroe $228,167.37 $278,103.70 $227,758.85 22% 0% (408.52)$

Jefferson $27,621.53 $29,293.30 $29,027.38 6% 5% 1,405.85$

Union $18,885.01 $20,575.58 $20,413.03 9% 8% 1,528.02$

Washington $37,129.64 $39,512.99 $38,863.92 6% 5% 1,734.28$

Franklin $17,267.59 $20,172.54 $19,404.22 17% 12% 2,136.63$

Osceola $617,996.20 $798,089.08 $620,829.00 29% 0% 2,832.80$

Liberty $9 162 74 $12 774 35 $12 494 47 39% 36% 3 331 73$Liberty $9,162.74 $12,774.35 $12,494.47 39% 36% 3,331.73$

Lafayette $7,930.64 $11,410.84 $11,291.62 44% 42% 3,360.98$

Hamilton $16,643.34 $20,276.50 $20,013.31 22% 20% 3,369.97$

Holmes $23,449.44 $28,096.11 $27,033.14 20% 15% 3,583.70$

Gulf $22,286.99 $28,794.84 $27,792.19 29% 25% 5,505.20$

Gilchrist $26,830.57 $33,362.60 $32,732.90 24% 22% 5,902.33$

Taylor $29,891.50 $37,131.00 $35,806.46 24% 20% 5,914.96$

Madison $23,789.96 $30,118.94 $29,768.11 27% 25% 5,978.15$

Calhoun $15,342.56 $22,296.21 $21,634.37 45% 41% 6,291.81$

Baker $39,472.13 $47,692.35 $46,952.23 21% 19% 7,480.10$

Jackson $78,003.00 $86,802.70 $85,836.10 11% 10% 7,833.10$

Gadsden $70,981.39 $86,753.22 $83,591.57 22% 18% 12,610.18$

Okaloosa $562,120.26 $571,415.60 $577,678.37 2% 3% 15,558.11$

Wakulla $47,666.09 $64,256.01 $63,798.41 35% 34% 16,132.32$

Indian River $305,026.56 $359,337.39 $322,340.88 18% 6% 17,314.32$

Charlotte $330,212.63 $391,620.83 $351,178.78 19% 6% 20,966.15$

Duval $2,324,281.28 $2,712,944.23 $2,346,102.29 17% 1% 21,821.01$

Citrus $257,707.83 $299,705.55 $288,390.84 16% 12% 30,683.01$

Walton $109,049.81 $137,826.63 $139,834.46 26% 28% 30,784.65$

Hernando $330,523.49 $419,394.19 $366,033.82 27% 11% 35,510.33$

Manatee $687,279.97 $850,495.98 $725,838.82 24% 6% 38,558.85$

Columbia $90,804.62 $130,353.99 $129,820.58 44% 43% 39,015.96$

Flagler $181,409.86 $237,196.28 $220,973.98 31% 22% 39,564.12$

Nassau $149,694.65 $200,704.11 $190,181.30 34% 27% 40,486.65$

Bay $369,786.44 $420,452.72 $416,349.91 14% 13% 46,563.47$

Sumter $124,126.72 $180,794.18 $185,474.42 46% 49% 61,347.70$

Leon $612,205.46 $686,705.18 $683,281.78 12% 12% 71,076.32$

Sarasota $859,901.91 $1,036,177.65 $936,448.25 20% 9% 76,546.34$

Lake $620,495.09 $750,732.45 $706,491.19 21% 14% 85,996.10$

Clay $420,249.37 $555,087.33 $512,458.78 32% 22% 92,209.41$

St. Johns $410,752.77 $547,776.95 $546,353.93 33% 33% 135,601.16$

Seminole $1,113,781.95 $1,369,835.69 $1,253,665.94 23% 13% 139,883.99$

Santa Rosa $265,073.39 $410,457.31 $413,757.26 55% 56% 148,683.87$

Brevard $1,249,406.52 $1,592,538.63 $1,403,596.03 27% 12% 154,189.51$

Pasco $918,549.87 $1,242,950.82 $1,098,058.08 35% 20% 179,508.21$

Escambia $574,422.67 $770,874.67 $773,954.54 34% 35% 199,531.87$

TOTAL BY MONTH $45,689,053.13 $55,200,459.12 $45,245,103.79

E911 Board E911 Allocation Analysis 9/5/2012

DRAFT

County E911 Fee Disbursements(2006-2012)

WIRELESS 911 REVENUE & SUPPLEMENTAL DISBURSEMENT SUMMARY  2006 to 2011  2006 to 2012 2006 to 2012Actual Estimated Estimated

Board Approved: Actual Wireless Actual Wireless Estimated Wireless Fee Disbursement Fee Disbursement Fee DisbursementFee Disbursement Fee Disbursement Fee Disbursement % Change % Change Revenue Change

2006 2011 2012

Column1 Column2 Column17 Column20 Column23 Column24 Column27Miami‐Dade $6,576,502.08 $8,349,428.58 $5,298,798.62 27% ‐19% (1,277,703.46)$                Broward $4,854,084.70 $5,920,266.78 $4,396,281.84 22% ‐9% (457,802.86)$                   Orange $3,162,963.97 $3,621,047.26 $3,086,523.24 14% ‐2% (76,440.73)$                     

Palm Beach $3,314,338.32 $4,070,442.74 $3,259,459.01 23% ‐2% (54,879.31)$                     Polk $1,272,232.93 $1,523,012.27 $1,219,835.76 20% ‐4% (52,397.17)$                     

Marion $766,472.14 $780,461.81 $718,223.04 2% ‐6% (48,249.10)$                     St. Lucie $612,338.49 $733,149.17 $564,508.22 20% ‐8% (47,830.27)$                     Collier $799,051.50 $910,969.31 $756,382.13 14% ‐5% (42,669.37)$                     

Highlands $207,096.91 $194,524.62 $180,885.84 ‐6% ‐13% (26,211.07)$                     Lee $1,394,950.86 $1,713,907.84 $1,368,949.46 23% ‐2% (26,001.40)$                     

Hendry $104,398.59 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 ‐20% ‐20% (20,398.59)$                     Pinellas $2,366,208.35 $2,786,714.58 $2,357,100.41 18% 0% (9,107.94)$                        Martin $372,298.31 $427,613.56 $367,902.41 15% ‐1% (4,395.90)$                        Alachua $594,645.41 $633,213.43 $590,337.12 6% ‐1% (4,308.29)$                        Putnam $135,943.57 $133,142.73 $132,616.01 ‐2% ‐2% (3,327.56)$                        

Hillsborough $3,259,530.56 $4,013,004.20 $3,256,786.58 23% 0% (2,743.98)$                        Okeechobee $86,726.67 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 ‐3% ‐3% (2,726.67)$                        

Volusia $1,206,458.53 $1,342,414.64 $1,205,719.92 11% 0% (738.61)$                           Levy $85,392.05 $85,211.81 $84,886.92 0% ‐1% (505.13)$                           

Monroe $228,167.37 $278,103.70 $227,758.85 22% 0% (408.52)$                           Suwannee $84,351.77 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 0% 0% (351.77)$                           Osceola $617,996.20 $798,089.08 $620,829.00 29% 0% 2,832.80$                         Jackson $78,003.00 $87,206.47 $86,485.75 12% 11% 8,482.75$                         Gadsden $70,981.39 $87,356.36 $85,219.99 23% 20% 14,238.60$                       Okaloosa $562,120.26 $571,415.60 $577,678.37 2% 3% 15,558.11$                       Desoto $67,286.72 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 25% 25% 16,713.28$                       

Indian River $305,026.56 $359,337.39 $322,340.88 18% 6% 17,314.32$                       Charlotte $330,212.63 $391,620.83 $351,178.78 19% 6% 20,966.15$                       Duval $2,324,281.28 $2,712,944.23 $2,346,102.29 17% 1% 21,821.01$                       Hardee $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Bradford $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Glades $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       $ , $ , $ , ,$Dixie $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       

Jefferson $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Union $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       

Washington $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Franklin $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Liberty $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       

Lafayette $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Hamilton $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                        Holmes $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Gulf $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       

Gilchrist $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Taylor $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       

Madison $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Calhoun $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Baker $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Wakulla $60,000.00 $84,000.00 $84,000.00 40% 40% 24,000.00$                       Citrus $257,707.83 $299,705.55 $288,390.84 16% 12% 30,683.01$                       Walton $109,049.81 $137,826.63 $139,834.46 26% 28% 30,784.65$                       

Hernando $330,523.49 $419,394.19 $366,033.82 27% 11% 35,510.33$                       Manatee $687,279.97 $850,495.98 $725,838.82 24% 6% 38,558.85$                       Columbia $90,804.62 $130,353.99 $129,820.58 44% 43% 39,015.96$                       Flagler $181,409.86 $237,196.28 $220,973.98 31% 22% 39,564.12$                       Nassau $149,694.65 $200,704.11 $190,181.30 34% 27% 40,486.65$                       Bay $369,786.44 $420,452.72 $416,349.91 14% 13% 46,563.47$                       

Sumter $124,126.72 $180,794.18 $185,474.42 46% 49% 61,347.70$                       Leon $612,205.46 $686,705.18 $683,281.78 12% 12% 71,076.32$                       

Sarasota $859,901.91 $1,036,177.65 $936,448.25 20% 9% 76,546.34$                       Lake $620,495.09 $750,732.45 $706,491.19 21% 14% 85,996.10$                       Clay $420,249.37 $555,087.33 $512,458.78 32% 22% 92,209.41$                       

St. Johns $410,752.77 $547,776.95 $546,353.93 33% 33% 135,601.16$                    Seminole $1,113,781.95 $1,369,835.69 $1,253,665.94 23% 13% 139,883.99$                    Santa Rosa $265,073.39 $410,457.31 $413,757.26 55% 56% 148,683.87$                    Brevard $1,249,406.52 $1,592,538.63 $1,403,596.03 27% 12% 154,189.51$                    Pasco $918,549.87 $1,242,950.82 $1,098,058.08 35% 20% 179,508.21$                    

Escambia $574,422.67 $770,874.67 $773,954.54 34% 35% 199,531.87$                    

TOTAL BY MONTH $46,325,283.51 $56,296,659.30 $46,385,754.36

E911 Board E911 Allocation Analysis 9/5/2012

DRAFT

E911 Board County Special and Interest Disbursements(2006-2012)

$2 000 000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

$10,000,000

Additional E911 Trust Fund Disbursements

Special Disbursement

Interest Disbursement

DISBURSEMENT 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

INTEREST $1,464,262 $2,055,728 $1,922,849 $1,199,195 $625,849 $662,980 $577,956SPECIAL $4,000,000.00 $8,143,061.00 $1,788,416.59 $6,117,098.23

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

E911 Board E911 Allocation Analysis 9/5/2012

DRAFT

Based on E911 Board Disbursement Spreadsheet

Disbursements 2006 2007 2008 2009

Fee Revenue $45,689,053 $49,697,791 $51,900,573 $50,962,686 Including

Supplemental $46,325,284 $50,427,363 $52,735,457 $51,782,902 Including Interest $47,789,545 $52,483,091 $54,658,306 $52,982,097 Including Special $47,789,545 $52,483,091 $54,658,306 $56,982,097

Disbursements 2010 2011 2012 2013

Fee Revenue $53,291,743 $55,200,459 $45,245,104 $45,245,104 Including

Supplemental $54,233,426 $56,296,659 $46,385,754 $46,425,754 Including Interest $54,859,275 $56,959,640 $46,963,710 $46,936,622 Including Special $63,002,336 $58,748,056 $53,080,809 $46,936,622

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year

ly D

isbu

rsem

ents

2007 Statute allocation change - increase 23% Cnty Wireless Disbursments

2010 E911 Board allocation change - increase 4% Cnty Wireless Disbursments

$1,000 RC Supplemental Increase

$1,000 RC Supplemental Increase

Special Disbursements Increase

Interest disbursement reduction associated with trust fund decrease

County Wireless E911 Fee & Special Disbursements

Including Supplemental Disbursement

Fee Revenue

Including Interest

Including Special

Disbursement

DRAFT

E911 Board Grant Program Disbursement (2006-2012)With Projection 2013

$

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

E911 Board Grant Program Disbursements

E911 State Grants

Rural County Grants

DISBURSEMENT 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013RURAL $1,153,398 $2,922,380 $3,883,858 $2,414,720 $1,827,028 $2,529,030 $1,644,121 $1,644,121STATE $37,000,000 $13,000,000 $3,408,912 $9,720,472 $8,000,000

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

E911 Board E911 Allocation Analysis 9/5/2012

DRAFT

E911 Board Total County Disbursements (2006-2012)With Projection 2013

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

$160,000,000

Disbu

rsem

ents

Total County E911 Revenue & Disbursements

Including State Grants

Including Rural Grants

Including Special 

Including Interest

Including Supplemental

Including Wireless

Nonwireless

Disbursements 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Wireless Fee  $45,689,053 $49,697,791 $51,900,573 $50,962,686 $53,291,743 $55,200,459 $45,245,104 $45,245,104Supplemental $636,230 $729,572 $834,884 $820,216 $941,682 $1,096,200 $1,140,651 $1,180,651

Interest $1,464,262 $2,055,728 $1,922,849 $1,199,195 $625,849 $662,980 $577,956 $510,868Special $4,000,000 $8,143,061 $1,788,417 $6,117,098 $0

Rural County Grants $1,153,398.00 $2,922,380 $3,883,858 $2,414,720 $1,827,028 $2,529,030 $1,644,121 $1,644,121State Grants $37,000,000 $13,000,000 $3,408,912 $9,720,472 $8,000,000

Nonwireless Fee  $50,156,737 $48,014,605 $45,628,488 $43,843,977 $42,801,813 $41,945,777

Disbursements 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Nonwireless $50,156,737 $48,014,605 $45,628,488 $43,843,977 $42,801,813 $41,945,777

Including Wireless $45,689,053 $49,697,791 $102,057,310 $98,977,290 $98,920,232 $99,044,436 $88,046,917 $87,190,881Including Supplemental $46,325,284 $50,427,363 $102,892,194 $99,797,506 $99,861,914 $100,140,636 $89,187,568 $88,371,531

Including Interest $47,789,545 $52,483,091 $104,815,043 $100,996,702 $100,487,763 $100,803,616 $89,765,524 $88,882,399Including Special  $47,789,545 $52,483,091 $104,815,043 $104,996,702 $108,630,824 $102,592,033 $95,882,622 $88,882,399

Including Rural Grants $48,942,943 $55,405,471 $108,698,901 $107,411,422 $110,457,852 $105,121,063 $97,526,743 $90,526,520Including State Grants $145,698,901 $120,411,422 $113,866,764 $114,841,535 $97,526,743 $98,526,520

$02008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

E911 Board E911 Allocation Analysis 9/5/2012

DRAFT

Florida Allocation Projections,

FY 2012-2013

64,624,536$

Calculation Field

Spending Authority

Disbursement Set by Board

Disbursement Projected Year Projected $ 14,287,713

Percentage 1.00% 1.00% Projected $ -$ 646,245$ (142,877)$ -$

Budget 18%

Percentage 3.00% 3.00% Projected $ -$ 1,938,736$ (428,631)$ -$

Budget 18%

Percentage 25.00% (3,571,928)$ 5,079,472$ Projected $ 15,484,846$ 11,076,662$ 16,156,134$ 18%

Budget

Percentage 71.00% 71.00% Projected $ 70,020,273$ 45,883,421$ (10,144,276)$ 0

70,020,273$ 1,938,736$

8,000,000$

-$

1,292,491$

Carry Forward from 2011-2012 -$

12,905,626$

100.0% Totals 64,624,536$

Administration

Rural County

Service Provider

County

County Disbursement Spend Authority (RCG Program)

State Grant Approved Budget

Special Disbursement

2% Fee Forecast Variance

Total Spending Authority Variance

Wireless Fee Disbursement Projections Trust Fund ImpactEstimated Yearly Revenue

End of Year 2012-2013

Projected E911 Fund Balance

with State Grant Program

Total July 12 through June 20132012-2013 Estimate Decrease Prepaid

Budget Projection 2012-13 (Sup) 1 9/5/2012

DRAFT

Florida Allocation Projections,

FY 2012-2013

42,486,389$

Calculation Field

Spending Authority

Disbursement Set by Board

Disbursement Projected Year Current

Percentage 1.00% 1.00% Projected $ -$ 424,864$

Percentage 2.00% 2.00% Projected $ -$ 849,728$

Percentage 97.00% 97.00% Projected $ 50,030,674$ -$ 41,211,797$

50,030,674$ 849,728$

-$

600,000$

200,000$

849,728$

6,519,421$

100%50,030,674$ -$ 42,486,389$ -$ -$

Calculation Field

Spending Authority

Disbursement Set by Board

Disbursement Projected Year Current (466,205)$ -$

Percentage 1.00% 1.00% Projected $ 1,537,314$ 1,071,109$

-$

(466,205)$ -$

Administration

ENHANCE Grant Disbursement

Total July 12 through June 2013 June 2012 End of Year 2012-2013 Spending Authority

End of Year 2012-2013

Projected E911 Fund Balance

with State Grant Program

Administration

Rural County

County

County Disbursement Spend Authority (RCG Program)

Special Disbursement

Interest Disbursement

ENHANCE Grant Disbursement

2% Fee Forecast Variance

Total Spending Authority Variance

Administration Projections TrustFund Impact

Estimated Yearly RevenueJune 2012

End of Year 2012-2013 Spending Authority

End of Year 2012-2013

Projected E911 Fund Balance

with State Grant Program

Total July 12 through June 2013

Nonwireless Fee Disbursement Projections TrustFund Impact

Budget Projection 2012-13 (Sup) 2 9/5/2012

DRAFT

Florida Allocation Projections,

FY 2012-2013

Calculation Field

Spending Authority

Disbursement Set by Board

Disbursement Projected Year Current

2,788,464$ -$ -$ Wireless

Percentage 3.00% 3.00%Projected $ 1,938,736$ -$ 1,938,736$

Nonwireless Percentage 2.00% 2.00%

Percentage 849,728$ -$ 849,728$

Combined Percentage Projected $ -$ 2,788,464$

-$ 7,000$ -$ 1,143,413$ -$ -$

-$ 1,645,051$ -$ -$

-$ -$

Total Fund Balance

FY 2011-2012 Spending Authority

Change2012-13 Spending Authority

Disbursement Projected Year Projected Year

1,537,314$ -$ 1,537,314$ 70,020,273$ -$ 70,020,273$ 15,484,846$ -$ 15,484,846$ 50,030,674$ -$ 50,030,674$ 137,073,107$ 137,073,107$

FY 2012-2013 2012-13 FY 2011-12 FY 2013-14Revenue Projected Year Updated Projected Year

78,912,249$ 64,624,536$ 64,624,536$ 42,439,902$ -$ 40,530,106$

Rural County

Supplemental Revenue Min/MthYearly Estimated Funding

Remaining for RC Grant Program

AdministrationDist. To Counties WirelessDist. To Providers WirelessDist. To Counties Non Wireless

WirelessNonwireless

Rural County Projections TrustFund Impact

Total July 10 through June 2011 June 2012 End of Year 2012-2013 Spending Authority

End of Year 2012-2013

Projected E911 Fund Balance

with State Grant Program

Budget Projection 2012-13 (Sup) 3 9/5/2012

DRAFT

Florida E911 BoardSpecial Disbursement Analysis

Principal Amt.

5.000 Million $5,000,000.00

Minimum to County:

$2,000.00

$0 $3,037.52 Estimated Estimated

County Name Percent Wild Card Minimum Included Yearly Difference Yearly Difference2

Miami‐Dade 15.14513% $757,256.48 $757,256.48 ‐$3,117,536.01 ‐$2,360,279.53

Broward 10.73040% $536,520.13 $536,520.13 ‐$1,575,730.65 ‐$1,039,210.52

Palm Beach 7.36675% $368,337.64 $368,337.64 ‐$870,973.94 ‐$502,636.30

Hillsborough 7.26610% $363,304.92 $363,304.92 ‐$793,460.60 ‐$430,155.68

Orange 6.56623% $328,311.33 $328,311.33 ‐$545,103.10 ‐$216,791.77

Lee 3.09903% $154,951.37 $154,951.37 ‐$365,513.15 ‐$210,561.78

Pinellas 5.05229% $252,614.42 $252,614.42 ‐$445,603.56 ‐$192,989.14

Polk 2.75516% $137,758.17 $137,758.17 ‐$311,875.87 ‐$174,117.70

Duval 4.94139% $247,069.59 $247,069.59 ‐$372,544.84 ‐$125,475.25

St. Lucie 1.32065% $66,032.32 $66,032.32 ‐$180,304.50 ‐$114,272.18

Osceola 1.44556% $72,278.08 $72,278.08 ‐$180,281.12 ‐$108,003.04

Collier 1.64783% $82,391.65 $82,391.65 ‐$164,827.88 ‐$82,436.23

Brevard 2.88364% $144,181.90 $144,181.90 ‐$201,735.20 ‐$57,553.30

Manatee 1.53910% $76,954.76 $76,954.76 ‐$130,784.60 ‐$53,829.84

Pasco 2.24825% $112,412.40 $112,412.40 ‐$158,697.29 ‐$46,284.89

Monroe 0.50314% $25,156.85 $25,156.85 ‐$55,322.21 ‐$30,165.36

Martin 0.77293% $38,646.28 $38,646.28 ‐$66,748.69 ‐$28,102.41

Volusia 2.43288% $121,644.20 $121,644.20 ‐$141,835.39 ‐$20,191.19

Hernando 0.75969% $37,984.47 $37,984.47 ‐$54,963.44 ‐$16,978.97

Sarasota 1.87595% $93,797.62 $93,797.62 ‐$107,741.65 ‐$13,944.03

Indian River 0.64952% $32,475.85 $32,475.85 ‐$44,318.30 ‐$11,842.45

Hendry 0.13035% $6,517.34 $6,517.34 ‐$15,342.16 ‐$8,824.82

Charlotte 0.70927% $35,463.28 $35,463.28 ‐$42,759.28 ‐$7,296.00

Okeechobee 0.12218% $6,108.83 $6,108.83 ‐$5,646.13 $462.70

Flagler 0.42925% $21,462.57 $21,462.57 ‐$18,550.06 $2,912.51

Marion 1.40252% $70,126.11 $70,126.11 ‐$66,580.04 $3,546.07

Highlands 0.35264% $17,631.90 $17,631.90 ‐$13,507.47 $4,124.43

Clay 1.00876% $50,437.99 $50,437.99 ‐$46,191.03 $4,246.96

Bradford 0.08698% $4,349.16 $4,349.16 ‐$2,598.75 $1,750.41

Seminole 2.48400% $124,199.93 $124,199.93 ‐$119,666.40 $4,533.53

Desoto 0.08897% $4,448.64 $4,448.64 ‐$2,461.18 $1,987.46

Hardee 0.08136% $4,068.02 $4,068.02 ‐$2,339.18 $1,728.84

Glades 0.02724% $1,361.82 $2,000.00 ‐$1,429.27 $570.73

Levy 0.14855% $7,427.45 $7,427.45 ‐$1,746.14 $5,681.31

Nassau 0.36500% $18,249.96 $18,249.96 ‐$12,303.18 $5,946.78

Taylor 0.06718% $3,358.78 $3,358.78 ‐$966.17 $2,392.61

Gadsden 0.15744% $7,871.77 $7,871.77 ‐$1,684.61 $6,187.16

Baker 0.08696% $4,348.22 $4,348.22 ‐$787.13 $3,561.09

Holmes 0.05094% $2,547.24 $2,547.24 ‐$698.25 $1,848.99

Washington 0.07163% $3,581.67 $3,581.67 ‐$592.27 $2,989.40

Gilchrist 0.05987% $2,993.61 $2,993.61 ‐$576.20 $2,417.41

Gulf 0.05234% $2,617.06 $2,617.06 ‐$537.27 $2,079.79

Suwannee 0.13917% $6,958.35 $6,958.35 ‐$477.03 $6,481.32

Franklin 0.03664% $1,832.15 $2,000.00 ‐$433.04 $1,566.96

Dixie 0.03765% $1,882.57 $2,000.00 ‐$411.79 $1,588.21

Wakulla 0.11597% $5,798.33 $5,798.33 ‐$405.91 $5,392.42

Amount Added to Reach Minimum:

Based on Previous Wireless Disbursement Percentage,Dec 2010 to Nov 2011

Projected County Yearly Fee Revenue 

Loss                   2012‐13

Projected County Yearly Fee Revenue Loss with Special Disbursement    

2012‐13

DRAFT

Florida E911 BoardSpecial Disbursement Analysis

Principal Amt.

5.000 Million $5,000,000.00

Minimum to County:

$2,000.00

$0 $3,037.52 Estimated Estimated

County Name Percent Wild Card Minimum Included Yearly Difference Yearly Difference2

Amount Added to Reach Minimum:

Based on Previous Wireless Disbursement Percentage,Dec 2010 to Nov 2011

Projected County Yearly Fee Revenue 

Loss                   2012‐13

Projected County Yearly Fee Revenue Loss with Special Disbursement    

2012‐13

Hamilton 0.03673% $1,836.44 $2,000.00 ‐$271.59 $1,728.41

Calhoun 0.04040% $2,019.97 $2,019.97 ‐$258.93 $1,761.04

Jefferson 0.05294% $2,647.05 $2,647.05 ‐$214.14 $2,432.91

Lafayette 0.02067% $1,033.43 $2,000.00 ‐$163.75 $1,836.25

Union 0.03716% $1,858.07 $2,000.00 ‐$155.52 $1,844.48

Liberty 0.02316% $1,157.99 $2,000.00 ‐$129.85 $1,870.15

Madison 0.05426% $2,712.92 $2,712.92 $2.11 $2,715.03

Jackson 0.15722% $7,860.82 $7,860.82 $220.15 $8,080.97

Alachua 1.13791% $56,895.27 $56,895.27 ‐$46,400.71 $10,494.56

Putnam 0.24328% $12,163.96 $12,163.96 ‐$567.86 $11,596.10

Columbia 0.23609% $11,804.29 $11,804.29 $219.69 $12,023.98

Walton 0.24941% $12,470.63 $12,470.63 $948.88 $13,419.51

Citrus 0.54270% $27,135.09 $27,135.09 ‐$12,864.92 $14,270.17

Sumter 0.32530% $16,264.84 $16,264.84 $1,099.49 $17,364.33

Lake 1.35928% $67,964.13 $67,964.13 ‐$48,429.25 $19,534.88

Bay 0.75967% $37,983.42 $37,983.42 ‐$2,235.12 $35,748.30

Santa Rosa 0.74345% $37,172.66 $37,172.66 ‐$78.69 $37,093.97

St. Johns 0.99490% $49,745.03 $49,745.03 ‐$10,907.85 $38,837.18

Okaloosa 1.03501% $51,750.30 $51,750.30 $3,373.74 $55,124.04

Leon 1.23743% $61,871.54 $61,871.54 ‐$1,688.00 $60,183.54

Escambia 1.39858% $69,928.96 $69,928.96 $2,875.11 $72,804.07Totals: 100.00000% $5,000,000 $5,003,038

DRAFT

CALLTAKER CERTIFICATION PROCESS

CURRENT EMPLOYEENEW EMPLOYEELAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

232 Hour Training Class

DOH Curriculum

PASS EXAM

EXAM$75

DOH CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

$50

CERTFIED EMPLOYEE

EXAM$75

(exempt)

PASS EXAM

DOH CERTIFICATION APPLICATION$50

Do certification fees apply to Law Enforcement Officers??

CERTFIED EMPLOYEE

CERTFIED EMPLOYEE

40 Hour On-line Training Class

DOH Curriculum

Grandfathered in – 3+ years experience - ends 9/30/2012

or complete curriculum by 9/30/2012

EXAM$75

PASS EXAM

DOH CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

$50

NO

YES

YES

Do exam fees apply to Law Enforcement Officers?

LEO Exempt from exam fees per FS 401.465 (2)

There is a clause which expires 9/30/12"You do not have to take the exam if: you complete a department approved training program and submit the certificate of completion (DH 5068) no later than 9/30/12

For example, the employees that we hired in June will not have to take the exam because our curriculum says they will have 320 hours of classroom time. The employees that will be hired in September will because they will not complete our curriculum by October 1.

1

Infinger, Wink

From: Welte, Patricia L. [Patricia.Welte@jaxsheriff.org]Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:02 PMTo: Infinger, WinkSubject: RE: certification for law enforcement

I’d appreciate a little clarity on that. I didn’t plan on it in the budget, And even if the agency pays the training I’m looking at $50 x  45 officers ‐  so that’s a  few thousand dollars….  Just checking thanks  Pat Welte  

From: Infinger, Wink [mailto:wink.Infinger@dms.myflorida.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:59 PM To: Welte, Patricia L. Subject: RE: certification for law enforcement  Pat,  911 Public Safety Telecommunicator DOH certification, recertification and training costs are on the E911 Board allowable expenditure opinion list. Do not know that the opinion is title dependent. It appears that it relates to the requirement for being certified to perform 911 PST duties. Understand that titles and requirements for individuals may change but it appears that if the certification and training are required to function as 911 Public Safety Telecommunicator, it would be covered by the opinion.  If you would like we can bring it up to the Board.  Thanks,  Wink Infinger Statewide 911 Coordinator Division of Telecommunications, Building 4030/Suite 160D Florida Department of Management Services Tallahassee, Florida 32399‐0950 (850) 921‐0041  Wink.Infinger@dms.MyFlorida.com  “We Serve Those Who Serve Florida”  

From: Welte, Patricia L. [mailto:Patricia.Welte@jaxsheriff.org] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 2:39 PM To: Infinger, Wink Subject: certification for law enforcement  Quick question –  Can 911 funds pay certification for law enforcement officers???? I don’t pay their training, and LEO’s  are not charged for the exam ….. 

2

I’ve  had so many discussions ……. I’m not sure  what  is fact and what is opinion.  As usual I made a chart to follow the process….. I’m just not clear on a few things.  thanks  Patricia Welte Duval County 911 Coordinator 904‐630‐2317 Patricia.Welte@jaxsheriff.org  

Adjourn

October 16-18, 2012, 9:00 a.m. – until conclusion of business Embassy Suites Hotel @ USF

3705 Spectrum Boulevard Tampa