Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 911 Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County officials briefed on 9‑1‑1 surcharge change, warn of allocation risks
Summary
9‑1‑1 officials told the committee that a recent amendment extended the state's monthly 9‑1‑1 surcharge sunset to Dec. 31, 2027 and that proposed changes to a $2.50 surcharge and distribution method could reallocate funds away from McHenry County despite a higher rate. Officials urged caution in budgeting and follow‑up with state associations.
Representatives of emergency‑communications systems briefed the Law & Government Committee on an unexpectedly broad state change to 9‑1‑1 surcharge law and the potential local funding impacts.
"It was quite a surprise to many to learn that our monthly 9‑1‑1 surcharge sunset was extended to 12/31/2027," said Tiki Schulte, identified in the meeting as a 9‑1‑1 director, describing language tacked onto House Bill 1866 and a subsequent Senate amendment. Schulte said that the amendment and related public acts were not widely circulated before the committee learned of them at a recent industry conference.
Schulte and assistant director Randy Simatine explained that the state and various associations are considering raising the surcharge toward a $2.50 level and that an allocation change (currently based on billing postal code, with discussion of GIS‑based distribution) could mean McHenry County receives less revenue even if the per‑line fee rises. Officials described the historical "hold harmless" mechanism that protected earlier local surcharges and warned that a statewide redistribution could reduce McHenry County's share.
Schulte told the committee that some counties and emergency communications centers rely heavily on local municipality funding for equipment and personnel; speakers said that in one local ECC only 24% of expenditures outside the ETSB are funded by the ETSB, with the remainder locally funded.
Committee members encouraged coordination with other collar counties and with state associations (NACO, ISACo) and suggested waiting for legislative developments before taking formal action. Staff and 9‑1‑1 representatives said they would continue monitoring the bills, work with county lobbyists and keep the committee informed.
No county action was taken at the meeting; presenters recommended conservative budgeting pending clarity on allocation rules and implementation details.
