Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Surcharge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County E911 Authority discusses surcharge increase, fund balance and 2026 budget schedule
Summary
At its Oct. 3 meeting the Lake County E911 Authority discussed raising the local emergency telephone surcharge, PUC application timing, the authority's fund balance and the draft 2026 budget; board scheduled a budget work session for Oct. 10 and discussed documents needed for PUC filings.
The Lake County E911 Authority spent substantial time at its Oct. 3 meeting reviewing draft 2026 budget projections, discussing a possible local emergency‑telephone surcharge increase and clarifying how county services are charged to the authority.
Surcharge and PUC process: Consultant Jackie and staff described the process for raising the local emergency telephone surcharge. The authority discussed moving the surcharge from the current level reported in discussion as between $2.05 and $2.12 up to $2.17 immediately, and considered a longer‑term increase to $3.00. Jackie outlined steps the authority must take: obtain telephone‑company remittance statements and contact information, prepare a resolution (the authority was told it will need a resolution to move the surcharge to $2.17), submit an application to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and allow for a 30‑day public comment period. Jackie said the PUC can review applications before filing and recommended aiming for a June 1 effective date for larger increases if the application requires a longer timeline; smaller immediate changes (for example to $2.17) were presented as achievable sooner.
Fund balance and member shares: Staff reviewed revenue projections and the authority’s available fund balance and discussed using fund balance to reduce agency contributions for 2026. Staff noted they will present third‑quarter numbers before the Oct. 10 work session to give a clearer view of year‑end fund balance. In discussing the county’s bookkeeping practices, Candice, the county manager representing OEM on the board, pointed out that the authority’s funds are held in the county general fund and said, “we're writing a check from ourselves to ourselves,” underscoring that although the authority has its own accounting codes the money is in the county bank account.
County fees and IGA: The board discussed a recurring line item described as a transfer to the general fund for county services (HR, payroll, finance, IT). Staff and the county manager said the current description and level of that transfer should be reviewed and renegotiated in the IGA; district staff will obtain actual monthly hours and work estimates from HR and finance to produce a clearer proposed fee for 2026.
Budget schedule and next steps: The authority scheduled a budget work session for Oct. 10 to refine draft numbers and requested staff supply telephone remittance statements and a 2–3 year history of remittances for analysis. Staff indicated a target to have a draft ready for the county and partner review in November and to have final numbers before the county’s December deadlines; if needed, a special meeting in November could be convened to approve final figures.
Operational notes: Staff provided a brief update that Motorola access consoles will be installed next week and training scheduled the following week; tower equipment timing remains pending state updates. Staff also discussed recruitment/onboarding for the incoming E911 director and scheduling a phased handoff during her first week.
Public‑process note: Jackie and staff emphasized that PUC applications can trigger provider responses during the comment period and that careful planning and clear documentation (remittance statements, five‑year finance plans and budget justification) will strengthen the authority’s application.
