AG Opinions Related to 9-1-1 and ECDs

NOTE - The Board believes this to be a complete list but makes no warranty or guarantee of accuracy. Please send error or omissions to website[at]al911board[dot]com. Visit http://www.ago.state.al.us/Opinions.aspx to search for other opinions

All Opinions will be linked directly to the PDF as time allows.

Opinion# & Link to PDF of Opinion Short Description for Reference Only
2000-134 - Link

Baldwin County A corporation created pursuant to section 11-98-4(g) of the Code does not have the authority to contract with governmental entities in its district for dispatching services. Dear Ms. Murchison: This opinion of the Attorney General is issued in response to your request on

2000-205 - Link

Sales Tax If the Pickens County Commission determines that the operation of an E-911 system serves a public purpose, then excess health tax funds, received by the county commission pursuant to Act No. 98-480, may be appropriated for that purpose. Dear Mr. Summerville: This opinion of the Attorney General is issued in

2001-086 - Link

Conecuh County The records of the emergency management communications district are public records and should be made accessible to the public for inspection and copying except in those instances when specific records or portions thereof can be demonstrated by the district to fall within recognized exceptions

2001-120 - Link

The Morgan County Emergency Management Communications District, rather than the Morgan County Commission, is the proper legal entity to formally issue bonds, and thereby become obligated to pay the bonds, to construct a facility to operate and maintain

2001-264 - Link

May an E-911 Board require a municipality within its jurisdiction to contribute funding for dispatchers in addition to the funds it receives from phone bills, and if the E-911 Board does require additional funds from the municipality, how is such sum determined?

If the municipality refuses to contribute funds, what service is the E-911 Board required to provide, and if there are no services provided, may residents of the municipality stop paying the additional cost on their phone bill?

2002-295 - Link

Montgomery County Wireless carriers are required by federal law to obtain and maintain the address, residential or business, of each wireless customer, and this address is the principal wireless service address for purposes of section 11-98-7 of the

2003-242 - Link

Conflicts of Interest The director of the Morgan County EMA may also serve as a commissioner in the Morgan County E-911 district. Whether a director must abstain from voting must be determined by the director on a case-by-case basis.

2004-009 - Link

Lawrence County The E-911 board must comply with the Competitive Bid Law when determining which ambulance providers receive dispatch calls. E-911 boards should work with municipalities and ambulance service providers to ensure the most efficient service to persons in their districts.

2004-077 - Link

The E911 Board may levy an emergency telephone service charge in an amount not to exceed five percent of the maximum tariff charged by any service supplier in the district.

2005-075 - Link

The E-911 Board of the Colbert County Communications District has the authority to increase the service charge of the district once a majority of the persons within the district has authorized a service charge

2005-088 - Link

Colbert County Where the Colbert County E-911 Board has designated a county-funded ambulance service for dispatch in the county, it has no duty or obligation to dispatch a for-profit ambulance service when requested to do so

2005-134 - Link

Under section 11-98-7(b)(3)b of the Code of Alabama, the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Board may deposit CMRS emergency telephone service charge proceeds collected for emergency communications districts (ECDs) into one bank account

2005-193 - Link

allow the Town of Trinity to contract to pay a fee from the Corrections Fund to the Morgan County Consolidated 911 Center to enter and maintain the town?s warrants into the NCIC database

2006-030 - Link

The Morgan County Commission may not appoint one or more ex officio commissioners to the Morgan County Emergency Management Communications District.

2006-051 - Link

The Walker County E-911 Board and the Walker County Commission are jointly responsible for replacing street signs as prescribed by section 11-98-5(h) of the Code of Alabama.

2006-150 - Link

The Randolph County Commission may not appropriate a portion of the Amendment 72 tax proceeds to help fund the equipment, operations, and maintenance of the Randolph County E-911 Communications District

2007-021 - Link

A volunteer search and rescue squad that is not associated with the state or a political subdivision is not a public safety agency for purposes of an emergency communications district.

2008-057 - Link

The Cleburne County Hospital Board does not have the authority to spend Amendment 72 funds to subsidize or reimburse the cost of providing emergency medical dispatch training and related expenses for Cleburne County 911 

2010-006

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

2010-019 - Link

The E-911 Board may provide radios, which will be used to receive dispatch calls, to a volunteer rescue squad. The E-911 Board may provide the maintenance for an emergency communication system

2010-103 - Link

A municipality's authority over fire protection and rescue services in the police jurisdiction is not exclusive. E-911 boards, municipalities, and volunteer fire departments should work together to ensure the most efficient service to persons in their districts.

2012-066 - Link

Board may provide matching funds to a volunteer fire department to improve the emergency communications system. compliance with the Competitive Bid Law in the purchase of equipment using grant funds remains the responsibility of the fire department.

2012-077 - Link

ECD should honor request to dispatch the ambulance service provider that the municipality requests to be dispatched.
exclusive ambulance provider within the municipality must be selected in compliance with the Competitive Bid Law

2012-084 - Link

Jefferson County 911 Emergency Communications District and its employees are not within the jurisdiction of the Jefferson County Personnel Board

2013-036 - Link

Districts that failed to timely submit information required by section 11-98-13.1(h)(1) of the Code of Alabama are ineligible to receive distributions from the CMRS Board

2015-003 - Link

The Mobile County Communications District is entitled to receive 100 percent of its initial base distribution... however distributions from the Statewide 911 Board may be made in the following fiscal year.

85-00395 - Link

The emergency telephone service charge that may be levied by the Baldwin County Emergency Management Communications District Board of Commissioners may not exceed five percent (5%) of the lowest tariffs.

85-00421

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

86-00028

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

87-00219

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

87-00258

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

88-00004

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

88-00377

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

88-00462

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

89-00254

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

89-00392

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

90-00163

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

90-00310

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00007

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00015

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00063 - Link

MAY SPEND SERVICE CHARGE FUNDS TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS FROM WHICH E911 CALLS MAY BE PLACED AND TO CORRELATE TELEPHONE NUMBERS TO STREET ADDRESSES

91-00150 - Link

DISTRICT MAY NOT CONTRACT WITH INDIVIDUAL TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS WHO LIVE OUTSIDE TERRITORY OF DISTRICT TO SUPPLY THEM SERVICE

91-00171

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00172

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00287

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00343

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

91-00400

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00063

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00084

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00098

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00158

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00246

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00292

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00311

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00358

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

92-00375

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00035

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00040

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00056

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00059

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00069

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00133

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00134

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00136

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

93-00255

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

94-00072

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

94-00087

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

94-00163

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

94-00200

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

94-00222

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00046

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00101

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00109

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00225

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00226

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00250

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

95-00323

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

96-00105

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00121

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00177

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00182

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00206

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00210

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00212

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00222

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00223

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00228

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

97-00236

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

98-00087

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

98-00110

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

98-00197

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

99-00045

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

99-00190

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

99-00265

You may search for this opinion at the Attorney General's website

Contact Us

 1 Commerce Street, Suite 620
      Montgomery, AL  36104<Map>
 P.O. Box 1790
      Montgomery, AL 36102-1790​
 
 (334)440-7911
 

9-1-1 Board Meetings

Click the meeting for details.
Finance Committee - 1/10/18 - 9:00am
Board Meeting - 1/17/18 - 10:00am

Notices of Board Meetings

Visit this page to learn about receiving email notices of meetings.

Translate This Website

English French German Hindi Japanese Korean Spanish Vietnamese