Kootenai County Lieutenant Jeff Howard told the Board of County Commissioners on Nov. 12 that the county’s 9‑1‑1 center has made steady hiring gains but faces persistent facility problems that could require a new dispatch facility.

Howard said, "Of the 7 that we've hired in the last 6 months, 6 of them are on track," and that most recent trainees should be fully ready by mid‑March, with one ready by mid‑January. He reported one voluntary departure that morning but characterized the staffing trend as a marked improvement over prior years.

The board heard why Howard views a new or renovated facility as operationally urgent. "The building was built in 1992...we're taking a 160,000 calls a year now," he said, noting the original facility was sized when annual call volume was closer to 40,000. He described persistent plumbing faults that "can't be fixed without tearing out the foundation," a need for a new roof within a few years and cramped space that produces overlapping noise that impairs dispatch operations during major incidents.

Howard also described a planned technology upgrade that testing suggests will "substantially" cut call load and improve quality assurance, and said a recent development in grant funding may reduce the county’s share of those upgrade costs to about a quarter of initial estimates. He cautioned that installing a new 9‑1‑1 system in the current building and then moving it later could produce "millions of dollars in downtime," and pointed to South Carolina’s model of rerouting calls to other centers as an example of desirable redundancy the state is only beginning to adopt.

Recruitment and retention challenges tied to the facility’s location were raised. Howard said the dispatch center sits near Coeur D'Alene’s fertilizer plant, producing a persistent odor despite filters and purifiers, and that the atmosphere makes it harder to recruit applicants accustomed to higher‑tech workplaces: "it's really hard when I bring in a qualified applicant ... to tell them ... just ignore the smell."

Howard offered rough cost references for planning: Spokane’s recent 9‑1‑1 project was cited at about $7.5 million, while a local rough estimate he discussed was about $5,000,000. He said county property next to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is his preferred location to co‑locate dispatch and EOC functions, improving communication during major incidents.

Commissioners asked practical questions about whether a new center should be physically connected to the OEM building and raised statutory and permitting concerns about moving county operations outside the county seat. One commissioner recommended engaging engineering firm Longwell Trapp for preliminary plans and estimated an initial statement‑of‑work cost around $5,000; board members asked staff to seek cost estimates and auditor fund‑balance numbers and return with a business‑meeting item.

Next steps: staff were asked to reach out to potential engineers, prepare scope and cost estimates, and provide funding options for board consideration. No formal motion or vote occurred during the discussion.