Lake County 9-1-1 Authority previews 2026 budget; board weighs ETC increase, fund-balance use and staffing costs

The Lake County 9-1-1 Authority on Sept. 5 reviewed preliminary financial projections for 2026 and discussed capital and operational items tied to the county dispatch center. Authority staff presented a $1.1 million balanced projection and said revenue is modeled from the emergency telephone charge (ETC) and intergovernmental agreement (IGA) payments from user agencies.

The discussion matters because the authority must provide preliminary budget numbers to the county by Oct. 15 and the authority's budget affects interagency payments from fire, police and hospital partners, plus the authority's ability to fund training, retention incentives and capital upgrades.

Staff told the board the five-year projection shows $1,100,000 in revenues and expenditures for 2026, split with about $232,000 expected from the local emergency telephone charge and the remainder from IGA payments. The authority said it is also maintaining a fund balance and that money not spent in 2025 would carry forward; staff proposed using a combination of an ETC increase and limited fund-balance transfers to lower IGA payments in 2026. Board members asked for a final quarter-three close before any fund-balance transfers are committed.

Staff reported several operational and capital items: - Connectivity: Lumen installed a circuit from Clay County to Grand Junction; staff said the state has tested the link and it passed. Motorola is scheduled to install an access/backhaul switch the week of Oct. 6, with vendor training Oct. 13'17 and an access cutover projected for Oct. 20'24. - Recording and call-handling: CallWorks remains a potential recording solution; staff said CallWorks contract language was renewed (the contract had been due Aug. 31), and integration with new access equipment was being validated. - Mobile command and fleet: The board raised possible future upgrades to mobile command equipment; responsibility for fleet versus internal components will be clarified with county fleet management.

On personnel costs, staff recommended a 5% pay increase assumption for 2026 in the preliminary projection to begin closing compensation gaps; the authority also included retention and incentive bonuses modeled after the sheriff's office. Staff said the bonus pool is an incentive for additional qualifications (bilingual skills, training officer roles, higher education) and typically results in end-of-year payments in the $1,000'$2,000 range per qualified dispatcher, depending on pool size and months employed.

Board members discussed overtime and whether a fully staffed center would reduce overtime or whether overtime should be budgeted conservatively for events and mutual-aid details. Staff said overtime assumptions could be revisited after quarter-three data are final.

Finance and process items flagged by the board included: - Preliminary filing: the county's preliminary budget submission deadline and a request that the authority provide preliminary numbers by Oct. 15; staff said final quarter-three numbers should be available within one to two weeks after Sept. 30. - Accounting format: the county provided a budget template with account codes; the authority will use the county template for final submission while using an internal, more detailed sheet for planning. - Financial management: Erica (authority finance contact) is currently entering invoices and maintaining accounting for the authority; staff proposed exploring a formal contract or employee-lending agreement to compensate/watch this work if the authority continues to rely on her support. - Professional services: staffing for legal and consulting support was budgeted as an estimate; the authority said it will collect more usage data before committing to a fixed contract amount.

The board agreed to schedule an October work session to finalize budget numbers after quarter-three closes and to continue discussions with a consultant ("Jackie") on IGA language and the regulatory process for an ETC increase through the PUC. No final budget appropriation was adopted at the meeting; staff will return with updated quarter-three figures and proposed IGA wording for consideration.

Votes at a glance - Motion to table two agenda items: moved by Dan Trelka, seconded by Heath Speckman; outcome: passed (voice vote recorded as "Aye"). - Approval of the agenda as presented (after the motion to table two items): approved by voice vote.

The authority did not vote on a 2026 budget at the Sept. 5 meeting; board members asked staff to return with quarter-three financials for a work session in October and to continue IGA and ETC discussions with consultant support and the county finance office.