HB3164 amends the Emergency Telephone System Act to adjust and clarify local 9-1-1 surcharge rules for both non-wireless and wireless telecommunications services. The bill primarily updates the statutory language governing how municipalities and counties may impose monthly surcharges on network connections and CMRS connections, including how those charges are calculated for PBX/centrex and advanced service trunk lines, how mobile customers are assigned to a taxing jurisdiction, and how surcharge revenues are collected and remitted by telecommunications carriers.
The bill also extends and revises the special surcharge limits for municipalities with populations over 500,000, replacing prior sunset dates with new dates and lowering the maximum allowed surcharge after January 1, 2026. It preserves the ability of large municipalities to use wireless surcharge revenues for anti-terrorism and emergency preparedness purposes. The measure is effective upon becoming law and appears to be a technical and fiscal update to existing local emergency telephone funding authority rather than a wholesale policy change.
Impact
HB3164 would amend Sections 15.3 and 15.3a of the Emergency Telephone System Act, affecting local governments, emergency telephone system boards, and telecommunications carriers that collect and remit 9-1-1 surcharges. It clarifies surcharge application rules for landline, wireless, and advanced trunk-line services, updates population-based surcharge caps for municipalities over 500,000, and revises the timing of those caps. The bill also affects the use of surcharge proceeds, including continued authorization for certain emergency preparedness and anti-terrorism expenditures in large municipalities, while leaving the broader local authority to fund 9-1-1 systems intact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in the House, passing Third Reading on April 8, 2025 by a vote of 75-38. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate detailed support or opposition arguments. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a practical update to local 9-1-1 funding law, with enough support to advance but not unanimous agreement.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the surcharge levels, the continued authority of large municipalities to impose higher 9-1-1-related charges, and the use of surcharge revenue for nontraditional emergency preparedness or anti-terrorism purposes. Telecommunications carriers may be affected by the recordkeeping and remittance requirements, while local governments may differ over how much revenue should be allowed and for what purposes it may be spent. The split House vote indicates some legislators likely objected to the tax-like surcharge burden or to the scope of local authority, even though the bill’s core purpose is administrative and funding-related.