Subject: [NEXTEL-1] NYS On E-911

From: Marcelrf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:15:44 -0500

ALAN G. HEVESI
                              COMPTROLLER
                           STATE OF NEW YORK
                    OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
                            110 STATE STREET
                         ALBANY, NEW YORK 12236

February 18, 2004

Re: Status of Wireless 911 Surcharge
In New York State
Report 2003-F-9

Dear Messers. Bennett, Daniels and Eristoff:

Pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article V,
Section 1 of the State
Constitution, and Article II, Section 8, of the State Finance Law, we
have reviewed the actions taken
by officials of the Division of State Police (Division), the Department
of State, and the Department
of Taxation and Finance as of June 30, 2003, to implement recent
legislated changes affecting the
delivery of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services.

A. Background

In 1989, the State Legislature passed the Enhanced Emergency Telephone
System Surcharge
Law (Law). The Law imposed a monthly fee on landline telephones to help
pay for systems which
automatically connect a 911 caller to a dispatcher located in a
communication center called a public
safety answering point (PSAP). The PSAP is an emergency communications
center where
emergency calls are answered and directed to the appropriate service. In
1991, the Law was
amended to establish a monthly surcharge on all cellular telephones in
the State. Wireless surcharge
revenues were intended to support Division costs for operating a
wireless 911 emergency service.
Wireless 911 emergency services can be grouped into four categories: (1)
Basic 911 -
provides the call taker with only the caller’s voice; (2) Phase 0 -
provides the call taker with the
caller’s call-back number (if not unlisted) using a function similar to
“caller ID;” (3) Phase I -
automatically identifies the caller’s call-back number using automatic
number identification (even if
it is unlisted) and the nearest cell tower location; and (4) Phase II -
automatically identifies the
caller’s number and location within 50 to 100 meters in most cases.
Having Phase II capability is
the critical goal of the enhanced wireless 911 emergency services
guidelines published by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In a series of orders issued
since 1996, the FCC has
directed actions for states, municipalities and wireless service
providers (such as Cingular, Verizon,
etc.) to improve the quality and reliability of enhanced wireless 911
emergency services throughout
the country. The FCC has ordered that Phase II capability be implemented
nationwide between
October 1, 2001 and December 31, 2005.

It is important to note that although a PSAP may have Phase II
technology, not all wireless
users will benefit without obtaining upgrades to their cellular phones.
There are two methods
available to provide location information to PSAPs: either triangulation
or Global Positioning
System (GPS). For providers using triangulation, the location of the
caller is determined by the
three nearest towers to the caller’s location. When GPS is used, a
caller’s cellular phone must have
a GPS chip installed in order for the caller to be automatically located
by a PSAP.
In our previous audit titled, Division of State Police, Cellular
Surcharge Revenues, (Report
2001-S-27), issued March 20, 2002, we identified a number of improvement
opportunities for the
delivery of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services. However,
subsequent changes reflected in
Section 309 and Article 6-A of the County Law have so significantly
altered the manner in which
these services are to be financed and delivered that a simple status of
many of the prior
recommendations would not be applicable or helpful. Therefore, this
report addresses the significant
shift in responsibilities and procedures for financing and managing
enhanced wireless 911
emergency services. In summary, our prior audit found that the Division
had collected more than
$162 million in wireless surcharge revenue since 1991, but that it did
not know how many providers
should be remitting revenues and did not verify the revenues it
received. We also found that, while
cellular users had paid surcharges for years, with the exception of
Cattaraugus County there was no
Phase II wireless 911 service operational anywhere in the State. As of
March 31, 2001 the Division
had spent the majority of surcharge revenues on general operations
rather than enhanced wireless
911 emergency services.

Subsequent to the release of our prior audit, the New York State
Legislature passed Article 6-
A of the County Law, which established within the Department of State,
the New York State 911
Board (Board). According to Article 6-A of the County Law, the purpose
of the Board is to:
“assist local governments, service suppliers, wireless telephone service
suppliers and
appropriate state agencies by facilitating the most efficient and
effective routing of 911
emergency calls, developing minimum standards for public safety
answering points;
promoting the exchange of information, including emerging technologies;
and encouraging
the use of best practice standards among the public safety answering
point community.”
In addition, several local governments (cities and counties) have opted
to establish their own
local wireless PSAPs rather than receive emergency services through a
State PSAP maintained by
the Division. Both local and State governments have been responsible for
dispatching landline
enhanced 911 calls for years. Back in 1991, when wireless 911 emergency
service legislation was
passed, the thinking was that most related wireless calls would be made
from cell phones in cars on
highways. Therefore, routing calls to State call centers seemed most
appropriate. The significant
growth in the use of cell phones has resulted in emergency calls being
made from a variety of places,
inside a building, in an elevator, on a hiking trail, etc. Local
officials have thus recognized that they
might be able to improve emergency services if they receive wireless 911
calls directly, instead of
through a State PSAP.

B. Review Scope, Objectives and Methodology

We have reviewed the actions taken by officials of the Division, the
Department of State, and
the Department of Taxation and Finance as of June 30, 2003, to implement
recent legislated changes
affecting the delivery of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services. The
objectives of our review
were to determine the status of enhanced wireless 911 emergency
services, the degree to which the
Board provides statewide oversight of enhanced wireless 911 emergency
services and the extent of
accountability over wireless 911 surcharge revenues.

Unlike an audit, a review includes limited testing and verification of
information and records.
To accomplish our objectives we met with officials of the Division, the
Department of Taxation and
Finance, and the Department of State (including a member of the Board),
and we surveyed various
county officials involved in the provision of enhanced wireless 911
emergency services. We
reviewed pertinent sections of the State Finance Law and County Law and
obtained summary
revenue and disbursement data from the State Accounting System. We also
submitted a
questionnaire to 57 local PSAPs, plus New York City, and to 16 State
PSAPs to determine the status
of their enhanced wireless 911 emergency services. Of the local PSAPs,
31 (54%) responded, and
all 16 State PSAPs responded.

C. Results of Review

Overall, we conclude that progress has been made in implementing Phase
II technology at
PSAPs, and significant improvement has been made in setting operating
standards for all PSAPs. At
the time that our last audit was released, there were no Phase II
compliant PSAPs in the State,
however, Cattaraugus County had Phase II capability. As of June 30,
2003, 17 local PSAPs and one
State PSAP have reportedly developed Phase II capability. Based on
feedback obtained through
questionnaires sent to local PSAPs, we noted that many that do not have
Phase II capability, plan to
-4-
have it within two years. In addition, the Division has plans for Phase
II implementation at
additional PSAPs, but is monitoring its existing PSAPs to determine
whether wireless 911
emergency services will continue to be provided by a State PSAP or
whether the respective counties
will be taking over operations. The establishment of a Board to provide
standards of service by
October 1, 2003, and to monitor the provision of 911 services throughout
the State is expected to
help enhance wireless 911 emergency services.

Pursuant to the amendment to Section 309 of the County Law, effective
August 1, 2002, the
Department of Taxation and Finance is responsible for collecting all
wireless surcharges. While the
Department of Taxation and Finance has taken steps to improve the level
of documentation from
providers supporting wireless surcharge collections, there still is
little assurance that all surcharge
revenues owed by providers are being collected. The Department of
Taxation and Finance has no
authority to audit the records of wireless service providers, and
therefore, cannot verify whether
reported surcharge revenues are reasonable. In addition, the amendment
broadened the intended use
of wireless 911 surcharge monies to include funding for homeland
security, as well as State public
safety and security programs, including but not limited to the
detection, protection against,
prevention, response and recovery from terrorist acts or threats.

In accordance with Section 309 of the County Law, wireless 911 surcharge
revenues are
deposited into the General Fund and the Statewide Public Safety
Communications Account. Monies
deposited into the Statewide Public Safety Communications Account have
been allocated to
programs outlined in Section 309. However, monies deposited into the
General Fund are used for
the State’s operating budget and it is not possible to verify
specifically how these funds were or will
be used. Furthermore, since we did not audit the expenditures of the
Statewide Public Safety
Communications Account, we cannot report whether all monies allocated to
programs outlined in
Section 309 were actually expended for their intended purposes. In
contrast, it is expected that the
Board’s review and approval of local PSAP enhanced wireless 911
expenditures should serve to
provide reasonable assurance that the reimbursements from the Local
Wireless Public Safety
Answering Point Account to localities were for their intended purpose.
In addition, Department of
State officials indicated that the practice of local PSAPs submitting
their enhanced wireless 911
plans to the Board should help in identifying aggregate statewide costs.

1. Status of Enhanced 911 Emergency Services

We found that there has been progress in establishing enhanced wireless
911 emergency
services at State and local PSAPs, but the lack of a control plan is
hampering progress. The Division
is not investing in a statewide approach to implementing Phase II
capability. To do so would result
in the Division incurring additional costs for enhancing a State PSAP
that might close down as
counties establish a local PSAP. Instead, the Division has established a
project plan and a timeline
to outline the steps needed to complete wireless implementation of Phase
II on a limited basis.
As of June 2003, the Division’s Albany PSAP is Phase II compliant,
answering calls from
five wireless providers in four counties (Albany, Rensselaer,
Schenectady and Schoharie Counties).
The Albany PSAP is the only Phase II compliant State PSAP. The Division
will work with the New
York State Office for Technology to consolidate its PSAPs across the
State as part of the Statewide
Wireless Network. The consolidated State PSAPs and the Statewide
Wireless Network will provide
an infrastructure to support the continued development of enhanced
wireless 911 emergency
services. The provision of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services also
requires an effective
radio communications system, which the Statewide Wireless Network
provides.

Based on a survey we conducted as part of this review, as of June 2003,
17 local, and 1 State
PSAP have Phase II capability. Responses to a questionnaire sent to 57
counties plus New York
City, indicate that many local PSAPs will have Phase II capability
within two years. The following
map reflects the performance status of all counties statewide. The map
shows that there are 13
counties that have basic 911 level service, 18 counties that have Phase
0 level service, 5 counties and
New York City that have Phase I level service, and 21 counties that have
Phase II level service (the
Division’s Albany PSAP provides Phase II level service to 4 of the 21
counties). It is expected that
more counties will be Phase II capable in the near future.
CLINTO
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
ST. LAWRENCE
WARREN
WASHINGTON
RENSSELAER
DUTCHESS
PUTNAM
WESTCHESTER
SUFFOL
NASSAU
SARATOGA
GREENE
SULLIVAN
ROCKLAND
ORANGE
HERKIMER
FULTO
MONTGOMER
DELAWARE
OTSEG
MADISON
ONEIDA
LEWIS
JEFFERSON
ONONDAGA
CHENANGO
CORTLAND
BROOM
TIOGA
TOMPKIN
WAYNE
ONTARIO
SCHUYLER
CHEMUNG
STEUBEN
MONRO
ORLEANS
NIAGARA
LIVINGSTO
GENESEE
WYOMIN
ALLEGANY
ERIE
CATTARAUGUS
CHAUTAUQUA
COLUMBIA
OSWEGO
SCHENECTADY
ALBANY
SCHOHARIE
HAMILTO
CAYUGA
SENECA
Yate
New York
ENTITY PROVIDING WIRELESS 911
SERVICES
AND STATUS OF PHASE CAPABILITY
AS OF JUNE 2003
County
State
Joint
Basic 911
Phase 0
Phase 1
Phase 2
ULSTER
CLINTO
FRANKLIN

Entity Status
2. Board Oversight

Article 6-A of the County Law established the Board to oversee Statewide
implementation of
enhanced wireless 911 emergency services and established a new funding
mechanism allowing
localities that chose to set up a local PSAP, to share a portion of the
surcharge revenues. The Board,
consisting of 13 members serving four-year terms, has broad oversight
powers to monitor statewide
implementation of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services. Both State
and local PSAPs must
certify biennially that they comply with the minimum standards for
operation that are established by
the Board. The Board is required to promulgate minimum standards to
ensure the quality of
enhanced wireless 911 emergency services delivered by all PSAPs. These
standards were under
development as of June 30, 2003 through work groups represented by
officials from the Division,
NYS Sheriffs Association, the State Chiefs of Police, NYS Association of
Fire Chiefs, County Fire
Coordinators, NYS Emergency Managers, NYS 911 Coordinators Association,
and other interested
parties. The work groups were establishing minimum standards in the
following areas which are
expected to be developed by October 1, 2003:

• Jurisdictional Protocols – Given the overlapping jurisdictions in some
areas of the State,
more than one patrol car may be in the vicinity of an emergency. The
standard will help
ensure that the closest car will be dispatched to the emergency. On June
30, 2003, the Board
adopted the direct dispatch standard requiring all PSAPs to follow a
prescribed procedure for
alerting emergency service providers without having to relay or reroute
calls unless the call
originates outside the jurisdiction.

• Public Safety Answering Point Staffing – This standard governing
staffing will help ensure
that a sufficient number of employees are on duty to cover calls for
assistance and to
dispatch appropriate emergency services. Other points of discussion have
included written
job descriptions, procedures for quality control performance
evaluations, and a policy for
call back of off duty dispatchers.

• PSAP Training – This standard will provide a basic level of competency
for call takers and
dispatchers. The basic training standards which were finalized in
September 2003,
subsequent to the period of our review, include Legal Aspects,
Interpersonal
Communications, Telephone Techniques, and Stress Management. The annual
in-service
training standards include Stress Awareness, Community Relations, and
Legal Updates.
• PSAP Building, Equipment and Security – This standard will address
building safety and
power stability, and the types of equipment and security measures that
should be utilized at
all PSAPs. Use of proper technology is critical to the efficient
dispatch of emergency
services.

Once in place, these standards are intended to ensure that enhanced
wireless 911 emergency
services are provided effectively and consistently at all PSAPs. If the
Board finds that a PSAP is not
in compliance with these standards, it is required to specify measures
necessary to secure
compliance and require the PSAP to provide a plan of corrective action.
Should a local PSAP fail to
submit or effect a plan of corrective action, it will not be eligible to
receive reimbursement of
wireless 911 service costs. Should a State PSAP fail to submit or effect
a plan of corrective action,

The Board will notify the chief executive officer of each local
government serviced by the State
PSAP that it is not in compliance with applicable standards.

In accordance with Article 6-A, Section 328, the Board must issue an
annual report to the
Legislature and the Governor by March 1st of each year regarding the
Board's activities for the
previous calendar year, including the status of enhanced wireless 911
emergency services, as well as
allocations of monies to local PSAPs from the Local Public Safety
Answering Point Account
including allocations made but not yet disbursed. In addition, under
Article 6-A, Section 329, the
Division must certify every two years to the Board that all State PSAPs
are in compliance with the
Board’s standards relating to the delivery of enhanced wireless 911
services. Since the Board was
not required to promulgate its standards until October 1, 2003, the
two-year time limit has not yet
expired, and therefore no certification has been filed by the Division.
These measures are intended
to provide useful information to the Governor relating to the status of
enhanced wireless 911
emergency services throughout the State.

Section 333 of the County Law established a $100 million fund,
maintained by the New York
State Dormitory Authority, to expedite the implementation of enhanced
wireless 911 emergency
services in a controlled fashion. Only local PSAPs will be eligible for
this additional funding. To
receive this additional funding, local PSAPs are required to submit
written enhanced wireless 911
plans to the Board for review. These plans must include an
implementation timeframe, listing of
local licensed wireless service providers, summary of projected costs
necessary to provide enhanced
wireless 911 services, description of the technologies to be used and
documentation supporting the
local PSAP’s ability to receive and utilize enhanced wireless 911
information within 180 days of
submitting a plan. The Board has 90 days from the time it receives a
plan to declare it complete or
incomplete and submit recommendations to the Dormitory Authority of the
State of New York for
funding each enhanced wireless 911 plan. If the Board does not issue a
determination of
completeness or incompleteness within the 90 days, the respective plan
is deemed approved. As of
June 30, 2003, no funds have been distributed from the bond fund. If
carried out as prescribed in
law, this funding should provide a significant boost to local PSAPs in
implementing enhanced
wireless 911 emergency services.

However, we found that the Board could further improve its ability to
manage future
development of enhanced wireless 911 services by assessing and
aggregating anticipated costs of
Phase II implementation for all PSAPs, both State and local. Although
the Board is involved in
reviewing and approving the costs of individual local PSAPs, it needs a
broader view of the
aggregate statewide cost for all local and State PSAPs. Aggregating this
information and reporting it
to State policy makers would help in planning for future funding needs
for all PSAPs to meet the
FCC December 31, 2005 expectation for Phase II completion. Department of
State officials noted
that as local PSAPs submit their enhanced wireless 911 plans to the
Board, it should contribute
toward the gathering of aggregate statewide costs.

3. Surcharge Accountability

Two pieces of legislation, Section 309 and Article 6-A of the County
Law, have had a
significant impact on enhanced wireless 911 emergency services. Section
309 of the County Law
was amended bringing about the following notable changes:

• Increased the wireless surcharge from $.70 to $1.20 per month for each
user.

• Required wireless providers to report and pay, on a quarterly basis,
all wireless
surcharges to the Commissioner of the Department of Taxation and
Finance, which is
responsible for depositing such funds daily with the State Comptroller.

• Directed the State Comptroller to pay 41.7 percent of surcharge monies
collected to
the General Fund, and 58.3 percent (less 2 percent of this amount
retained by service
providers for administration fees) to the Statewide Public Safety
Communications
Account of the Miscellaneous Special Revenue Fund.

• Provided general direction regarding how surcharge monies contained in
the
Statewide Public Safety Communications Account are to be allocated.

• Established a provision to cover the costs of debt service for bonds
and notes issued
to finance funding for the expedited deployment of enhanced wireless 911

emergency services.

The Department of Taxation and Finance has required wireless service
providers to
complete, with each quarterly filing of surcharge revenues, transmittal
form WCS-1 showing
detailed information, such as the number of subscribers and the total
amount collected. This level of
detail is an improvement since our prior audit and permits some means of
revenue accountability.
However, the Department of Taxation and Finance lacks the authority to
audit service providers’
records, and this significantly limits attempts to verify revenues. We
discussed the possibility of
utilizing an analytical approach for approximating what the amount of
surcharge revenues should be
during a given period with Department of Taxation and Finance officials.
Such an approach would
incorporate the development of revenue estimates based on independent
provider data filed with the
FCC reflecting the number of subscribers. The Department of Taxation and
Finance could compare
these estimates with reported revenues to assess whether reported
revenues were reasonable. Should
reported revenues differ significantly from estimated revenues, an
argument could be made for
seeking legislative authority to audit service providers. Until such
measures are taken, the State still
does not have adequate assurance that all surcharge revenues are being
accurately reported by all
wireless service providers.

In addition, Section 309 has broadened the range of uses for wireless
911 surcharges. As
such, use of surcharge revenues only for costs directly related to
implementing and operating
wireless 911 programs, as required during the period covered by our
prior audit, is no longer
applicable. As of June 30, 2003, all discernable appropriations of
surcharge revenues have been
made from the Statewide Public Safety Communications Account. It cannot
be determined whether
the wireless surcharge revenues deposited into the General Fund have
been appropriated for 911
purposes. The following chart summarizes the collection, appropriation
and expenditure of wireless
911 surcharge revenues for the period August 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003. The amounts are as
reported in the State Accounting System and have not been audited.

Collection, Appropriation and Expenditure of Wireless 911 Surcharge
Revenues
August 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003

* The Balance for the State Comptroller’s Sole Custody Account as of
June 30, 2003 is $28,862.
** The balance in the Statewide Public Safety Communications Account
that has not been appropriated as of June
2003 is $44,503,829.

*** As of June 30, 2003, $44,190,146 of this amount had been expended.
State Comptroller’s Sole
Custody Account
Wireless Surcharges
Collected by the
Department of Taxation
& Finance
$97,870,862*
General
Fund
Deposits
$40,800,114
Appropriations

• Department of Corrections 13,825,300

• Division of Military
And Naval Affairs 13,386,900

• Statewide Wireless
Network 11,114,000

• Division of State Police 8,062,800

• State Emergency
Management Office 1,607,000

• Parks and Recreation 1,200,000

• Department of Health 1,000,000

• Office of General Services $918,000
Total Appropriations $51,114,000***
Statewide Public Safety
Communications Account
Beginning Balance $758,800
Total Deposits & Trans. 116,359,029
Cash Available $117,117,829**

Transfer to
Emergency
Services
Revolving
Loan Account
$1,500,000
Transfer to Local
Wireless Public
Safety Answering
Point Account
$20,000,000
Reimbursements
Paid to Localities
$11,069,093
Wireless
Surcharges
Collected by the
Division of State
Police after August
1, 2002
$6,210,421
Interest
Accrued
$306,722 Transfer from the
Division of State
Police Seized
Assets Account
$52,800,000
Statewide
Public Safety
Comm. Acct.
Deposits
$57,041,886

Prior to August 1, 2002, wireless 911 surcharge revenues, which amounted
to $.70 per month
for each cell phone subscriber, were collected by the Division and
deposited into the Seized Assets
Account of the Special Revenue Fund. These funds were then appropriated
to the Division and used
for a wide variety of Division activities including funding the then
Safety Communications Account.
With the amendment to Section 309 of the County Law, the Safety
Communications Account was
renamed the Statewide Public Safety Communications Account. At the time
the Account was
renamed, it had a balance of $758,800 which became the beginning balance
of the Statewide Public
Safety Communications Account. Also, with the amendment to Section 309,
the Department of
Taxation and Finance collected wireless 911 surcharge revenues from
wireless providers and
transferred those revenues to the State Comptroller for deposit into the
Comptroller’s Sole Custody
Account. Since the amendment to Section 309 took effect on August 1,
2002, and as of June 30,
2003, the Department of Taxation and Finance had transferred about $97.9
million in wireless 911
surcharge revenues to the Comptroller.

The Comptroller divided these revenues as required, depositing about
$40.8 million (41.7
percent) into the General Fund and about $57 million (58.3 percent) into
the Statewide Public Safety
Communications Account. In addition, there were three other sources of
revenue deposited into the
Statewide Public Safety Communications Account: a transfer of $52.8
million in revenues that had
previously been deposited by the Division into the Seized Assets Account
of the Special Revenue
Fund prior to August 1, 2002; about $6.2 million in wireless 911
surcharge revenues erroneously
sent to the Division by wireless providers after August 1, 2002; and
about $307,000 in accrued
interest.

Revenues deposited into the General Fund are not earmarked for future
use as in a special
revenue fund, such as the Statewide Public Safety Communications
Account. Therefore it is not
possible to track how 41.7 percent of all wireless 911 surcharge
revenues, which are deposited into
the General Fund, have been or will be used. Of the $117.1 million in
funds available in the
Statewide Public Safety Communications Account, the Legislature has
appropriated $51.1 million to
several State agencies, $1.5 million to the Emergency Services Revolving
Loan Account and $20
million to the Local Wireless Public Safety Answering Point Account. Of
the $20 million in the
Local Wireless Public Safety Answering Point Account, approximately $11
million has been
distributed to localities as of June 30, 2003.

Not included in the chart because it is not part of the wireless 911
surcharge is a recently
approved $100 million bond maintained by the Dormitory Authority of the
State of New York. In
accordance with Section 333 of the County Law, distributions of these
bond monies will only be
made to local PSAPs based on requests for funding to purchase and
maintain equipment needed to
provide enhanced wireless 911 services as specified in written plans.
The intent of this funding is to
expedite the development of enhanced wireless 911 emergency services at
localities. The $100
million has been appropriated through the Department of State’s fiscal
2003-04 budget. However,
the Board’s draft standards, which are currently undergoing public
review and comment, need to be
adopted before plans can be submitted and funds can be expended.
Department of State officials
anticipate that the Board will begin approving plans in early 2004. In
addition, the chart does not
reflect those counties that initiated an additional $.30 per month local
wireless 911 surcharge for
each wireless phone, as provided by Section 308 of the County Law. The
county-initiated surcharge
goes directly to the respective counties and is to be used for enhancing
wireless 911 services similar
to the statewide 911 surcharge.

In accordance with Article 6-A, the Board distributes wireless 911
surcharge revenues (this
does not include local wireless 911 surcharges) from the Local Wireless
Public Safety Answering
Point Account to local PSAPs. Local PSAPs have discrete accountability
for the expenditure of
these wireless 911 surcharge revenues. For example, each local PSAP
submits its wireless 911
service expenditure summaries to the Board for review and reimbursement.
These summaries reflect
eligible costs incurred to establish and/or to provide enhanced wireless
911 emergency services. The
Board reviews the expenditure summaries to determine if the summaries
are complete and items of
expense are appropriate. Non-eligible expenses cannot be reimbursed. In
addition, regardless of the
eligibility of expenses incurred, each local PSAP’s funding is limited
based on a calculation using its
population census data for the year 2000. Therefore, localities with
larger populations are allowed
higher reimbursement levels.

In contrast to local PSAPs, State PSAPs do not receive funding from the
Board, nor do they
submit expenditure summaries for Board review. Instead, State PSAPs are
funded through the
Division’s operating budget. Likewise, the $51.1 million in
appropriations to various agencies and
the $1.5 million transferred to the Emergency Services Revolving Loan
Account, as shown in the
preceding chart, do not undergo Board review and approval. Because the
scope of our review did
not include a determination of how appropriations were expended and
because there is no Board
review of these appropriations, we cannot attest to the use of these
monies.

We shared our observations with officials from the Division, the
Department of State and the
Department of Taxation and Finance.

Major contributors to this review were Richard Sturm, Brian Lotz,
Theresa Nellis, ShaDina
Currie and Paul Bachman.

We would appreciate your individual responses to this report within 30
days, indicating any
actions planned or taken to address the matters discussed in this
report. We also thank the
management and staff of the Division, the Department of State and the
Department of Taxation and
Finance for the courtesies and cooperation extended to our auditors
during this review.
Very truly yours,

William P. Challice

Audit Director

cc: William Callahan, Division of State Police
Mark Mitchell, Department of State
Andrew Maguire, Department of Taxation and Finance
Deirdre A. Taylor, Division of the Budget

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093004/03f9.pdf
--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG