9-1-1 enterprise reviews draft budget and backs 3¢ fee framework; no formal adoption
July 18, 2025 | Public Utilities Commission, Governor's Boards and Commissions, Organizations, Executive, Colorado
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Lynn Sage presented a draft, high‑level budget framework for the enterprise and the board discussed assumptions underlying a proposed 3¢ per‑telephone surcharge that the enterprise might ask the commission to set. The draft used an estimate of $800,000 per penny (yielding $2,400,000 at 3¢) and allocated funds to personal services, an annual resource‑center FTE, GIS support, language‑accessibility programs, local authority grants, and a program reserve.
Board members and staff debated how to represent the first year of revenue because carriers remit with a delay: staff advised that the enterprise will likely not receive collected fee revenue until March, meaning calendar‑year timing yields fewer months of realized revenue in the enterprise’s first year. Daryl told the board that "they told me that they will not be charging anything in your first year of revenue," and later explained that PUC/DORA charges for staff time are expected to be minimal in the first year; he recommended budgeting a modest cushion (board discussion centered on $100,000–$150,000 rather than an initial $250,000 estimate for 'personal services').
The board discussed program priorities and amounts that had been proposed in prior conversations: a $200,000 allocation to fund one full‑time equivalent for the 9‑1‑1 Resource Center; funding for GIS work to support statewide PSAP boundary layers and possible local GIS data development; and a language accessibility line (intended to cover emergency notification systems or translation services) that could be distributed as grants to local authorities or used for a statewide solution. Staff noted the estimated beginning balance would be zero because collections have not yet started; the draft included a 10% program reserve to cover potential overruns or matching needs.
Board members agreed they wanted a cleaned budget document, a short memo showing the rationale for a 3¢ fee (to support consultation with commission staff), and a glossary describing line items. Several members favored waiting to adopt a final budget until it could be placed on a posted agenda; the board did not adopt the budget or set a fee at this meeting but asked staff to return with a revised draft and supporting memo. Staff recommended adopting the budget "in total" at a later meeting to preserve flexibility within line items, noting that supplemental budgets could be used if allocations must change.
No formal rate setting or final budget vote occurred; staff will present a refined packet at the next meeting (scheduled for July 23, 2025, 3–5 p.m.).
Board members and staff debated how to represent the first year of revenue because carriers remit with a delay: staff advised that the enterprise will likely not receive collected fee revenue until March, meaning calendar‑year timing yields fewer months of realized revenue in the enterprise’s first year. Daryl told the board that "they told me that they will not be charging anything in your first year of revenue," and later explained that PUC/DORA charges for staff time are expected to be minimal in the first year; he recommended budgeting a modest cushion (board discussion centered on $100,000–$150,000 rather than an initial $250,000 estimate for 'personal services').
The board discussed program priorities and amounts that had been proposed in prior conversations: a $200,000 allocation to fund one full‑time equivalent for the 9‑1‑1 Resource Center; funding for GIS work to support statewide PSAP boundary layers and possible local GIS data development; and a language accessibility line (intended to cover emergency notification systems or translation services) that could be distributed as grants to local authorities or used for a statewide solution. Staff noted the estimated beginning balance would be zero because collections have not yet started; the draft included a 10% program reserve to cover potential overruns or matching needs.
Board members agreed they wanted a cleaned budget document, a short memo showing the rationale for a 3¢ fee (to support consultation with commission staff), and a glossary describing line items. Several members favored waiting to adopt a final budget until it could be placed on a posted agenda; the board did not adopt the budget or set a fee at this meeting but asked staff to return with a revised draft and supporting memo. Staff recommended adopting the budget "in total" at a later meeting to preserve flexibility within line items, noting that supplemental budgets could be used if allocations must change.
No formal rate setting or final budget vote occurred; staff will present a refined packet at the next meeting (scheduled for July 23, 2025, 3–5 p.m.).
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
