Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
ETSB tells Lee County it cannot use 9‑1‑1 surcharge funds to repair jail/911 wall; county to fix it
Loading...
Summary
An ETSB representative told the Lee County Board that state law and ETSA rules prevent 9‑1‑1 surcharge funds from paying to buy or repair the wall between the jail and the 9‑1‑1 center; the county chair said the county will proceed with repairs and staff expect lower-than-anticipated costs.
At a county board meeting, Shelley, speaking for the Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB), told commissioners that state law and ETSA rules prevent the ETSB from using 9‑1‑1 surcharge funds to acquire real property or to pay for the wall between the county jail and the county 9‑1‑1 center.
"Long story short, it is not an appropriate use of funds," Shelley said, explaining that the Emergency Telephone Systems Act limits allowable expenditures and that only property acquired before 2006 is an exception. She also said ETSBs must file an annual financial report (AFR) and that the state can withhold surcharge payments for ineligible spending.
Shelley said the ETSB had explored options — including splitting costs or leasing arrangements — but that legal guidance from state administrators and counsel showed the surcharge cannot be used for the wall. "If we spent funds that are not allowable per the legislation ... they can have our funds and our surcharge kept," she said.
Board members asked whether a lease or a parking‑lot lease could avoid the restriction. Shelley replied that leasing the lot or leasing resources would be a "far stretch" as a PSAP operational cost and said roofing or parking lot costs would be difficult to justify under ETSA definitions.
The county chair responded that the county will move ahead to repair the wall. The chair said county staff (Eric) will undertake most of the work and estimated the expense will be less than earlier expectations; Shelley volunteered to assist with manual labor.
What happened next: The ETSB’s legal interpretation leaves the county responsible for repairs if ownership or statute bars use of surcharge funds. The county chair said staff will pursue repairs, and no formal county board vote was required at the meeting.
Context: Shelley told the board the ETSB recently spent about $1.2 million to help the sheriff’s office and Dixon Police Department acquire a next‑generation 9‑1‑1 operating system; she used the example to illustrate that ETSB funds are committed to core PSAP operations, equipment and software rather than facility ownership or unrelated capital projects.
Next steps: County staff will present a repair plan and cost estimate to the board; the chair said he will coordinate the work with county personnel.
