To the editor:

I attended the Commissioners’ work session on Aug. 18. Despite conflicting views, everyone expressed themselves professionally. It made me proud to be a part of this community.

It wasn’t all disagreement. There was agreement that a 911 center is a good thing; everyone benefits from being able to call 911 and have someone answer and dispatch assistance. Future infrastructure needs should be addressed by dedicating revenue to build a fund, rather than wait until a large expense is incurred and must be paid immediately. The equipment is not cheap. A single 911 communications console costs approximately $300,000.00 and will likely increase over time.

Currently, operation of the 911 center is funded through the County budget, to which all property owners contribute, including those county citizens living in a city. Approximately $200,000 annually comes from statutory fees charged on phones. Most of those are paid by county citizens living in cities. Currently Barton County receives all of those fees, since it provides the service countywide, even though most of those fees come from citizens inside the cities. Theoretically, each city could establish its own 911 center and receive its share of the phone fees. But that would be inefficient and no one is suggesting that.

As I see it, the discussion of the source of the dedicated revenue came down to whether this is viewed at the entity level or the individual citizen level.

I think it is important to separate the funding issues related to the 911 center itself – receiving that call from the citizen in need and relaying it to the appropriate agency – from the funding of the actual agencies. The latter is appropriately viewed from the entity level. But I think that the funding for the 911 center is best viewed from the individual, countywide level.

The proposal using the entity level is that each entity pay, from its separate tax revenues, a share based on the number of calls dispatched to that entity. All the phone fees, and all the county taxes paid by the county citizens in the cities would still go to the county and be used to pay the county’s share. The county citizens in the cities would be required to contribute additional tax money to pay their city’s share. Thus, the county citizens in the cities are contributing to both the county’s share, and the city’s share. But the citizens in the unincorporated areas pay no part of any city’s share.

When a call is made to 911, the agencies’ respective service territories are not relevant to the citizen in need calling 911. The lines of the cities’ service areas are arbitrary and change over time. For example, if a portion of a city is de-annexed, the call to 911 from that area would continue to go to the same 911 center but those citizens would no longer be asked to make the additional contribution to the 911 infrastructure fund through city taxes.

In addition, all of the agencies cooperate and assist each other. A 911 call may be from the unincorporated area, but the sheriff’s office may request that a closer city officer respond. A sheriff’s deputy may be dispatched to provide assistance within a city’s limits. The fire departments assist each other at fire events.

In this context, “the county” is not separate from “the cities.” The county’s share is paid by county citizens in cities. When “the cities” pay additionally, those county citizens pay again.

A call to 911 is the same for all citizens countywide. The funding source should be one contributed to equally by all citizens.

Allen Glendenning

Great Bend