Lake County reviews second-quarter supplemental budget requests including 9-1-1 equipment, water-grant match and lodging tax shortfall

Lake County commissioners on Wednesday reviewed a slate of second-quarter supplemental budget requests, focusing on aligning submitted budgets with finalized figures, covering outstanding grant matches and resolving a lodging-tax accounting discrepancy.

The session began with a presentation about the county’s 9-1-1 authority budget and an equipment contract tied to the county’s dispatch system. County staff said the authority’s board had finalized its budget and submitted figures to the state but those final numbers were never entered into the county’s accounting system (Tyler) after a staff departure. Finance director Candice Bryant apologized for the oversight and said the supplemental request is intended to align what was submitted to the state with what is in the county’s books. “I should have picked up on that. It wasn’t updated in Tyler,” Bryant said.

Staff described a separate, but related, expense tied to new Motorola dispatch equipment. Presenters said the original equipment the county planned to adopt was superseded by a state-approved radio that carried a higher price; the project has been paid in installments. County staff said the equipment contract’s total was $678,360 (as reported in the budget materials), with about $264,000 paid in 2024 and an outstanding balance tied to change orders and milestone payments. Staff later identified a more recent change-order figure leaving roughly $413,000 remaining and noted a $65,000 invoice was currently due. Officials said the radios and console equipment are expected to have a long service life (staff estimated roughly 15–20 years) and that the county is working with third-party vendors including CenturyLink for backhaul connections.

Commissioners also heard a request to add a remaining grant match for a state water-supply reserve fund award. Presenter Bryce Arlec summarized the grant work: a completed water development plan and a feasibility/design effort for about 1.4 miles of the county-owned dilapidated ditch that runs from the Arkansas main stem behind Sugarloaf and the campground toward the golf-course reservoirs. The study is intended to allow the county to convey water for irrigation and to free up water rights currently used by the golf course. Arlec said the county has an outstanding match of $28,838.07 to fulfill a total local match of $50,350; the state’s contribution on the project was $151,050. Staff said the study could reduce future construction costs by using existing head gates and performing much of the work with in-house equipment if the field survey and design show that’s feasible.

On housing funds, commissioners were told the county holds $600,000 in received but unexpended funds related to the “Housing at 102” project that were not carried forward into the 2025 submitted budget. Presenters said the $600,000 represents prior receipts: $100,000 paid by the city in 2023, $200,000 from the county in 2023, and an additional $300,000 from the city in 2024. Staff said the funds were received into a bank account but, because they were not re-budgeted as carryover, the project cannot currently draw on those dollars without a supplemental budget action.

The lodging-tax fund — revenue raised from taxes on lodging stays — also drew extended discussion. Staff told commissioners the fund was created under state statute (identified in materials as “CRS 1992”) and by a county resolution (circa 10/2006). County staff said lodging-tax receipts were not carried forward properly in 2023 and that accounting records are incomplete; an external report previously suggested roughly $110,000 remained in the fund at the end of 2022, but auditors will not accept an external printout as proof. Adam Ducharme and other presenters said they plan to bring an amended resolution to clarify the lodging-tax fund’s allowable uses and to ensure the fund is carried forward correctly in future years. Commissioners discussed options for “right-sizing” the fund and agreed to pursue an audit-friendly reconciliation rather than repeatedly approving small supplementals.

The Department of Human Services requested additional funds tied to the McKinney-Vento program, a homelessness-prevention grant historically routed through the local school district. Laura Cruz, who presented the request, said Lake County learned only recently that a portion of the McKinney-Vento grant previously expected from the state did not arrive and the county must fill part of that gap to sustain a half-time staff position and the county’s small distribution resource, the “McKinney Vento Mart.” Cruz described the Mart as a source of basic needs (clothing, shoes, coats and some rental assistance or new items such as certified car seats) for families at risk of homelessness. The department requested roughly $42,500 to cover the half-time position plus fringe and $7,500 for the Mart’s operating needs (figures as presented by staff).

Public works staff (Michael) asked for an $85,000 increase to the paving budget to complete two summer projects. Staff said $300,000 was previously allocated for paving this year; County Road 4 work is roughly $222,000 and a separate County Road 5 section is roughly $125,000, leaving the department short by approximately $48,249 and needing about $85,000 to finish both projects and cover equipment rental and contingency.

Other administrative adjustments presented included a roughly $21,000 correction to the annual district attorney allocation (staff said a county was omitted from the DA’s original spreadsheet and the DA later sent corrected numbers after the county budget cycle closed) and a request to include an IT director and an IT specialist (1.5 FTE) in the submitted budget. Finance staff said the near-term cost of adding an IT director and the specialist role for the remainder of this year would be about $120,375 as posted, and argued the county needs dedicated IT leadership to avoid repeated operational breakdowns and costs on poorly supported software.

No final supplemental approvals were voted at the work session; commissioners asked questions, requested follow-up documentation and said several of the items will return as formal supplementals for approval at a later meeting.