Kansas House Bill HB2690

Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/24
• Refer: 2/5/24
• Report Pass: 2/19/24
• Engrossed: 2/28/24
• Refer: 2/29/24
• Report Pass: 3/18/24
• Enrolled: 4/5/24
• Passed: 4/25/24

Caption

Abolishing the 911 coordinating council and establishing the state 911 board; abolishing the 911 operations fund, 911 state fund and 911 state grant fund outside of the state treasury and establishing the state 911 operations fund, state 911 fund and state 911 grant fund in the state treasury; increasing the minimum county distribution of 911 moneys; and authorizing counties to contract with other counties for the provision of 911 PSAP services.

Impact

The impact of HB2690 extends to state laws related to emergency communication, particularly in how funding is allocated to public safety answering points (PSAPs). The bill mandates the distribution of 911 fees from service providers to be based on population metrics, ensuring that each county receives a fair share of funding. This adjustment aims to support local needs while enhancing the capability of PSAPs across the state to provide reliable 911 services. By allowing counties to contract PSAP services with one another, the legislation encourages collaboration and resource optimization among local jurisdictions.

Summary

House Bill 2690 proposes significant changes to Kansas's emergency communication services by establishing the state 911 board and abolishing the existing 911 coordinating council. It aims to centralize 911 operations and funding to improve efficiency and effectiveness in emergency response systems. With the creation of the state 911 operations fund, state 911 grant fund, and state 911 fund, the bill intends to streamline funding processes and ensure adequate financial resources are available for necessary upgrades and maintenance of next-generation 911 services.

Contention

Notable points of contention among lawmakers and public stakeholders include concerns regarding the potential for disruptions during the transition between the existing system and the new central board. Critics argue that abolishing the coordinating council may diminish local control and specificity in addressing unique community needs. Additionally, the financial implications of implementing new systems and ensuring that all counties are adequately funded have sparked debate about the overall budgetary impact on the state and its local governments. Opponents worry about the adequacy and sustainability of funding sources amidst evolving communication needs.