Richland County to pursue 2026 NG9‑1‑1 mapping and PSAP grants; resolutions amended

The Richland County Executive and Finance Standing Committee voted June 10 to forward two resolutions authorizing applications for 2026 NG9‑1‑1 grants — one for GIS mapping and one for PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) improvements — to the full county board, and to amend the draft resolutions by removing a reference to an obsolete "Rule 19."

Sheriff Elliot Porter, participating remotely, told the committee the grants continue a multiyear effort to improve 9‑1‑1 services. "These I guess it'd probably be the next two items actually are a continuation of grants that we've been applying for for the last several years. Largely, they enhance our 9‑1‑1 systems," Porter said, noting the GIS grant focuses on mapping accuracy and the PSAP grant supports the call‑taking and dispatch side of emergency response.

Staff and the committee discussed grant size and timing. Committee members noted last year’s grants had a maximum award of $750,000 and a 10% local match but that the state has not yet set 2026 limits. A staff member said the Office of Emergency Communications (referred to in the discussion as OAC/emergency communications) planned to issue grant guidance as soon as state budget numbers are available; that could create an August–September application deadline and a tight timetable for county staff to finalize application details.

The committee clarified who should sign or submit the application. MIS was listed in the draft as the applicant, but committee members noted the PSAP designation and signing authority normally rest with the sheriff’s office or the designated PSAP operator. The committee agreed the sheriff should be the signatory for the PSAP grant and that MIS and the sheriff’s office will coordinate on the applications.

Members also amended the resolution to remove the obsolete reference to "Rule 19" and replace it with a procurement‑policy citation (members directed staff to use the procurement policy language in place of Rule 19). The committee then voted by voice to forward both grant resolutions to the full county board for consideration next week.

Staff cautioned that specific dollar requests were not yet fixed; committee members authorized staff to pursue funding up to the previously used maximum if appropriate and to return with final project descriptions and amounts once the state issues full grant guidance.