The Services Enterprise board met at 2:37 p.m. on Monday, April 21 and spent the bulk of the session setting priorities for the enterprise’s initial projects and budget, with members focusing on statewide GIS data and portals, cybersecurity, statewide telecommunicator training, and possible assistance for the Colorado 9‑1‑1 Resource Center.

Board members said those topics will help the enterprise determine the scope of a services fee and whether funds should be distributed as grants, matching grants, or contracts. The board also discussed where nonrecurring costs related to the state ESInet might be paid from and raised questions about statutory cash‑fund limits and administrative arrangements for contracting and project management.

The discussion mattered because the board’s choices will shape how the enterprise spends the state 9‑1‑1 fee, whether it supplements federal or tariff funding, and what the enterprise will fund directly versus what it will reimburse through other mechanisms. Members repeatedly emphasized a statewide focus: projects that deliver uniform benefit where other funding sources do not already exist.

Members identified four near‑term priorities. Amy, board member, said her top items were “cybersecurity and the GIS project,” plus a resource center, statewide training and public education. Daryl, who spoke about tariff and surcharge history, said the state surcharge was increased this year from 9¢ to 12¢ and that the extra 3¢ was “calculated to pay for that additional base emergency service improvement plan charge.” Daryl also noted that “each penny raises about $800,000 per year,” a figure the board used to frame how much revenue different surcharge levels would generate.

On GIS, the board heard that the commission and the resource center already funded a one‑time project to create a statewide PSAP boundary dataset but that the funding did not include ongoing maintenance. A vendor portal (discussed in CenturyLink/Intrado tariff filings) to intake local GIS data for geospatial routing could be part of a tariff‑funded service, while initial GIS data development and ongoing maintenance appear more likely to require enterprise funding or grants to local authorities. One participant described Intrado’s (CenturyLink/Intrado) TDMS offering as the portal the vendor would use to intake GIS data for routing and location validation; local 9‑1‑1 authorities would still be responsible for preparing and maintaining their GIS data.

Board members debated how the enterprise should allocate funds: direct contracts with vendors, grants to local authorities, or matching grants to keep local authorities engaged. Several members suggested pilot projects so the board could practice grant selection criteria and contract oversight on a smaller scale before committing to larger, multi‑year programs.

The board also discussed whether the enterprise should cover some ESInet nonrecurring charges (NRCs). One member noted that CenturyLink’s withdrawn tariff had included large NRC proposals — for example, for GIS portal development and text‑to‑9‑1‑1 — and that future filings might reintroduce such charges. A proposal on the table was that the surcharge could cover some recurring and nonrecurring costs, while the enterprise could step in for NRCs the commission chose not to include in the tariff. The group discussed the difference between NRCs for optional services and capital/infrastructure costs for ESInet upgrades.

On administration and contracting, members discussed using the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) contracting and establishing an MOU so DORA could conduct RFPs and manage contracts on the enterprise’s behalf, with the enterprise reimbursing DORA. Several participants recommended considering the Colorado 9‑1‑1 Resource Center (a non‑state nonprofit) or OIT/GIS as potential partners to reduce administrative overhead, though some board members raised perception concerns about the state taking on long‑term operational roles for 9‑1‑1. One participant, speaking as resource center treasurer, said that using the resource center to manage grants would be a lot of work but “a great solution” to reduce the enterprise’s administrative burden.

The board asked several statutory and fiscal questions that remain open: whether enterprise cash funds are subject to the standard 16% year‑to‑year carryover limit that applies to many state cash funds; the enterprise’s five‑year revenue limit language (participants cited a $100 million threshold in the statute for the first five years); and whether carrying a large matching fund balance could affect eligibility for future federal grants. Kirsten, a staff member on the call, said she would confirm the carryover rules and report back.

Next steps the board identified include producing a short pilot or example project (GIS or resource center support) to test grant and contract processes; raising the proposed project buckets at the statewide 9‑1‑1 task force for feedback; and clarifying statutory and fiscal limits with staff. The board scheduled its next meeting for April 30 at 3 p.m.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting were procedural and limited. A motion to approve the April 9 draft minutes passed by voice vote during the meeting; the chair announced “the ayes have it.” Later the board voted to adjourn; members voted in favor and the meeting ended.