Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ems Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eagle Nest seeks county help for EMS salaries; commissioners debate using restricted funds
Summary
Eagle Nest Village asked Colfax County to allow county‑held EMS funds to pay salaries for one year to close a $90,000 shortfall. Commissioners and the county attorney said the fund agreement restricts use to medical supplies/equipment and expressed concern about creating a recurring obligation; no action was taken.
Eagle Nest Village representatives asked Colfax County commissioners on Nov. 19 to allow county‑held EMS funds to be used for salaries to help the village secure 24/7 emergency coverage. The village told the commission it faces a $90,000 shortfall and requested $40,000 from county funds to cover one year of payroll while it pursues other long‑term options.
"We have a shortfall right now of 90,000, so being able to use the 40,000 from the county would leave us finding another 50,000 to cover what we need," the Eagle Nest representative said during the meeting.
Commissioners and county staff reviewed the original escrow/settlement language that created the fund and repeatedly noted it is directed toward medical supplies and equipment. Commissioners warned that using principal to cover recurring salaries could quickly exhaust the fund. One commissioner said the fund was intended as a short‑term bridge and that recurring operational costs should not be sustained from principal that produces only interest for future disbursements.
Several commissioners and the county attorney signaled they would support one‑time uses tied to training or equipment purchases but not ongoing payroll. "I don't think this fund is appropriate to be used for salaries," one commissioner said, adding that converting the fund to cover ongoing expenses would “open up a can of worms.” Other commissioners offered to help pursue legislative grants and state programs to cover operations.
Staff and the county attorney advised the commission that, under the escrow agreement and related lawsuit terms discussed in the meeting, the county is limited in what it may pay from the fund and may only spend interest distributions for eligible purposes. Given those constraints and the village’s remaining funding gap, the commission designated the matter as discussion only and took no formal action.
Next steps: commissioners suggested staff and the county attorney work with Eagle Nest Village to identify allowable one‑time uses (training, equipment) and to pursue state grants or legislative support for recurring operations. The item remains under discussion.
