The president of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APSCO) recently backed that statement at an APSCO meeting, saying that Missouri is in last place for establishing a statewide 911 system.

The plan to establish the E-911 system in a given county requires a two-phase approach.  First, basic technology must be installed to route emergency cell phone calls to a local dispatch agency.

Second, technology must be used to locate a caller by a method known as triangulating, which uses multiple cell phone towers in a given region to pinpoint the caller’s location.    Or a center may use a GPS chip which manufacturers place into phones.

In either case, the expense that comes with establishing the system is insurmountable for many rural and less populated counties.

In the summer of 2007, Rep. Mark Bruns headed a special committee that held eight hearings on the issue across the state.

The lawmaker stated then that Missouri needs to find $40 million for one year and then $10 million annually thereafter. One alternative would be to impose a tariff on cell phones legislatively. Missourians got a chance to vote on such a fee-based system (fifty cents per month per phone) in 1999 and 2002, but rejected it both times.

The 2002 vote failed sixty-one to thirty-nine percent.  Many at the time opposed the measure because they believed it was bad tax policy.  Several Missouri counties, such as Greene County, have opted for local E-911 funding through a sales tax. Other counties that have been successful in establishing E-911, such as Jackson County, have increased tax rates on existing hardwire lines to pay for wireless 911.  That tax has gone up a few times over the last few years.  The problem is that not one funding system will work from county to county due to demographic differences.

All told, only 21 of Missouri’s 114 counties have passed phase 2 and completed installing the system. Other counties are at various points of either phase one or two, but are not complete.  Seventeen counties still do not even have a 911 system for hardwired phones in residential homes. There are no current plans in these counties to change that. 

Just how plans will come together in the future for other counties is confusing to say the least with multiple cell carriers and various obstacles to enacting a statewide tax plan to fund the need.

Officials in those counties have said they simply don’t have enough local money to do the job.

In the late 1990’s, the first wave of states pursuing E-911 passed statewide tax programs to fund the service.  Cell phone companies injected money to help pass the legislation.  A fee per month per phone tax was established in those states.  The cell phone companies got a certain percentage of that money.  At the time emergency services supported the structure because it helped to pass the legislation.  But what some did not pay attention to was the fact that the tax was designed to stay on the books in those states for years despite unforeseen progress in technology, more innovative cost administration or other changes.

EMS began to argue that cell phone companies should not receive tax dollars in perpetuity and that local government should write contracts for service, just as they do when buying concrete to build bridges. 
Then the Federal Government changed the rules after 1998-99, saying states did not have to cut deals with cell phone companies.  Instead, cell phone companies were mandated to provide the proper technology as soon as emergency services had the money to purchase the right equipment in order to be fully functional.
For a time, the cell phone companies continued to pursue a perpetual tax. 

Six years ago, meetings between emergency services and cell phone companies were held to ascertain how much capital would be needed to fund the E-911 projects.  The cell phone companies were not prepared to share information such as the number of customers they had in order to determine how much tax revenue could be generated.  The cell phone companies argued that the information was proprietary.  This has continued to leave emergency services in a quagmire.

In Kansas, where a successful statewide tax went into effect on July 1, 2004, 71 counties out of 105 have E-911 capability. Kansas lawmakers approved a 50-cent monthly fee on wireless phone bills to allow rural counties to afford the E-911 systems.

While most of the funds go to local jurisdictions, a separate fund was created in this model to hold a percentage that helps to support rural counties.  The system is working.

Recently, Leaders of the cell phone industry have said they no longer want a percentage of taxes.  They plan to recover costs when they negotiate contracts. 

Despite recent positive developments, it seems that 2008 is not the year for an E-911 solution in Missouri.  Some believe that next year holds promise for the needed change.  A new tax would either come from state legislators or by ballot.  Either way, there are pros and cons that keep some hopeful and others skeptical.

A constitutional amendment called the Hancock Amendment could also be a preventative to a new tax.  The amendment, established in 1980, intended to restrict the growth of the state budget. The amendment prevents the state government from increasing the percentage of residents' incomes taken as state revenues without voter approval.

Many, however, believe there is strong chance that Missouri will join the rest of the nation with a statewide tax to institute E-911.