new information. Member Maranowicz confirmed, yes. Vice Chair Franz said he is not
saying it is new information, that DU-COMM has had those conversations, too. He said
they should not be saying whatever ETSB wants to give is great but instead making those
decisions. Vice Chair Franz said, the PSAPs did not get money for a couple years. Then
that was supposed to be radio money that ETSB was dedicating to radios. So then where
did the money go? Why do we not have, if we spent $20M on this radio project, then
there should be $2M available every year to send to the PSAPs so we can do the same
thing. He said, we do not have a chain of authority of where those monies went and that
is the conversation we need to have. That is why the Finance Committee should be diving
into this and giving some direction because it is not a one time conversation, it has to be
every year. This ETS Board decides how much IGA money is distributed. Vice Chair
Franz said it is not a staff decision; it is our decision. Chair Schwarze said he respectfully
disagrees, that when the budget is presented every year, they see exactly where the money
is, that it is budgeted along with future expenditures and that he was not sure why Vice
Chair Franz says they do not see it. Vice Chair Franz replied, they do not see it, that it is
a convoluted and not a transparent process. He said they have a guess and that they do
not know what is going to happen in years two and three. Chair Schwarze said he
disagrees and asked for any other comments.
Member Honig said he respectfully disagrees (with Vice Chair Franz) because you say
that about any sort of committee, that the whole point of having staff who are experts in
setting up the budgets, every line item, that when you click in OpenGov there is very
detailed explanations of all the categories and that it is up to them to read what is laid out.
He thought that having that discussion amongst those who are not necessarily the full
experts, whether at an Ad Hoc or permanent committee meeting, on what the experts
have put into writing for them would run them in circles. He expressed his trust in
Executive Director Zerwin and her staff to have done their best at forecasting where the
budget could go in an unpredictable market, especially in regard to revenue and the
interest gained through the efforts of the Treasurer's Office, which is fluctuating.
Member Honig said that as someone who looks at numbers every day, it is confusing to
forecast but felt that what is given to them at the moment is good enough for him to see
where the money is going.
Chair Schwarze said that they have seen the budget spelled out and that if ETSB
continues putting money towards radios over the next ten years, that the capital
contingency will go negative. He said just because, and used an example of $6M paid for
radios that all of a sudden there will be an extra $6M. He said it is spelled out in the
budget and that everyone on Ad Hoc Finance has seen it.
Executive Director Zerwin said the fact that surcharge went from $0.87 to $1.50 is what
allowed this Board to fund radios one more time. From that point forward, it was always
stated that there would not be additional funding. She said that today, without radios,
they are going to be spending roughly $40M, another $12M for the AXS consoles, and
because the Customer Premise Equipment was split, it is about $1.9M each, plus or
minus, depending on the replacement schedule. Executive Director Zerwin said the
challenge with Capital Contingency is when projects are finished because staff try to
structure contracts that are not paid out until we are satisfied. She said there was 50% up
front with Tait, which is usually the cost of the capital, whereas services are rolled into
the costs. The Motorola radio contract had a nice financing package with $12M is
