as salaries and training, and that the appropriate way to support future radio replacement is for
surcharge funds to offset an authorized budget line item, thereby allowing the PSAP to retain and
set aside local funds it otherwise would have spent. He stated this approach preserves
compliance by ensuring ETSB-disbursed funds are spent on authorized purposes while the
PSAPs' internal savings strategy is maintained separately.
Member Wolber asked what happens if a PSAP does not ultimately set the freed-up funds aside
for radio replacement. Vice Chair Franz noted there are only two PSAPs and stated he did not
believe the Board needs to “babysit” the funds. He stated that, given legal ambiguities,
maintaining flexibility for PSAPs is appropriate, while also acknowledging the need to be clear
about the problem being addressed. Vice Chair Franz stated that, in his view, the current
structure provides approximately $1M per year to the PSAPs and, over time, that level of support
will not fully address a future radio replacement cost that could be significantly higher. He stated
that the ETSB is not required to solve the problem entirely, but should pursue all reasonable
ways to assist, including re-evaluating the legal framework if a surcharge increase occurs. Vice
Chair Franz expressed frustration with the premise that radios could be considered ineligible for
surcharge support and stated the Board should continue to address the legal ambiguities.
ASA Winistorfer stated he had been confident that the prior approach was authorized, but
cautioned that federal interpretations could change, and that Congress or the FCC could
determine radios are not allowable, creating risk if agencies rely on that framework over an
extended period. Vice Chair Franz stated he agreed with the strategy.
Executive Director Zerwin added that the underlying statute’s intent originally focused on the
phone network and that, over time, Illinois has worked to expand allowable uses as technology
evolved, but federal guidance has at times constrained that expansion. She stated that, while the
operational value of radios is clear, legal interpretations may narrowly focus on 9-1-1 call receipt
and dispatch delivery. Executive Director Zerwin referenced historical interpretations supporting
CAD as an allowable surcharge use in consolidated systems and stated the broader policy
objective is to ensure 9-1-1 system core systems are adequately funded and replaced, with any
remaining capacity potentially supporting PSAPs consistent with adopted policies. She cautioned
against expanding recurring PSAP funding without safeguards because surcharge revenue is
finite and can fluctuate; she stated that if PSAPs build expectations around levels of ETSB
support and the ETSB later must reduce payments due to revenue shortfalls, it can create
cascading impacts. Vice Chair Franz stated he did not believe PSAPs would budget ETSB
support as guaranteed revenue.
Executive Director Zerwin stated that, unlike member-funded organizations where costs can be
allocated back to members, the ETSB operates within a fixed revenue stream and must maintain
a capital contingency to plan for high-cost system replacements, including CAD and call
handling equipment. She stated that long-term planning is necessary given the scale of
replacement costs and noted that consolidation has enabled more effective system wide
investments than would be possible in a more fragmented model. Executive Director Zerwin
acknowledged that the capital detail referenced earlier was not included in the packet and stated
the Finance and Revenue section was a first iteration and “test drive” for how the Board would
like to structure ongoing financial discussions. Vice Chair Franz thanked staff for the
information provided and stated that walking through the capital plan in greater detail over
multiple meetings would help the Board understand what flexibility may exist.
