Joint Study Committee on Funding for Next Generation 9-1-1 Sustainability; create
Senate Resolution 282 creates the Joint Study Committee on Funding for Next Generation 9-1-1 Sustainability. The resolution is based on the finding that Georgia’s 9-1-1 funding system was designed in 1977 for a landline-dominated communications environment, but today most calls come from mobile phones, VoIP services, and other devices. It also notes that emerging technologies may allow 9-1-1 contact through text messages and data sessions, suggesting that the state’s current funding structure may no longer match how emergency communications are actually used.
The committee is tasked with studying the conditions, needs, issues, and problems related to 9-1-1 funding and recommending any action or legislation it deems necessary or appropriate. The committee will include members appointed by the Senate President and House Speaker, along with representatives from the Georgia Emergency Communications Authority, Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency, the Department of Revenue, the Georgia Municipal Association, and the Association County Commissioners of Georgia. The resolution also sets rules for meetings, compensation, reimbursement, reporting, and a sunset date of December 1, 2025.
The bill’s practical impact is procedural rather than immediate substantive lawmaking: it does not directly change the 9-1-1 funding statute, but it creates a formal legislative study process that could lead to future reforms of the Georgia Emergency Telephone Number 9-1-1 Service Act of 1977, codified in Title 46. If the committee identifies needed changes, it may recommend legislation affecting 9-1-1 fees, funding sources, or the structure of emergency communications support for local centers.
The general sentiment reflected in the resolution is supportive and forward-looking. The bill frames the issue as a public safety and modernization concern, emphasizing the need to ensure adequate and efficient funding for emergency response services in a changing telecommunications environment. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no evidence of formal opposition in the available record.
The main point of potential contention is how Georgia should update 9-1-1 funding and who should bear the cost. Although the resolution itself does not propose a fee increase or specific funding mechanism, any later legislation emerging from the study could raise questions about charges on wireless users, VoIP providers, local governments, or telecommunications customers. The resolution also implicitly recognizes a policy tension between maintaining stable emergency services and adapting a decades-old funding model to modern technology.
SR282 does not amend the Georgia Code directly, but it establishes a temporary joint legislative study committee to examine whether Georgia’s 9-1-1 funding laws should be updated. The committee is authorized to review the existing funding framework under the Georgia Emergency Telephone Number 9-1-1 Service Act of 1977 and to recommend legislation, which could eventually affect fees, revenue collection, and support for emergency communications centers across the state.
The resolution appears broadly favorable and noncontroversial in tone, with sponsors presenting it as a necessary modernization effort to protect public safety. It reflects concern that the current funding model is outdated given the shift from landlines to wireless, VoIP, and text-based communications. No votes or hearing transcripts are provided, so there is no documented opposition in the supplied materials.
The likely area of contention is not the creation of the study committee itself, but the policy changes that may follow. Stakeholders could disagree over whether 9-1-1 funding should come from wireless subscribers, telecommunications providers, local governments, or another source, and whether fees should be increased or restructured. Local governments, state agencies, and telecom-related interests may have differing views on cost allocation and implementation, but no specific objections are recorded in the provided context.