Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners question 911/EMS funding model as budget packet includes personnel lines and county subsidy
Summary
The board reviewed 911 and EMS budget lines, noting that 911 has a separate fund and provides some personnel funding to the county; commissioners asked for clearer accounting and acknowledged the county subsidizes a portion of personnel costs.
Coffee County commissioners spent time reviewing 911/EMS budget material and questioned how the county’s contribution relates to the dispatch center’s separate fund and fund balance.
Staff said 911 operates with its own fund and submits a budget that covers equipment and other costs; commissioners noted the county currently budgets certain salary lines and receives a reimbursement check (example figure discussed: $220,000) that covers part of personnel costs. The presenter explained that the county budgets approximately $1.48 million for the 911 function and that 911 remits a salary supplement check (presenter cited $220,000) to the county to cover some personnel costs.
Commissioners discussed the end goal of making 911 fully self‑supporting and whether the county or 911 should carry recurring personnel costs. The board also reviewed the rescue squad and contributions and discussed differences in how counties and municipalities structure funding for dispatch and emergency medical services.
Why it matters: the arrangement affects county general‑fund obligations for personnel and benefits; if the county assumes more recurring payroll exposure it must budget for associated benefits and employer costs.
Next steps: commissioners asked for clearer breakdowns of what is in the 911 fund, how much 911 returns for payroll versus the county subsidy, and how various scenarios would affect the general fund under 3/5/7% raise options.
