Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the E911 Dispatch Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Benton County supervisors discuss declining E‑911 revenue, CAD costs and 28E agreements for dispatch
Summary
Supervisors discussed falling E‑911 surcharge revenue, the county’s use of E‑911 funds for computer‑aided dispatch (CAD) and unanswered questions about intergovernmental (28E) agreements and billing for some cities; no formal funding change was adopted.
Benton County supervisors spent a portion of their meeting discussing E‑911 funding, how E‑911 dollars are used for computer‑aided dispatch (CAD) and maintenance, and whether some municipalities covered by 28E intergovernmental agreements have been billed for services.
The conversation focused on a drop in surcharge revenue from traditional landlines and how the county currently uses E‑911 funds. A supervisor noted that the county has used E‑911 funds to pay roughly a third of the computer‑aided dispatch fee — covering maintenance licensing and the data connections that push dispatch information to deputies’ in‑car laptops. County staff said the county also plans for long‑term needs such as tower maintenance and a 10‑year plan for related infrastructure.
Why it matters: E‑911 surcharges are a primary local revenue source for emergency communications. As landline use falls, the county’s E‑911 receipts have declined, which can affect dispatch staffing levels, equipment maintenance and regional service agreements.
Supervisors and staff described practical and accounting questions raised by the shift in revenue: whether money placed in E‑911 should remain there year to year or be moved to the general fund, how to account for cities that have signed 28E dispatch agreements but have low call volume or do not appear to have been billed, and whether E‑911 funds can be reliably used for recurring costs such as CAD licensing.
Staff said they had included a line item for E‑911 maintenance in the draft budget. Supervisors discussed the county’s prior tower project and whether future expenses tied to that project — and the county’s share of an estimated $450,000 per year schedule mentioned in the meeting — should come from the E‑911 account or the general fund.
The group also reviewed how E‑911 rules limit eligible uses to expenses related to the receipt, transmission and disposition of 9‑1‑1 calls. Supervisors asked staff to follow up on the status of 28E agreements with partner towns and to clarify whether those partner entities have been billed under existing agreements.
No formal motion or vote was taken to change E‑911 spending at the meeting; the discussion ended with staff direction to clarify billing and agreements and to reflect the E‑911 maintenance line item in the county’s upcoming budget materials.
The board returns to budget work at a separate session and will review the draft budget, including the E‑911 line item, in that process.
