Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 911 Transfer Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emery County forwards 9‑1‑1 transfer‑audit bids to sheriff after officials say county exceeds state transfer cap
Summary
Commissioners opened two bids for a 9‑1‑1 transfer audit and voted to have the sheriff review them; a speaker said the county's PSAP is at about a 6% transfer rate while state statute limits transfers to 2%, prompting a required audit estimated at roughly $28,000.
Emery County commissioners on Oct. 21 opened bids for a 9‑1‑1 transfer audit and voted to give the sheriff authority to review the proposals and award the contract to the lowest acceptable bidder.
An unidentified speaker at the meeting said the county’s public-safety answering point (PSAP) “cannot go over a 2% transfer rate” under state rules and that Emery County’s current rate is about 6%. “The audit is $28,000,” the speaker said, describing the cost the county faces for exceeding the limit. The commission opened a bid from Federal Engineering for $28,010 and a bid from Matrix Consulting Group for $34,150; the Federal Engineering bid also included an additional hourly fee schedule for any required extra services.
Why it matters: The county official told commissioners that many out‑of‑area calls — for example, motorists on I‑70 or other highways — arrive at Emery County’s PSAP because of Utah Communications Authority (UCA) routing zones. The speaker said that when an out‑of‑area caller is out of service, the PSAP is expected by UCA rules to hang up and call the jurisdictional dispatch center, a process that can prevent callbacks and lead staff to instead forward calls — a practice that increases the measured transfer rate. “We are at 6%,” the speaker said. “So it’s a crappy deal all the way around,” the speaker added, asserting that the county is effectively paying for a UCA routing mistake.
Commission discussion focused on the procedural next step: Speaker 3 moved that, after the sheriff scrutinizes and approves the submissions, the county award the contract to the lowest bidder unless the sheriff has a reason not to. Speaker 2 seconded the motion; the commission voted in the affirmative to send the bids to the sheriff for review.
What was proposed and next steps: The bids will be reviewed by the sheriff’s office; if the sheriff approves, the commission’s motion contemplated awarding the contract to the lowest bidder. The meeting record does not show a formal signed contract award at the meeting. The unidentified speaker also said they plan to contact state legislators after the election to seek a change to the statute that limits transfer rates, arguing that the current routing system places an unfair operational and financial burden on rural counties.
The sheriff’s review and any subsequent contract award were the immediate next steps announced at the meeting.
