Public commenter warns Kossuth supervisors that Senate File 659 could strip local 911 reserve

KOSSUTH COUNTY, Iowa — During public comment at the Kossuth County Board of Supervisors meeting on May 20, a local emergency responder warned that a recently amended Senate File 659 contains a provision that could permit the state to charge local 9‑1‑1 joint service boards unspecified fees, potentially draining the county’s 9‑1‑1 fund.

“...they put in a clause that allows the state to charge back the 9‑1 joint service board whatever fee they want. They don't specify. They don't give any time frames,” the commenter said. The speaker said Kossuth County’s 9‑1‑1 fund is currently financed by a $1-per-phone-line monthly surcharge that yields roughly $300,000 a year and that the county budgets about $301,000 annually for 9‑1‑1 operations.

The commenter said those reserves are used for radio-system upgrades, including projects to improve coverage inside school buildings. He described a portable-coverage project for one school with an estimated cost of about $600,000 and a rated tower project that could cost $1.8 million to $2 million. “If they start pulling funds out of there, we are gonna go negative in our fund balance,” he said, adding that that shortfall would fall to local property taxpayers.

He said a working group representing the Sheriff’s Association, emergency management and 9‑1‑1 stakeholders had sought an increase of the surcharge from $1 to $1.25; that effort did not advance. He urged residents and officials to contact the governor asking for a line-item veto of item 12 in the file and said statewide emergency-management and public-safety organizations were circulating a sample letter to the governor.

Why it matters: The county uses 9‑1‑1 surcharge revenue both for operations and to build reserves for capital projects (radio towers, repeaters, portable radios). The commenter said that some counties hold large 9‑1‑1 fund balances that are dedicated to multi‑million‑dollar tower projects; he said those balances may appear to legislators as available state revenue if the statute is changed to permit state chargebacks.

What the board said: Supervisors acknowledged the comment and indicated they would follow the issue. No formal county action on the legislation was recorded at the meeting.

Requests and next steps: The commenter asked supervisors and residents to contact the governor to request a line‑item veto of the provision in Senate File 659. He also indicated he would provide the board with a copy of the letter being circulated by statewide public‑safety associations.