(1) Whether the 911 surcharge is generating adequate revenue to cover the costs of the services, equipment, maintenance and improvements needed to provide a uniform, stable and effective statewide 911 system;

(2) Whether the expansion of 911 system functionality resulting from implementation of IP-based next generation 911 technology has increased or decreased costs for emergency communications districts;

(3) Whether there is a need or benefit to consolidate emergency communications districts or PSAPs;

(4) Whether the 911 surcharge is generating more revenue than necessary to implement the purpose of Chapter 795 of the Public Acts of 2014 and can be reduced to the benefit of communications consumers;

(5) Whether a flat rate communications services surcharge is the best manner in which to fund 911 system costs or whether such costs should be funded by a percentage surcharge or a different source, such as water service, electric power service or state general funds or local taxes;

(6) Whether the board membership of the state emergency communications board should be amended to include other stakeholders such as telecommunications providers, emergency communications districts that dispatch, and other interested parties;

(7) Whether there is a need or benefit for the board to have the ability to raise the 911 surcharge rate should there be a financial reason to do so;

(8) Whether there is a need or benefit for the providers of communications services to register with the board prior to providing service; and

(9) Whether there is a need or benefit for providers of communications services to notify the board when there is a known service interruption.