Routt County seeks full cost recovery for 911 dispatch; commissioners back pursuing fee changes with further details requested

Routt County staff on April 21 recommended adopting a dispatch line fee and pursuing an increase in the PUC‑regulated E‑911 surcharge to recover full dispatch and technology costs. Commissioners expressed broad support for full cost recovery but requested additional analysis and another work session to clarify how property tax reductions would offset the change and how the fee would affect renters, seasonal residents and business lines.

Staff presented the current communications budget: roughly $3.5 million in revenues matched to expenses, funded by about $2.57 million of property tax, $883,000 of existing E‑911 fees and a small amount of miscellaneous revenues. Proposed changes include two separate new or adjusted charges: a dispatch fee allocated to local agencies based on three‑year averages of CAD (computer‑aided dispatch) incidents, and a higher per‑line E‑911 monthly surcharge (staff discussed a possible move toward rates some Colorado jurisdictions charge, including a $4 per‑line example used for context).

A significant portion of the county’s support costs would be allocated as overhead (roughly $705,000 in staff presentation), with the largest overhead components being information‑systems support and geographic information systems (GIS). Commissioners questioned terminology (several asked that internal IT/GIS allocations be described clearly in public materials rather than as opaque “overhead”) and asked how the allocation would be explained to municipal partners. Staff said the cost allocation follows federal cost‑allocation guidelines used in county enterprises and that including overhead in the fee calculation is standard practice in several Colorado jurisdictions.

Commissioners also pressed staff on equity and incidence: monthly per‑line charges reach all landlines and cellular lines billed to customers, but many phones billed to addresses outside the county or on family plans complicate incidence and who actually pays. Commissioners noted that renters and seasonal workers who do not pay property tax could pay more under a bigger per‑line fee, while landlords and municipalities would receive reduced property‑tax allocations if the county lowers property tax to offset fee revenue. Staff said the PUC application process audits allowable expenses and that capital replacements (radios, CAD/phone systems) and future lifecycle costs were appropriate uses for fee revenue.

The board gave verbal direction consistent with full cost recovery: commissioners indicated they were agreeable to pursuing a dispatch fee that includes IT/GIS allocations and to filing for an increased E‑911 surcharge at the Public Utilities Commission, subject to staff returning with more detailed scenarios showing net property‑tax impacts, distributional effects, and possible multi‑year phasing to reduce immediate rate shock to agencies and the public. Commissioners asked staff to return with that follow‑up ahead of the May 5 discussion with Steamboat Springs city council.

Ending: Staff will prepare a follow‑up packet detailing (a) how overhead allocations are calculated and described to municipal partners, (b) concrete property‑tax offset examples and who would bear more of the fee burden, and (c) options for phasing the dispatch fee and E‑911 surcharge increase. The board scheduled further discussion before formal PUC filings.