Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It Fecc Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IT and FECC warn commissioners that 9‑1‑1 capital needs outpace current CIP; propose converting finance role and sharing costs
Summary
IT Director Justin Miller and FECC staff told Flathead County commissioners that SIP/CIP needs for county IT and 9‑1‑1 projects will exceed current funding; they proposed converting a part‑time 9‑1‑1 finance technician to a full‑time IT finance technician and discussed possibly increasing the countywide 9‑1‑1 special assessment to sustain CIP.
Flathead County’s IT director and 9‑1‑1 staff told commissioners May 5 that planned technology and radio upgrades will require larger SIP/CIP funding than the county currently budgets and outlined short‑term and structural responses.
Justin Miller said IT plans a $220,000 transfer from operating into the SIP for FY27 to fund major projects, including a countywide phone system and backup infrastructure. "SIP, we are planning on doing a $220,000 transfer from operating budget into SIP," Miller said, adding that the funding will cover projects across downtown and 9‑1‑1 administrative functions.
Miller proposed converting an existing part‑time 9‑1‑1 finance technician role into a full‑time IT finance technician (starting salary listed at $61,912) to centralize procurement, software licensing, contract oversight and budget support. He said the role would continue to support 9‑1‑1 and could reduce redundant administrative workload across departments.
FECC staff (Austin Hicks) and Miller warned that the current $400,000 CIP draw for 9‑1‑1 projects was not sustainable for FY28 and beyond. Miller said he expects the 9‑1‑1 CIP will likely need to be boosted to roughly $550,000–$600,000 to cover planned life‑cycle replacements and larger projects, and he discussed the possibility of increasing the countywide 9‑1‑1 special assessment (a county special assessment, not a voter levy) through a public comment/assessment process similar to the solid‑waste district.
Commissioners discussed cost‑sharing options including moving part of Miller’s salary into 9‑1‑1 funds (examples discussed included a 50/50 split) and asked staff to prepare justification and documentation if a formal assessment increase is pursued.
What’s next: IT and FECC will prepare documentation and a multi‑year CIP plan showing project costs and timing; if staff recommend a change to the 9‑1‑1 assessment, the board will receive supporting materials and a public comment schedule.
