JBC debates funding sources for statewide digital trunked radio system; options include energy-impact fund, 9-1-1 fees

The Joint Budget Committee took up a contentious policy choice on March 17 over how to pay an estimated $15 million-per-year plan to maintain and upgrade Coloradothe statewide digital trunked radio system (DTRS).

DTRS, which supports public-safety radio communications for first responders, needs a vendor contract renewal and ongoing hardware upgrades, staff said. JBC staff presented multiple funding options, including a request to use the 9-1-1 Services Enterprise (the state-level 9-1-1 fee pool) to cover the recurring costs, an alternative to using general fund, or tapping the Energy and Mineral Impact Fund as a state funding source.

Alfredo Kim, JBC staff, told the committee the departments initial request sought $15 million a year over 10 years to pay vendor and equipment costs. "One way or another the $15 million needs to be funded," Kim said, noting there is policy risk with some options.

The PUC and portions of the executive branch raised legal concerns about using 9-1-1 fee revenue for the DTRS costs. Jed Franklin of the Office of Legislative Legal Services told the committee that federal rules constrain permissible uses of 9-1-1 fees and that infrastructure or equipment for first responders that does not "directly support providing 9-1-1 services" may be an impermissible use. "I think it is a question, how to what degree does this directly support 9-1-1 services," Franklin said.

Senator Kirkemeyer and other members argued that the DTRS is the core backbone of public-safety communications and therefore a logical use of 9-1-1-related funds. Kirkmeyer pushed back on the PUCs stated concern that 9-1-1 funds could not be used for towers, radios, and dispatch-related equipment: "Almost every local 9-1-1 is using their 9-1-1 funds for this specifically," she said.

Several members also urged using the Energy and Mineral Impact Fund, which historically has funded local public-safety communications projects, as a more politically and legally straightforward source. Senator Kirkmeyer noted that earlier grants from that fund paid for much of the DTRS buildout and proposed using the impact fund rather than general fund. "This is a program that was funded out of the Energy and Mineral Impact Fund," she said.

JBC staff said the committee had earlier approved a proposal to move some DTRS budget items into a common policy cost pool, and staff recommended tightening indirect-cost proportions and improving transparency by separating program and administrative line items. Members requested additional information on whether local 9-1-1 boards already use 9-1-1 funds for radios and towers and sought a legal analysis on federal restrictions if 9-1-1 fees were used for the proposed vendor and equipment payments.

The committee did not take a final vote on funding. Staff and members agreed to follow up with additional analysis on (1) the legal risk of using 9-1-1 fee revenue, (2) balances in the Energy and Mineral Impact Fund and whether prior earmarks could be reallocated, and (3) the detailed split between vendor contract costs and equipment upgrades. Members suggested holding the decision until the committee had clearer budget context. The DTRS plan remains a key upcoming funding decision because the vendor contract renewal and equipment maintenance were described as essential to preserve statewide public-safety radio operations.