Davis County staff warn state audit could force 9-1-1 consolidation, cost thousands to replace consoles
Loading...
Summary
County staff told commissioners that a state Telecommunications Authority audit — triggered because the county’s annual 9-1-1 transfer rate exceeded a 2% threshold — will require a third‑party review and could cost the county for consoles and services if UCA withdraws funding.
County staff briefed the Davis County Commission on a state‑mandated audit of the county’s 9‑1‑1 dispatch operations after the county’s annual transfer rate exceeded the 2% threshold set by the Utah Communications Authority (UCA).
Kelly, the staff presenter, said the county has been pursuing consolidation of dispatch centers for several years and recently launched a virtual consolidation server that reduced the recent rolling transfer rate to “about 1.7 something for the last 3 months.” She warned, however, that the statute uses an annual figure and the county’s annual rate exceeded 2 percent, so UCA required all county dispatch centers to participate in a third‑party audit. “Our transfer rate was at about 2.5% for most of the year and down to 1.7 something for the last 3 months,” Kelly said.
Staff said Layton has issued a request for proposals for the required third‑party audit, with an estimated cost of roughly $73,000. The UCA provides consoles, phone systems and other infrastructure to county dispatch centers; staff warned that if UCA stopped funding those services the county would need to buy consoles, each of which can cost about a hundred thousand dollars. One participant summarized the revenue impact for lost municipal contracts as “a $260,000 loss in revenue for those 2 cities year over year.”
Commissioners discussed options including continued virtual consolidation, potential interlocal agreements with Bountiful and Layton, and ensuring county employees receive a fair transition to any consolidated operation. Staff said two cities (Kaysville and Farmington) have signaled plans to switch service to other providers, which would reduce county revenue but not reduce the number of channels the county must staff because state patrol and other agencies still use the same channels.
Staff outlined next steps: participate in the UCA audit process, respond to the audit with a plan for addressing any findings, and share audit scope and results with the commissioners when available. Commissioners asked staff to return with any recommended agreements, cost estimates and an allocation plan for the county’s share of the audit.
The commission did not take a formal vote during the work session; staff said they would proceed with coordination and return with details and proposals for any contract or interlocal agreements.
Ending
Staff will share the audit scope and results with the commission when available; commissioners requested cost and transition options and asked that staff return with recommended language for any interlocal agreements and funding implications.