9-1-1 legislation has been and continues to be a headache to most everyone involved in 9-1-1. Much time has been spent on attempting to correct shortcomings in the law, resulting in other legislation ideas, such as dispatcher certification and training standards, being placed on the back burner.
A major effort was underway in 1991 to amend the 9-1-1 legislation to address many areas not covered at the time. The proposed legislation was aimed at addressing the perceived shortcomings, such as:

1. No provision for smaller counties or cities to be part of a multi-jurisdictional communications district.
2. No provision for establishing a common automatic location identification program.
3. Lack of provisions for equipment rental, leasing or purchase to operate a 9-1-1 system including recurring cost to the telephone companies.
4. No provision for establishing, operating, maintaining and replacing old emergency communications equipment.
5. No provision for purchasing insurance, including workman's compensation, errors/omissions, general liability, fire, earthquake, or any other type.
6. No provision for emergency two-way radio communications equipment or prompt notification equipment.
7. No provision for engineering, installation and recurring costs necessary to implement, operate and maintain an emergency communications system.
8. Lack of provision for construction, remodeling, improving, leasing, acquiring by gift, sale, or other means, facilities to house E9-1-1 services as defined in the act or for necessary emergency and un-interruptible power supplies for the system.
9. Need to clearly define what an emergency call is and address the use of automatic dialers, as well as false alarms.
10. Lack of uniform application and uniform charges per communications district.

One of the main points was the need for levelized billing, with a proposal to eliminate the five percent funding mechanism and replace it with a flat fee. The first proposal called for up to $1.00 per residential line and up to $2.70 per business line. It was pointed out that in one county served by different phone companies some residents were paying 41-cents, others were paying 58-cents, still others were charged 68-cents and another group was paying 97-cents per month, but all were receiving the same 9-1-1 service.
The flat rate was later replaced by wording to allow up to five-percent of the highest base rate.
The legislative committee, consisting of Dick Pierce and George Mangum, worked hard to push the new legislation, however their efforts failed. The bill made its way through Senate hearings and was passed by the Senate on a 25-to-0 vote, but ran into trouble in the House. Rep. Albert Hall of Madison County threatened to kill the bill. He had asked for a public hearing but that request was denied. Rep. Carter's rules committee approved it for possible house action on the final day of the session but it never came up for debate or a vote.
Efforts by Dick Pierce and Lee Helms in 1993 were more successful as the legislation passed both houses and was signed by the governor. A sticking point in the new legislation was a portion of the bill which stated a communications district must have service on line within 36 months from the time it started collecting the telephone surcharge or cease collections and refund all monies collected.

NENA did not oppose the time limit as much as its members opposed the "refund" portion. The main goal of the legislative efforts in 1993 would be to get the refund clause removed from the bill.
While many districts eagerly jumped on the levelized billing after the new law was signed, some were slow to react and would get a shock when they were told South Central Bell (SCB) would not implement anymore levelized funding due to a dispute on the interpretation of the law. Due to conflicting attorney general opinions, SCB stated it would cease implementing levelized billing until the matter was cleared up.
During the October quarterly meeting legislative issues were discussed by Alabama NENA President John Ellison. He said those issues include: cellular phones, PCN, equipment standards, personnel standards, database standards, PSAP standards and description of the responsibility for the different types of 9-1-1 systems.
The levelized billing question went to court in late 1993 when SCB filed suit against the Elmore County Communications District. The phone company sought a declaratory judgment on the levelized billing issue. SCB questioned whether the district could impose the levelized tariff without authorization of the voters.
In September, 1994, the Elmore County judge assigned to the suit recommended that all agencies affected by the lawsuit join in on a class action suit and in October, he ordered that Elmore County 9-1-1 continue to collect at their current rate until a ruling was issued. It was also reported that legislation addressing the issue would eliminate the need for the lawsuit.
Past President John Ellison urged all NENA members to join the fight in 1995 to modify the 9-1-1 legislation to correct not only the levelized billing controversy but also to address the other current and future problems.
Ellison once again proposed a flat rate, stating, "by going to a fixed rate of collections everyone pays the same, and the districts avoid having the collection rate tied to tariffs." He said a stable funding base would also be of interest to local officials because if funding dropped due to lower tariffs, 9-1-1 districts would seek funding from local governments.
Another concern Ellison and other NENA members wanted addressed was the lack of a billing mechanism for wireless telephones. When the original 9-1-1 law was written no one dreamed that cellular and other wireless telephones would become so common place. The law in place does not allow billing wireless telephones and while cellular 9-1-1 calls are increasing, it is a service cellular customers are not paying for.
Ellison noted many technological advances currently on the horizon indicate NENA needs to attempt to anticipate future needs and address them ahead of time, rather than trying to catch up like we are currently doing with cellular. "Different types of phone offerings, and expected offerings, are covered by this law. The current law does not cover PBX, shared tenant services, competitive access providers, and many other advances in phone service," stated Ellison. He noted if we do not modify the current law, we will be ill prepared to handle the future of telecommunications. "We must be prepared to change and adapt the 9-1-1 systems the citizens depend upon in time of emergency," added Ellison.
The 9-1-1 legislation was amended in 1995 and the levelized billing controversy was put to rest, but a new twist was thrown in at the last minute. An amendment was added just before the vote was taken. That amendment stated the governing body and the 9-1-1 board of the county "shall jointly be responsible for purchasing and installing street signs, to properly identify all roads and streets."