The Cleburne County 9‑1‑1 director reported on recent operations and funding challenges, saying the center processed roughly 26,000 calls through Nov. 30 and is facing an abrupt increase in hosting costs while a state grant program remains on hold.

The director, identified in the transcript as Speaker 4, told the commission that the vendor currently hosting the county’s call-taking system raised charges to about $27,000 a year from roughly $10,800. "[The vendor] is now having to charge us $27,000 a year instead of $10,000 a year," Speaker 4 said, and added that districts will pay that amount on a monthly basis while the state resolves grant language and cost‑recovery rules.

Why it matters: the higher hosting fee and uncertainty around state cost‑recovery grants affect operational budgets and staffing. Director updates included training and grant activity, but also detailed that the state examiners/auditor placed certain cost‑recovery grant disbursements on hold pending changes in how the state board handles funds.

Officials and staff pressed for details about what portion of the expense is hardware versus software and whether existing equipment could be repurposed. "We don't have the software here. It's at another location. So we do have the equipment," Speaker 4 said, noting that the county may possess hardware but not the hosted software instance.

The director described connectivity concerns that factored in vendor recommendations to move some districts from a hosted to a stand‑alone system. She said Cleburne’s internet quality raised questions about reliability, and staff recently installed Starlink as an Internet backup. Staff also declined a vendor proposal for a shared 1‑gig link at $1,500 a month because they were uncomfortable sharing connectivity for 9‑1‑1 traffic.

Commissioners asked whether the vendor could be held liable if the system did not perform as proposed. One attendee (Speaker 9) noted there could be a claim for "fraudulent inducement into a contract" depending on what the vendor proposed in writing; legal exposure would require reviewing the contract and the vendor’s representations.

Staff described steps they are taking: pursuing the pending state grant application that would fund a transition to a stand‑alone system, contacting the Association of County Commissions of Alabama (ACCA) and state board contacts about cost‑recovery procedures, and collecting call‑volume data to demonstrate the county’s higher per‑capita service load from routes such as I‑20 and cross‑border transfers with Georgia.

What comes next: staff said they will follow up with the state board and ACCA to identify the specific contacts and legislative remedies needed to restore or reframe cost‑recovery funds. The report also flagged near‑term budget impacts: the county already received a first invoice for the higher hosting rate and will revisit budgets accordingly.

Direct quotes in this article come from the official meeting transcript and are attributed to the speaker labels used at the meeting.