huron county 911 · huron county 911 3/16/16 2016 psap consolidation study 5 acknowledgement this...

Huron County 3/16/2016 2016 PSAP Consolidation Study

0

HURON COUNTY 911

2016 PSAP Consolidation Study

Huron County 911 Technical Advisory Committee

Huron County 911 Coordinator, Jason Roblin

255 Shady Lane Drive, Unit B, Norwalk, Ohio 44857

(419) 663-5772

[email protected]

Huron County 911 3/16/16 2016 PSAP Consolidation Study

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

History ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Today ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

New Mandates .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 5

PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 7

Situation .................................................................................................................................................... 7

Assumptions .............................................................................................................................................. 8

AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 9

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 10

GOVERNANCE AND CONSOLIDATION PATHS ............................................................................................ 11

Governance ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Consolidation Paths ................................................................................................................................ 12

Local History ............................................................................................................................................ 13

FUNDING ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

Consolidated Center Cost ........................................................................................................................ 14

Funding Methods Allowed by Law .......................................................................................................... 15

General Fund Budget(s) .......................................................................................................................... 15

Detail Rate............................................................................................................................................... 16

Levy ......................................................................................................................................................... 17

Parcel Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 18

Utilities Service Tax ................................................................................................................................. 19

Sales Tax .................................................................................................................................................. 19

Mixed Funding......................................................................................................................................... 19

BENEFITS AND CONCERNS ......................................................................................................................... 20

Benefits ................................................................................................................................................... 20

Concerns .................................................................................................................................................. 23

TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Current Technology ................................................................................................................................. 27

Current Underutilized Technology .......................................................................................................... 29


2

New Technology ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Enhancements to Provide Efficiency and Reduced Response Time ......................................................... 34

SURVEY AND FEEDBACK ............................................................................................................................. 37

EXECUTIVE CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 38

ADDENDUM A: PSAP CONSOLIDATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ........................................................ 39

Organization Chart Description............................................................................................................... 40

ADDENDUM B: 2015 HURON COUNTY 911 STATISTICS ............................................................................ 43

2015 911 Call Totals ................................................................................................................................ 43

2015 Countywide 911 Performance ........................................................................................................ 44

Countywide Performance Graphs ........................................................................................................... 45

ADDENDUM C: OHIO PSAP OPERATIONS RULES PROPOSAL .................................................................... 46

ADDENDUM D: INSURANCE ....................................................................................................................... 53

Insurance Rate Information .................................................................................................................... 53

ISO Rating Information ........................................................................................................................... 55

Insurance Carriers Consulted .................................................................................................................. 56

ADDENDUM E: HURON COUNTY 911 TECHNOLOGY COST ....................................................................... 57

ADDENDUM F: OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 2015-004 ............................................................... 58

ADDENDUM G: REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 76

Ohio Revised Code ................................................................................................................................... 76

Rules and Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 76

Plans and Reports ................................................................................................................................... 76

Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................. 76

ADDENDUM H: DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 77


3

FORWARD Public safety professionals that care deeply for their residents and their residents’ service

surround us. Our 911 Technical Advisory Committee has been a solid foundation where

decisions guiding our E911 service have been made for over 25 years. Our call taking centers

are full of good people doing great work for our residents. The limiting factors can be debated,

but neither the people nor their desire to perform at the highest level has ever been suspect.

The consolidation research effort today and our previous local efforts have been guided by the

goal of providing a higher quality service to our residents and public safety agency partners.

Getting the life saving service our residents need to the location they need it as quickly as

possible was the entire reason a 911 system was started. There have been many projects over

the last 12 years that have attempted to increase accuracy or efficiency through wireless call

routing decisions, new technologies, policies and procedures. Transferring of 911 calls or

relaying information slows down the process of getting assistance out the door and on the

road. Reducing these call transfers as much as possible has always been a high priority.

History The original 911 system design for Huron County was born out of convenience late in 1989. The

residents wanted a 911 service and that public expectation needed to be met. There were

dispatch centers already in operation and those became the Public Safety Answering Points

(PSAPs) of our 911 system. It made sense then and a valid argument for that design can still be

made today.

A multiple PSAP design came with some challenges; and they have grown over time. As cellular

phones became more common, call transfers became more numerous. It was noted just before

the system went live that an increased workload would be thrust upon those dispatch centers,

particularly the Huron County Sheriff's Office since it would begin dispatching for village police

and volunteer fire departments. These agencies paid nothing at first and there was no fee

structure built into the county 911 plan. (As time went by those agencies began to pay for the

service, but not an appreciable amount that combined could hire one dispatcher.) At the

onset, everyone agreed that the workload would be higher and more call takers/dispatchers

would be needed. However, a "wait and see approach" was determined to be the best course

of action. More than a quarter century later, we are still waiting.

Today Over the years, as public expectations have grown and the 911 technology has become more

complex to meet those expectations the job has become more difficult to perform. The job is

harder and there are fewer people to get it done. That is not a recipe for success and it can

only increase the time until responders arrive. Even more new technology is coming our way.


4

Standards for what "Next Generation 911" means are being finalized. Things such as texting

and sending photos to a 911 center are just around the corner.

Our current model for 911 has 5 different PSAPs. This makes it impossible to completely

eliminate call transfers. We have tried to move toward a virtual consolidation of our PSAPs

with technological improvements, but policy, procedure and product usage varies at all sites

greatly. We are at a point where we have improved almost everything we can reasonably

afford without a major change to the governmental oversight, organizational structure and

funding models of our 911 system. We have made things better, but we know the service we

provide is still not as good as it could and should be for our residents.

New Mandates The laws that govern 911 systems in Ohio changed in 2012. They are now forcing wireless PSAP

reductions, a professional set of training standards, maximum call wait times and minimum

staffing levels. None of our 911 answering points can currently meet these new requirements.

And it may not be fair to ask them to try as the standards are built for larger well-funded

operations with much larger call volumes. Due to cost, none of our PSAPs want to invest what

is needed to meet the standards on their own. Training standards and minimum staffing levels

of 2 call takers per shift at every PSAP are prohibitive. If we don’t comply with the new

standards, we not only lose wireless surcharge funding but our liability will greatly increase as

well. Quite frankly, something must change. Our planning partners understand this very well

and they are helping with this research and the survey that will follow.

Conclusion We have a big decision to make. Will we continue to "wait and see" what happens through

inaction? Or will our leaders rise to the challenge and provide an option for better service? We

hope the following document explains the situation well and presents good ideas for

consideration. Thank you very much for investing your time reviewing it. Members of this

project are glad to field questions and we are listed in Addendum A.


5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Huron County, Ohio PSAP consolidation research project of 2016 is not the first in depth

review of this topic for our county. It builds upon and uses as reference at least 2 previous

efforts since our E911 system went live in December of 1989. We also are not the only ones

who have done this type of research. There are plenty of published reports on this topic from

other areas of our nation. I would like to thank all of those locally that are giving of their talents

to our effort today, those that helped in our previous consolidation research and those we have

never met but have learned from by analyzing their reports.


6

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide information to elected officials, public safety officials,

and residents that is pertinent, factual, detailed and current. This information can assist the

key decision makers in their process determining the best course of action. We are attempting

to exclude as much as possible our opinions and leave only information and raw data.

Elected officials and public safety officials/employees will be asked to read this report and then

will be asked to take a survey based upon their professional experience and information

contained in the report. The survey results will supplement the study’s information with valid

feedback. Questions the survey should help answer are:

1. What governmental structure should a consolidated center be founded upon?

2. What funding source or sources should the center use?

3. What additional value added services or efficiencies should a new center provide?

4. What concerns do we have if the current centers close?

5. Which concerns can be mitigated? How and at what expense?

Please keep in mind that neither the study nor the survey is meant to answer operational issues

that a new center would encounter. Should this project move forward, all of those concerns

would need to be addressed by the participating entities.


7

SITUATION AND ASSUMPTIONS This section will describe the current situation of our 911 system and the assumptions we are making for this report.

Situation

1. Huron County has five PSAPs that answer 911 emergency calls and dispatch the public

safety agencies needed. Four of these are Primary PSAPs located within law

enforcement agencies; three at City Police Departments and one at the Huron County

Sheriff’s Office. The fifth is housed in an EMS dispatching center that is transferred 911

callers, but does not directly answer 911 calls unless they roll over from another center.

This is our original configuration minus one small PSAP at a village that has since closed.

2. The sections of Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 128 that govern county 911 operations have

changed.

a. ORC 128.57requires that we follow rules set by an ESINET committee (ORC

129.021) or we lose our wireless surcharge funding; this amount is currently

$120,000 per year. Final draft version has been submitted to JCARR for rules

adoption (Addendum C). We will have two years to comply.

b. ORC 128.571 requires the number of PSAPs in a county funded by the wireless

surcharge funds be reduced over time or wireless surcharge funding will be

reduced.

3. Wireless surcharge funding pays 100% of 911 software, hardware, network,

maintenance contracts, local phone company tariffs, GIS Mapping, Computer Aided

Dispatching software (CAD) and Records Management System software (RMS).

4. Wireless surcharge funding is the only funding our 911 system receives outside of

general revenue budgeting for personnel at the PSAPs.

5. The State of Ohio has the 48th lowest funding rate for 911 systems. The responsibility

to properly fund our local 911 systems in Ohio falls upon the local jurisdictions.

6. State funding (wireless surcharge) did not increase to assist meeting these new

demands in the ORC.

7. Huron County’s 911 statistics (Addendum B) show that we do not satisfy the “Minimum

Call Answering Standards” within the ESINet Rules.


8

Assumptions

1. Our multiple PSAP configuration creates 911 call transfers that delay emergency

response.

2. We want to maintain our wireless surcharge funding.

3. The State of Ohio will not increase wireless surcharge funding.

4. We want to avoid increasing liability by not meeting the ESINET rules.

5. A consolidated PSAP that also dispatches emergency services will greatly reduce or

eliminate call transfers, thus improving response times for our public safety agencies.

6. Our 911 call volumes will not dramatically increase. They have hovered around 15,000

calls per year for the last 6 years.

7. Public expectations are growing. There have been draft versions at the federal level of

rules and standards for Next Generation 911 that will require us to accept text, photo

and video data from 911 callers.

8. It is a matter of time until these Next Generation 911 standards become mandated as

well.

9. Implementing new technologies to allow Next Generation 911 at 5 PSAPs will be more

difficult and costlier than one consolidated center.

10. Implementing staffing increases and training standards to meet ORC 128.57

requirements will cost more at 4 Primary PSAP locations than at one center.


9

AUTHORITIES The Board of Huron County Commissioners received letters supporting this research effort from

every village, city and many of the public safety agencies. By Resolution, the Board of Huron

County Commissioners directed that this research be performed and completed fully and

quickly.

The Huron County 911 Planning Committee (ORC 128.06) is a three-member committee that is

responsible to maintain the 911 Final Plan for Huron County. The members are the President of

the Board of Huron County Commissioners, the Norwalk City Mayor, and the Willard City

Manager. Should any large changes take place in our 911 system design, funding, oversight,

etc., the plan will need revised. This body is to be kept informed as this research progresses.

The City of Bellevue Safety Service Director shall also be kept informed and invited to any and

all future Huron County 911 Planning Committee meetings as a guest. The City of Bellevue

attains its E911 service from Huron County for the entire city regardless of county lines within

the City.

The Huron County E911 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is also required by ORC 128.06 and

provides guidance for the operation of the 911 PSAPs. The E911 TAC has been meeting

quarterly (at a minimum) for about 20 years and is made up of public safety professionals,

elected officials and appointed officials with a public safety duty.


10

CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS The large amount of research demands that the workload be divided. Members of the E911

Technical Advisory Committee have stepped forward as the bulk of the workforce. Members of

local governments and recently retired officials/government employees have also stepped

forward.

The Research Work Groups are as follows:

1. Benefits and Concerns

2. Funding and Costs

3. Governance and Consolidation Paths

4. Survey & Feedback

5. Technology

An Organization Chart is included in this report as Addendum C. Please review it for more

detailed information regarding the duties of each Work Group and the local officials that have

volunteered.


11

GOVERNANCE AND CONSOLIDATION PATHS The Governance and Consolidation Paths Work Group identified numerous organizational possibilities for consideration. This section provides an overview of these options.

Governance There are several ways to govern a 911 center and the most common are listed below. Ultimately the Huron County E911 Final Plan will need to be changed to specifically identify how the PSAP is governed and funded. Simply changing the Final Plan without having an agreed upon transition from the key decision makers doesn't necessarily force it to happen. We need to make a decision together and amend the E911 Final Plan to reflect the new way we do business. If written properly, the E911 Final Plan gives legal authority to the decisions that are made. County Commissioners Several counties in Ohio have a 911 PSAP that is an agency organized directly under the County Commissioners.

Pro There are 3 Commissioners elected.

Key decisions are debated in open meetings.

Con General revenue funding is not stable in the long term.

Leadership is elected and will change over time.

911 and dispatch is too important to always have a large learning curve for newly elected officials.

Newly elected officials can have a different philosophy and/or priorities.

Key decisions can take too long to make.

Board Created by the County Commissioners County Commissioners have the ability to form Boards. A Board can be created for oversight and/or direct management. By-Laws will need to be crafted carefully to ensure stability and equality.

Pro Can ensure all customers of 911/dispatch have representation on the Board.

Con Can be dissolved by the Board of Commissioners in the future (not a mandated Board by ORC).

Key decisions can be politically motivated/charged.

Depending upon by-laws language for Board Members, there is the potential for membership to be heavily weighted geographically or politically.


12

Sheriff's Office In this model, the consolidated PSAP is housed inside a County Sheriff's Office. Operational and management decisions are the sole responsibility of the host agency. Huron County and most of our surrounding counties have a partial consolidation similar to this model.

Pro Decisions can be made quickly.

Quick start up time due to an existing PSAP.

Con Decisions can be made too quickly.

Similar elected official concerns as the County Commissioner model, but heightened because instead of 3 elected officials there is 1.

Same general revenue funding concerns as well. Fees to customers can change rapidly making it hard for them to budget. Funding can quickly change if a large contracted customer decides to leave.

Council of Governments The Ohio Revised Code allows for the formation of a Regional Council of Governments (COG). Several counties in Ohio have formed or are in the process of forming a COG for dispatching of emergency services and/or 911 call taking. Ohio Attorney General's Opinion 20015-004 is attached as Addendum E. It contains significant information and insight into this governance model.

Pro More control on set-up, operational standards and By-Laws of the Participating members.

Can take on additional duties/functions.

Can address how to handle future new members entering and current members leaving within the By-Laws to add stability to its structure.

Con Impacted more than the other methods by ORC that will change over time.

Will take a significant amount of time to plan and implement.

Consolidation Paths There are four common consolidation methods identified in many previous research projects we used as reference. We have listed them in order of least integrated to most integrated. Shared Services Shared Services is the lightest version where systems that have different types of technologies work to make those the same at every center. Radio systems could be on different frequency bands, software systems such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Records Management Systems (RMS) and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) could be very different as well. Difficult budgetary years can encourage this type of consolidation; especially when unexpected technological replacement surprises an agency.


13

Virtual Consolidation Virtual Consolidation seems like a small step past the Shared Services model, but the differences that look easy on paper are actually big challenges. Identical policies and procedures for 911 call taking and emergency services dispatching at all locations is needed to truly have a virtual consolidation. Each area will still receive the same calls they do now, but each area needs the ability to seamlessly take calls for service from the other areas when needed. Each location can also dispatch emergency services for all other locations when needed. We have heard some comments locally that Huron County already has a virtual consolidation because of so many technologies that are shared or common. We have never spent the required time planning common policies and procedures, therefore we do not yet have a virtual consolidation. Co-Location Co-Location is a consolidation model that takes more than one agency into the same physical space. They are for all intents and purposes completely autonomous. Policies and procedures may or may not be the same. Technologies may or may not be the same. Building expenses are shared and the agencies involved maintain administrative control of their own independent operations. Full Consolidation Full Consolidation is sometimes locally referred to as a centralized dispatch. All 911 call taking and emergency services dispatching are moved into one location and overseen by one and only one management structure. All technologies, policies and procedures will be the same for all of the participating agencies. Administratively the same amount of work is required as the virtual consolidation. There is additional planning required to physically move several operations. Startup costs can be high; especially if technologies are different. Any savings to be had are longer term and based upon technology replacement and building expenses over time. Political support is always needed for a full consolidation due to the closing of current operations.

Local History Over the last 12 years, Huron County has strived to streamline the technologies inside our PSAPs. We already have many shared services. 911, CAD, RMS and GIS are already the same everywhere within Huron County. Ohio’s Kimball Report was commissioned by Ohio’s 911 Office and completed November 2013. It stated that consolidation of PSAPs was needed and not to discount a virtual consolidation as a potential method. Late in 2014, Huron County 911 began planning a virtual consolidation based upon this guidance. June 16, 2015, as we were required to certify the number of PSAPs we have based upon ORC 128.571. We were notified that since the Ohio Revised Code does not specifically allow a virtual consolidation, it is not an allowable method to satisfy ORC 128.571. Because of this, we are solely focused upon a Full Consolidation for the purposes of this study. It is the only method recognized by the Ohio 911 Office to satisfy our Ohio Revised Code requirements.


14

FUNDING The Funding Sub-Group has researched and estimated the cost of a newly consolidated center. We have also researched methods of funding a 911/dispatching center allowed by law in Ohio. The consolidated center costs are the best estimate we can provide. It is intended to be used as a starting point for discussions. It could also be used as a starting point for a consolidation effort's budget, but the parties involved will need to ensure the figures they use are accurate and all inclusive.

Consolidated Center Cost

The Funding Sub-Group determined personnel costs and left the technology concerns to that Sub-Group. Utility and building expense was also left at zero for now assuming a suitable county or city building can be used. If no suitable site is found, costs will need to increase. A consolidated center will assume all 911 calls and calls for service for the entire county. Those numbers were obtained in 2009 and we are using those figures instead of taking the time to verify new ones. Our population and our 911 call volume has not significantly increased since that study. We feel it is a safe assumption that our total calls for service have not increased dramatically either. The total 911 calls for our county is historically near 15,000 unique calls and the calls for service from the previous report were 101,161 for a total of 116,161. The average time it takes to handle any call for service is being estimated at 8.9 minutes per call based upon a very good study by Matrix Consulting Group in December of 2013 for the Cities of Highland Park, Lake Bluff and Lake Forest in Illinois. This creates a total of 1,033,832 minutes of dispatcher time actively working the calls for service. That same study makes a compelling argument that a dispatch center's employees should actively be working the calls for service 50% of the time, thus leaving the remainder for ancillary, administrative, training, etc. This makes even more sense in Ohio now that training standards are becoming more extensive and will demand more and more time. Using the methods and numbers above, our Work Group has determined that with no additional duties or services put on the new center, it will need 16.2 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) to successfully meet the workload. The model we discussed will require three of those to be shift supervisors (at a 10% higher cost), as well as hiring a center manager that takes no active calls for service. We are then adjusting the 16.2 FTE upwards to 17.2 to ensure there is ample vacation/sick coverage and that turnover of employees does not completely strain the remaining workforce. The amount of time it takes to properly train a certified dispatcher will be lengthy and we cannot afford to cut staffing too close if we are to truly provide a professional level of service to our residents and public safety partners. The highest current dispatching rate in the county is $21.02 per hour with benefits at 50.2% of salary if a family insurance plan is taken. We are assuming on the high side here for both wages and benefits. That makes our estimated total with benefits $31.57 per hour. Multiply that times 2,080 hours of work per year and times the 17.2 FTE employees. This equals


15

$1,129,448.32 per year. Add to that salary increases for the 3 supervisor positions at $3/hr each ($6,240 per year). The Center Manager position has been estimated at $90,000 with benefits. Lastly an IT Professional is needed also at an estimate of $90,000 per year to include benefits. This IT position will also be responsible for implementation and training for all software used by the center. This position will (time permitting) assist partner agencies with technologies connected to and/or provided by the center. A current example of this would be the shared countywide Computer Aided Dispatch and its mobile versions being run on laptops. Our grand total for personnel is $1,328,168.32. Technology costs from the Tech Sub-Group have been provided. Current Costs are $60,826. Immediate Needs are $539,959.38. Costs for expanded services are $366,172. Year #1 costs are comprised of Personnel Costs, Current Tech Costs and Immediately Needed Tech Costs. This total is $1,928,953.70. Again, please remember this does NOT include a building or building related costs (utilities, upkeep, etc.) Also remember this is an estimate for decision making purposes and not a budget.

Funding Methods Allowed by Law

The following methods have been identified as potential sources of funding for a consolidated PSAP. These methods potentially can be sole sources of funding or part of a multiple source method. Each of the viable sources will show a breakdown at full funding, 75%, 50% and 25%. This allows the reader to better understand the impact of each potential funding solution on its own or as part of a multiple source method.

General Fund Budget(s)

Our 911 system was established with the local agencies housing the PSAPs taking on the vast majority of the cost. They fully fund their own staffing and operations from their general fund budgets. The only funding the system generates outside of this is the statewide wireless surcharge. It provides about $130,000 per year directly from the cell phone bills of our residents. This is used for hardware, software, maintenance and networking between the PSAPs. Additional monies for 911 service or capabilities have not yet been sought. As the economy ebbs and flows, so do general fund budgets for the call takers. Every agency tries to do more with less, especially in the lean years. This has been a truth in Huron County and we are much more lean on 911 call takers now than we were in the past. And remember, back then everyone agreed we likely needed even more call takers than we had on day 1.


16

Table 1 shows how a breakdown based upon population would affect each jurisdiction at different example levels of the total funding estimate. The first one titled "Unincorporated Areas" is the total of the townships' population. It would need to be paid directly from the townships, directly from the county commissioners, or a combination thereof to be decided. An argument can be made that our current PSAPs should still fund or partially fund a consolidated center in this way. The argument against this is the fact that the 911 call takers also perform many other ancillary duties for their parent agency. These duties will still need performed if 911 moves out of the current locations and are described further in the benefits/concerns section of this report.

Detail Rate

A detail rate will determine an amount to be charged for the services of the PSAP based upon a “per call for service basis”. This fee will then be assessed directly to a governmental jurisdiction (township, village or city) or a public safety agency based upon the jurisdiction or service area location of each call for service. Because CAD usage currently varies in its usage and record keeping it is difficult to get an exact breakdown to determine how much cost each agency would bear. There are a total of 48,710 CAD Calls in the system for 2015. The total budget of $1,856,835 divided by those calls would provide a detail rate of $38.12 per CAD Call. This is only an example based upon preliminary CAD data that, as identified above, is not used in exactly the same way across the county. Uniformity in CAD usage would be required to ensure billing is fairly assessed to all participating agencies.

If a detail rate were to wholly fund the new center, this amount would be multiplied by an agency's total CAD Calls at the end of each month and billed to them or their governmental organization(s). A detail rate could be used in conjunction with another funding method to reduce its impact to the public safety agencies. Table 2 shows how various levels of total funding would affect a detail rate charged.

TABLE 1

Political Subdivision Population % of Total

100% Funding

75% Funding

50% Funding

25% Funding

Unincorporated 25,761 40.15% $774,558 $580,918 $387,279 $193,639

Norwalk City 17,012 26.51% $511,501 $383,625 $255,750 $127,875

Bellevue City 8,202 12.78% $246,610 $184,957 $123,305 $61,652

Willard City 6,236 9.72% $187,498 $140,623 $93,749 $46,874

New London Village 2,461 3.83% $73,995 $55,496 $36,997 $18,498

Greenwich Village 1,476 2.30% $44,379 $33,284 $22,189 $11,094

Monroeville Village 1,400 2.18% $42,093 $31,570 $21,046 $10,523

Wakeman Village 1,047 1.63% $31,480 $23,610 $15,740 $7,870

North Fairfield Village

560 0.8729% $16,837 $12,628 $8,418 $4,209

$1,928,953.70 Total Funding Raised $1,928,953 $1,446,715 $964,476 $482,238


17

TABLE 2

Budget CAD Calls 100%

Funding 75%

Funding 50%

Funding 25%

Funding

$1,928,953.70 48,710 $39.60 $29.70 $19.80 $9.90

Our research shows several communications centers utilizing a detail rate experienced some of their agencies limiting their radio traffic to the communications center to avoid these charges. This defeats the purpose of establishing a professionally organized and operated communications center for the benefit of those agencies if they choose to avoid contacting it for what they determine to be lower consequence situations. Situations change rapidly in public safety. Personnel safety demands the communications center maintain awareness of all unit location and status.

Levy

The Board of Huron County Commissioners can place a property tax levy for 911 operations on a ballot. This would place the burden of funding directly on the residents in a manner that charges more as a property’s value rises. There has been a legal question asked to determine if we can include the portions of our 911 system that fall within the City of Bellevue, but lie outside Huron County. A similar question has been asked to determine if we can exempt the Villages of Plymouth and Milan since they are not a part of Huron County's 911 system. House Bill 277 has been proposed to address this latter concern. As it sits now, there are legal opinions we have seen that would keep us from exempting the two villages. Two levy examples are given for our purposes. Table 3 reflects the costs based upon including all of Bellevue. Table 4 reflects a countywide levy within the boundaries of Huron County. These are both yearly totals. EXAMPLE: Includes ALL of Bellevue regardless of county

TABLE 3

$1,205,974.00/Mill 100%

Funding 75%

Funding 50%

Funding 25%

Funding

Number of Mills Needed 1.599 1.200 0.800 0.400

Cost to $100k Homeowner/year $55.98 $41.99 $27.99 $14.00

With Homestead Act $41.99 $31.49 $20.99 $10.50

TOTAL BUDGET: $1,928,953.70

EXAMPLE: Includes ONLY the boundaries of Huron County

TABLE 4

$1,128,968.00/Mill 100%

Funding 75%

Funding 50%

Funding 25%

Funding

Number of Mills Needed 1.709 1.281 0.854 0.427

Cost to $100k Homeowner/year $59.80 $44.85 $29.90 $14.95

With Homestead Act $44.85 $33.64 $22.43 $11.21

TOTAL BUDGET: $1,928,953.70


18

From these examples we can note that a levy that funds 100% of a consolidated center's expenses will need to be a 1.60 Mill levy if the City of Bellevue's Sandusky and Erie County portions are a part of the levy; or a 1.71 Mill levy if not. This would cost the homeowner of a $100,000 home $55.98 per year, or $59.80 per year respectively. Less if they are subject to the provisions of the Homestead Act.

Parcel Assessment Ohio Revised Code 128.22 allows the Board of Huron County Commissioners to fix and impose upon each improved lot or parcel reasonable charges that are equal in amount to operate and maintain PSAP(s). Key differences between this method and a levy is that this can be passed by Resolution of the County Commissioners. They then have the option to ask the voters for confirmation or risk a referendum reversing it in the future. There are no renewals ever needed and the amount can be adjusted up or down over time as needed also without going back to the voters. It also assesses the same amount per improved parcel regardless of a property’s value. In the examples below, there are 25,701 improved parcels on record at the Huron County Auditor's Office. These were defined as parcels with a home or business upon them. If this were the only funding sources used, 100% funding of a new center would demand $75.05 per year for each improved parcel or $6.25 per month. This would likely be assessed and collected twice each year. If another source or sources of funding are used in conjunction, the tables below identify a few optional levels and their impact upon the property owners. In Table 5, we include the Sandusky and Erie County portions of Bellevue. This raises the total number of improved parcels and reduces the burden per landowner a little. Table 6 reflects only those properties that lie within the borders of Huron County. EXAMPLE: Includes ALL of Bellevue regardless of county

TABLE 5

Improved Parcels 100%

Funding 75%

Funding 50%

Funding 25%

Funding

27,479 $70.20 $52.65 $35.10 $17.55

Total Funding Raised $1,928,953.70 $1,392,626.25 $928,417.50 $464,208.75

EXAMPLE: Includes ONLY the boundaries of Huron County

TABLE 6

Improved Parcels 100%

Funding 75%

Funding 50%

Funding 25%

Funding

25,701 $75.05 $56.29 $37.53 $18.76

Total Funding Raised $1,928,953.70 $1,392,626.25 $928,417.50 $464,208.75


19

Utilities Service Tax

Ohio Revised Code 324.02 allows the Board of Huron County Commissioners to levy a county excise tax to be placed upon each utility service bill at an amount of 2% or less of that bill. Funds would be collected by the utility companies and remitted to the county treasurer. This is identified in several studies, but we have not seen any examples where it has been implemented for 911 purposes. When discussed in other studies it met with stiff resistance from the utility companies. Their stance has been that they should not be the middle man collecting fees for a service they do not provide.

Sales Tax

Huron County has reached the maximum sales tax allowed in Ohio. This is not a valid option for our county.

Mixed Funding It is possible to use more than one of these methods in combination to reach the full amount needed to establish and operate a consolidated center. Discussion at our meetings has addressed this topic. The current PSAPs have budgets from their local host agency. Because there are concerns addressed in the next section that are difficult to quantify, each host agency has expressed their desire to retain some employees from their monies already budgeted. This has then driven the discussion towards a levy or parcel assessment as potential solutions for either the shortfall in combined current funding or a solution that could fund a project in its entirety. Before taking the survey, please think about the various possibilities from one sole source funding it all, to a combination of current funding and new funding sources combining to meet the total.


20

BENEFITS AND CONCERNS The Committee identified and examined the benefits and concerns of pursuing a project of this nature. Our findings are summarized in this section.

Benefits Service Level Improvements

Reduction or elimination of the transfer of 911 calls between PSAPs will provide quicker call processing and dispatch times, resulting in faster response times for field personnel and lowering the potential for human or technology errors. We cannot stress how important this is. In emergency situations, those few seconds can be the difference between life and death.

Professional call taking standards will be adopted. This provides for a consistent fast and highly detailed dispatching of services for our callers.

The State of Ohio ESINet was tasked with developed the Ohio Standards for 911 dispatching. As shown in Addendum B Huron County is below standard therefore, service level can only improve with consolidation.

Improved Communication

Sharing of physical space will enhance communications between call takers, law enforcement, fire, and EMS dispatchers. This improved communication may result in field personnel receiving information more quickly and accurately, which is particularly important in multijurisdictional or major emergency incidents.

Amber Alert/Silver Alert situations need a dedicated place for incoming calls. The new center may provide additional space for professional communicators to oversee trained volunteers to document and screen incoming information that can help locate a missing child or adult.

A regional PSAP will increase effective resource management during large-scale incidents, natural disasters, and multi-jurisdiction/multi-agency incidents from a single point of control rather than fragmenting control among multiple PSAPs. Recent large incidents that could have benefited from a consolidated dispatch service:

o Countywide Wind storms: June 18, 2014 o CSX derailment with evacuation in Willard/nearby county addresses: November

26, 2013 o Bellevue Tornado, countywide wind storms: July 10, 2013 o Bellevue magnesium fire: June 12, 2013 o Bellevue magnesium fire: March 13, 2012 o CSX derailment of butane car in Willard- Evacuation planned, not ordered: May

31, 2011


21

Potential for Cost Savings

If 911 Consolidation does not occur and if the ORC 128.57 rules are to be met, each of the 4 Primary PSAPs will need to meet them individually or lose wireless funding and increase their liability. The provision for two call takers at each PSAP alone will dictate the doubling of staff levels at every PSAP except Norwalk, and they will be close to a doubling to meet the gap. Add to that training standards that far surpass anything our centers do today and the new costs in order to meet these requirements is more than double what the PSAPs cost to run today. This alone is noteworthy and worth discussing at length.

Fire Insurance rates may decrease. Many homeowners and business insurance companies use Protection Classes from the Insurance Service Office (ISO) to determine your rates. 10% of the score for these Protection Classes are based upon "Emergency Communications" relating directly to the call taking/dispatching services a fire department receives. Huron County Development Council (HCDC) has researched which insurance companies within Huron County use the ISO ratings and to what extent improvements may save the average homeowner and/or business owner. This is potentially a very important cost reduction for current and prospective businesses as well as our homeowners. The overall ISO score of each Fire Department has been gathered as well as the 10% score for their dispatching service. Assuming a new consolidated dispatch center will provide the full 10%, are there communities that will see an ISO ratings change for the better? Are there communities that will be very close to a better rating? Answering these questions in as much detail as possible and then quantifying the results was our goal. Right now, we can say that with a perfect score for the 10% from Emergency Communications, there are 2 cities and 2 villages that will be less than 1 point (out of 100) from achieving their next best ISO rating. The City of Bellevue will need an additional .74 points elsewhere within their review to improve from a rating of 5 to a rating of 4. The City of Willard is currently a rating of 4 and would need .21 points to achieve an ISO rating of 3. Any other small improvements in their water supply, equipment, staffing or training will get them there and it would be quite an accomplishment. The Village of Wakeman would need .04 points to move from a 6 to a 5. And the Village of Plymouth is not currently dispatched by a Huron County agency, but if they moved to a new consolidated center with a perfect score would already have enough points to move from an ISO rating of 6 to a 5. These statements are true and measurable for homeowners and business owners alike. Rate information obtained from the insurance industry and local fire departments is provided in Addendum D. Not every insurance company uses the ISO ratings system. Some consumers may save money directly as ISO ratings for their area decrease. Other consumers will need to be willing to shop around to determine if they can realize any


22

savings. We hope that the information provided helps everyone understand this topic a little better. It is not widely published or known how our insurance rates are created, nor how they may be improved, but it is possible.

Long-term cost efficiencies may be realized from eliminating duplicate and expensive technology such as Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Record Management Systems (RMS), 911 answering equipment, radio consoles, logging recorders, etc.

Using one set of technology and systems in a consolidated environment may also allow for reduced costs associated with procurement, connectivity and maintenance.

Operational improvements may occur from more efficient use of staff including dispatchers, police officers, and fire fighters.

Increased grant opportunities as there is power in numbers and a greater ability to secure grant funding.

Standardized Training

The State will be issuing new training requirements for all dispatchers, such as EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch), and subsequent recertification training annually. A single training program for PSAP staff increases regional consistency and ensures staff members receive training to the same high and consistent standards.

Reduced Liability

There is no magic solution that can entirely take away a call center’s potential liability. However, when staffing, training and quality assurance are undertaken with liability in mind, agencies can see a huge reduction in their liability exposure.

A new regional communications center can aid in reduced liability to all participating agencies through the following methods if adopted:

o Following well-defined screening and hiring practices. o Instituting an Organized Communication Officer Training Program facilitated by

qualified and certified instructors (CTO). o Continuing In-service training for Telecommunicators in all potential areas of job

performance and call involvement. o Keeping clearly defined job descriptions. o Documenting clearly communicated performance expectations and standards,

accompanied by regular performance appraisal reports from qualified supervisors.

o Regularly reviewing and updating policies and Standard Operating Procedures accompanied by re-training.

o Regularly inspecting all equipment and immediately processing repair requests as needed.


23

o Providing resources and guides to assist in proper questioning of victims and witnesses.

o Scheduling sufficient staff on duty at any given time. o Implementing a Quality Assurance Program that screens random 911 calls for

quality.

The most effective way to lower agency liability is by having properly qualified and well-trained employees who consistently follow and implement clearly documented, up-to-date standards.

As the public safety industry moves towards Next Generation 911, agencies will continue to examine the use of inter-agency shared facilities, networks and applications, technologies, staffing, and more in an effort to provide their communities with the latest technologies while considering costs savings for these services. Regionalization or some form of consolidation may result in a lower cost for these solutions compared to each community paying 100% of these costs. Agencies considering consolidation or regionalization must carefully review the feasibility of consolidation, options for consolidation, actual benefits, costs savings and implications, and identify any potential obstacles as a result of consolidation to determine if any model of consolidation is in the public’s best interest. The important thing to remember is we are servants of the public, what we think might be the right way might not completely best serve the public. Therefore, as we consider and weigh the benefits and the concerns we must consider what the public expects and how technology and expectations of the public change as well. Keep in mind how 911 was implemented and how we have already changed how service is delivered today due the phase two integration. The Next Generation of services that is expected by the people we serve is moving more rapidly than the service we provide. Huron County is in the perfect position to again be the leader in Ohio and make a dream that has been on the books here since the late 80’s become a reality at a time that is right with the upcoming mandates, technology, and training mandates no better time to come together than the present and provide the service that is expected by the public with the right technology and training that the public and safety forces of this county deserve. As with every change there are concerns regarding the change, in this case that is no different. Huron County has a lot of challenges that need to be analyzed.

Concerns Decreased Level of Service

Fear of decreased level of service to responders and the public as we close the front door of many current facilities how do we overcome the ability to walk into a police department and file a complaint.


24

Each agency has public safety telecommunicators who have a vested interest in their community and department, consolidating would possibility break that mold and loose the local personal touch.

Loss of local geographical knowledge of the communities serviced by the new consolidated communications center.

Correctional Facilities

Locally each law enforcement agency has a holding facility that is monitored in accordance to the State of Ohio standards which requires a subject on station to properly monitor that subject in the holding facility. Removing communications center personnel will remove these facilities unless another cost effective solution can be found.

Should local facilities be lost, then there will be an increased cost in keeping the facilities or in transporting subjects to the Huron County Correctional Facility.

Facility Monitoring

Currently law enforcement facilities are monitored by on duty telecommunicators. Once consolidated how do we monitor our station without pulling an officer off the road patrol.

Staffing Concerns

Current telecommunicators have concerns about union contracts, benefits, wages, pensions & seniority.

How will current telecommunicators be integrated into a consolidated facility.

Newly consolidated centers might be civilian employees versus uniformed personnel how will this effect employment in providing the best possible employment configuration.

Liability

There are currently no training standards within Huron County which is a huge concern.

Huron County is currently delivering below the “Current Standard of Care” based on other area communications center throughout the United States and Ohio.

The question has been raised as to whether there is enough staff on duty within the current configuration to properly handle emergencies within Huron County.

“Duty to Act”: Because of the special role that 911 Call Handlers play in society, we have an enhanced “duty to act” that is greater than the duty owed by a private civilian. The


25

duty to act begins the moment a citizen calls 9-1-1 and informs the dispatcher that they need help. Because the government now has a unique knowledge of the caller’s predicament, there is an expanded duty to render assistance.

“Vicarious Liability”: In addition to liability for its own actions, agencies can also be liable for the negligent actions of individual employees under the doctrine of “vicarious liability.” Vicarious Liability includes supervisory and agency exposure as a result of a dispatcher’s negligent act. Even in jurisdictions where the agency is covered by sovereign immunity, it is increasingly common for courts to rule such immunity invalid when challenged.

“Negligence”: Simply put, negligence is the failure to use ordinary care. Intent to harm is not required to prove negligence. However, to support a charge of negligence, the court must also determine that the call center’s action (or lack of action) injured the victim through breach of a duty.

“Response Liability”: Aside from human resource-type issues like sexual harassment, most liability exposure for 911 call centers occurs around the agency’s response. Agencies can be found liable for inappropriate responses, especially in glaring instances of negligence. The most common responses resulting in liability include:

o Sending the wrong responder o Initiating the wrong level of response o No response at all o Disregarding a caller’s cry for help

Liability exposure increases dramatically any time a call or response isn’t handled in a manner that is consistent with the documented standard of care. Continued research is needed to address each of these concerns. All of them can be quantified. Most of them can be addressed appropriately. None of them will be ignored. Public safety officials and consolidation proponents must take a look at each concern and address them in the initial phases of consolidation preparation. Public safety officials will need to shed light on each topic and begin to research the way they do business today and how they might do business in the future as each situation is different. There are opportunities within technology to aid in some of our concerns; others must be addressed by hiring or retaining staff to accomplish the remaining missions. Each of the concerns is valid and has possible solutions but as a team of public safety officials within Huron County there is opportunity to address each issue and find solutions. No better opportunity has presented itself to begin crafting the future of police, fire, ems and communications response. We can drastically improve how our business of life safety is achieved, but we must properly address each of these concerns. It is important to look at the impact consolidation can make and weigh which option is the best choice for each agency. While considering all facets, please remember to consider how we are meeting the public’s expectations not just today, but in the future. Those expectations are


26

always growing. We are also constantly being asked to do more work with fewer resources in the field while these expectations grow. Increased productivity also becomes a necessity. Technological advancements detailed in the next section address some of the concerns from this section. Please keep these concerns in mind as you read the next section.


27

TECHNOLOGY The Technology Work Group evaluated the technology and equipment that would be necessary to implement a plan of this nature and examined the cost to obtain this technology. This section provides a summary of their findings. A summary of the costs identified in this section is included in this report as Addendum F.

Current Technology This section describes the technology and equipment that is currently in use in Huron County relative to the five existing PSAPs. A major cost driver of a PSAP consolidation effort is the technological upgrades and/or expansion needed to support the new center or future expansion. Over the past ten years, the Huron County Emergency Management Agency has diligently worked to consolidate technology and improve communications between the PSAPs and responders. The EMA has led the charge to implement more efficient communications and 911 call handling. These efforts have put Huron County in a cost effective position to be able to consolidate PSAP operations. Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management In 2013, Huron County went live with ALERT PSS and a countywide computer aided dispatch software package as well as a new Next Generation capable 911 call handling system with an internal county leased network provided by Frontier Communications. This system is more than capable of meeting the needs of a consolidated communications center. The annual service contract for the CAD system with Alert PSS is $ 27,331and will need to be maintained. 911 Experient System In 2013, Huron County began using Experient 911 call handling equipment. This equipment is Next Generation ready but will need an upgrade when Next Generation is deployed in Ohio. Next Generation deployment is a true GPS location delivery system that also handles video, picture, text messaging, so this system will need some upgrades in the not so distant future. The yearly service contract and licensing for 8 positions in the E911 system is $18,000 and will need to be maintained. 911 Network Also in 2013, Huron County built its own hub and spoke network for the five current PSAPs thought Frontier Communications. The current network is a private secure Metro-E connection to each of the five PSAPs supported. This network might require bandwidth upgrades if the current location of the E911 equipment is left in Norwalk at the Frontier Building. The monthly cost of this system and rental of the space at the building is $1,621. Radio System From 2009 to 2012, the Huron County EMA assisted public safety agencies with their FCC narrow banding requirements. During this process interoperability enhancements were recommended and implemented. While the various public safety radio systems in the county are still independently owned and operated, they are all primarily on the VHF spectrum. The


28

first of these enhancements was common programming for tactical channels. Construction of a 300 foot centrally located tower for several of those channels was a huge step in the right direction. The next step is networking the radio rooms in all of the current dispatch centers. This IP based console project will enable current centers and any new centers direct access to every public safety frequency without the need to move radio systems, modify FCC licenses or purchase expensive back room radio equipment that would be costly and duplicative. The current state of radio systems for the purpose of this report is listed as adequate. They work well but are far from meeting current professional standards. None of our current radio systems are P25 compliant; most components are not even capable of meeting this standard. There will be training, policy development, modifications and some additional equipment and networking needed to increase the reliability and survivability of the public safety emergency communications within Huron County. GIS Mapping The current GIS mapping system is sufficient and serves all needs of Huron County. The large investment over ten years ago has paid off and is still currently up-to-date and serving E-911 needs. Continued maintenance by the Tax Map office and Huron County EMA is needed along with continued upgrades through Alert and DDTI. Maintenance fees for “911 GIS Mapping” are now included in the Alert CAD fees. Everbridge – Mass Notification Huron County Alerts is a mass notification system powered by Everbridge and available for use by all public safety agencies within Huron County. As the system has become more feature rich over the years, it is requiring more training for proper usage. A professionally operated 911/dispatching center will be able to leverage this asset for the residents of Huron County much more effectively than our current operational design. Everbridge has an annual maintenance fee with current integrated options of $13,874. Information Technology The current state of our 911 system IT relies almost completely upon vendors. This is a large expense as qualified technicians cost $75-125 per hour. We perform as much diagnostic work in house as we can, but not having licensed/certified technicians on staff delays resolving issues, which can range from routine maintenance to critical system outages. A centralized 911/dispatching center will need to have a much more robust IT support network in place. Ohio LEADS and NCIC Connectivity The cost of this technology is variable and is somewhat included in the current technology costs. There will be a slight recurring cost, but at this time it is not measureable as the pricing for a connection and equipment needed is all based on the design and usage of the system. The current and future costs associated with this technology piece will need to be considered upon design of the consolidation plan.


29

Summary The Huron County EMA has lead the charge with technology improvements and has kept Huron County as a front runner in E-911 Technology. The current status is adequate to keep the current communications center as the beginning of a consolidated communication center but technology upgrades will be necessary for expansion and consolidation of all services under one roof. Those immediate and future needs are outline in subsequent sections and the benefits of the upgrades and other equipment not currently used is also addressed.

Current Underutilized Technology

Huron County currently has access to unused or underused technology. In a PSAP consolidation, this technology could be utilized more fully at no additional cost to the county. ALERT PSS The ALERT PSS system has the capability of broadcasting internal BOLO and integration of statewide BOLOs. This is currently not being utilized by any of the current PSAPs within Huron County. Utilizing this feature could aid in officer safety and further safety of Huron County residents. ALERT PSS system has the ability to take immediate deployment decisions off the hands of Chiefs and better serve residents based on available responders locations and abilities. Deploying the Run Card Module of Alert PSS allows for faster alert and deployment of responders during emergency situations. Based on predetermined deployment policies, it takes the decisions away from communications personnel and aligns each situation with department policies throughout the county thereby deploying the closest, most appropriate personnel and apparatus to calls based on GPS, policy, and availability. This feature even allows a scene commander to change an alarm level and upgrade the response based on the situation. Communications center personnel can automatically send more resources. ALERT PSS system has a built in Pawn Shop. While Law Enforcement agencies are required to track items, this task sometimes falls through the cracks because of limited support or personnel. Communications center consolidation could dedicate personnel to ensure this takes place for all agencies within Huron County. Warrant and Document Entry Warrant and Document Entry is very important to apprehending suspects and deterring crime. Currently, this system is used within the new ALERT PSS program but it is not used and updated to its full capacity. Through cooperation with local records clerks and the municipal court system, this module could be better developed within Huron County. Further cooperation among agencies in the apprehension of subjects could be accomplished with the most current and updated warrant notification system available. After researching other consolidated communications centers, it was determined that the typical communications center continues this service and delivers the original documents back to the issuing agency, maintaining a copy on file for confirmations. The only cost to this service could be that of a local courier.


30

Additional ALERT Functions There are several other functions in ALERT that are not currently being used that will have some impact on the consolidation effort. Examples include News Bulletin, Countywide calendar functions, civil case tracking, hydrant location and recommendation, towing company notification and impound tracking. These functions are currently included in ALERT, but are either underutilized or not utilized. PSAP consolidation would allow the county to better utilize these features at no additional cost.

New Technology To provide the residents and visitors of Huron County with the best possible experience and service through 911, the following upgrades will be necessary to provide the best possible customer experience, response time, and emergency mitigation. Some of these upgrades are mandated by ORC 128.021 as it relates to E911 Communications Center performance and provided services. Telecommunicator Training The State of Ohio requires a 40-hour basic telecommunicator training course that meets established core standards. This requirement will be made mandatory by the State, along with EMD training, before an individual could function as a telecommunicator in a funded PSAP. This training can be obtained from multiple agencies or provided through an internal training program. Basic Telecommunicator training will establish standards for professional service throughout Huron County and be required to maintain one’s ability to answer 911 calls within the State. The current cost estimate to train current telecommunicators within Huron County has been quoted at approximately $22,371, which does not include pre-arrival instructions for all disciplines of telecommunicating. Emergency Medical Dispatching Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) is required in 2016 for all PSAPs that answer E-911 calls. Failure to comply will result in penalties and loss of funding from the State of Ohio. Therefore, the recommendation is to adopt a nationally accepted standard that encompasses all public safety forms of dispatching and call taking for the new consolidated communications center. Adoption and accreditation through the Association of Public Communication Officials (APCO) has been recommended; the APCO training course is 24 hours and would provide complete compliance with the current requirements of the ORC mandate for telecommunicator certification and also enhanced training in fire and law enforcement dispatching and communication. This will be an upgrade in service to our residents and public safety responder personnel, providing the best possible team of telecommunicators for all parties. Complete implementation and accreditation by APCO will also lead to decreased liability for consolidated center operations. This cost of implementation and software is approximately $30,000; this includes complete program implementation and training for approximately 24 communications center employees. This will be a required cost of the consolidated communication center with an annual recurring cost of an unknown amount as ongoing training and certification is required by the certification


31

agency along with the required State of Ohio mandated annual training update to be produced by the Ohio 911 Office. Continuing Education The State of Ohio mandates continuing education for 911 PSAP personnel in order to take calls for service. Continuing education is already required with any EMD program currently available and typically totals 12 hours per year during the two-year certification period. The state will require a two-hour session that is developed by 911 program office, NENA and APCO. Continuing education will be certified annually by the 911 program office with onsite visits every three years. The two-hour course will be free of charge but will be mandated with completion dates and times on an annual basis. Traffic Incident Management System Traffic Incident Management (TIMS) training is recommended by every consolidated communication center we researched and evaluated. The training is typically free of charge and provided by the State and Federal governments. Therefore, it will be invaluable to evaluate this training and require it of the consolidated employees. Master Time A consistent Master Time function between all centers is essential and will need to be secured to the current NENA Standard and used through the center. The current technologies in our PSAPs have various sources for their time stamps. Not only is a single source needed, the NENA standard #04-002 must be followed, which disallows an Internet based world clock. This cost of this system will be $18,632. Phone System A new, consolidated communications center will require a business phone to provide the best service to the public. After much research within the county, an IP-based phone system would be the best option to enhance the performance of communications center personnel and provide the ability to integrate the system. The cities of Willard and Norwalk recently installed a Frontier IP-based Telecommunications system. It is recommended that the consolidated communications center follow suit since this is the preferred provider within the county. This will allow for cross-network communications and allow the center to receive and process business calls for the two cities and provides upgraded service to the four village police departments. These police departments currently forward calls to cellular service so that officers can answer calls while on patrol, during calls, and while operating a motor vehicle. This will also address “after hours” solutions for records departments across the county as call transferring will become the new standard. When someone calls for service, their call will always be answered by an individual who can provide answer their question, address their problem, and get the information they desire. Implementation of this system will then also address issues with current inadequate service of 211 and 411 within all communities of Huron County and possibly lead to areas of income for the consolidated communications center. The approximate cost to purchase a 12 IP-based phone system with extensions will be approximately $16,242. There will be a monthly charge for a PRI line handling about 20 phone


32

lines of about $400/month. This would be more than enough to handle all incoming seven digit calls for the county. Radio System Since the implementation of the new IP-based communications system within the county will stay in place, it will be necessary to purchase 6 new radio communications computers and licenses at an approximate cost of $121,641. Systems Recording A new center will require an IP-based voice logging system with capacity well beyond the current capability. All voice traffic into and/or out of the center will need to be recorded. This includes all radio channels, 911 phone lines, administrative phone lines, intercoms, and video screens of every position so that instant playback can occur. This will also include Quality Assurance software for the center manager and supervisors. The cost for this equipment is approximately $38,000. Telecommunicator Position Equipment Seven consoles, equipment, chairs, and computers will be necessary for the call canter. The approximate cost for this equipment is $192,658. Replication The center will have backup replication at the current installed PSAPs. That technology and ability will need to be maintained but can be scheduled into the regular replacement policy of the center. Norwalk, Bellevue, and Willard have agreed to allow the consolidated center staff to utilize their current locations should something fail. These centers have the new communications consoles and CAD systems at the ready should something happen and staff must be deployed around the county to continue to provide professional communications. Each location could also assist as a local incident management hub should a nearby jurisdiction need further support in the event of disaster. Redundancy Enhancements to our existing networks that handle 911 caller voice/data and public safety radio communications will be necessary in a consolidation. Both the radio communications network and the 911 network will need two additional links, for a total of four. For the purposes of this study, we are selecting microwave links. The communications network IS a microwave network. The 911 network currently has no microwave links, but they can be integrated into the current network. The benefits of a microwave systems are that the county owns the resource; there is a one-time up front cost and the county is not susceptible to vendor related problems, such as power supply failures, fiber cuts from digging or automobile accidents, or provisioning errors from vendor employees at remote sites. The largest concern with relying on these resources from vendors is that tech support and troubleshooting, when needed, are more than an hour away instead of access to locally-based technicians and a professionally staffed and operated Network Operations Center (NOC). For these reasons, the


33

current 911 network should stay in place, but the backup of it or redundant pathways built into it should be from a different source. Redundancy in both networks is necessary to provide a much higher uptime and enhanced day-to-day operations. The radio communications network needs three new microwave links from anywhere on the current network to these locations; City of Willard radio room, City of Bellevue radio room, and the new Consolidated Communications Center (location to be determined). The Communications Center will require a second microwave link of its own to a geographically diverse location of the radio communications network. We are also including in this study the cost of a fourth microwave link from the CCC to the Frontier office from where the 911 calls are all routed. This has not yet been discussed with Frontier but the conversations to provide a redundant, geo-diverse network link specifically for the purposes of 911 call routing have been discussed. This is one of several technologies that would provide this important upgrade. Ideally, the 911 equipment will remain at its current location with backup 911 equipment (pending budget availability) placed at the new communications center. The cost of adding these four links would be $102,857.84. Another network pathway discussed as part of this research would address Frontier-provided default call routing to another county in the event of a local phone system failure. Should there be an issue that takes the 911 system down or prevents an active system from receiving calls (local phone or network outage), there is default call routing in place at the phone company level. The Ashland County Sheriff's Office currently serves as our backup in these situations. This occurs rarely but when it does, we are reliant on local phone system seven-digit numbers to relay caller information or the calls themselves to us. When a local outage causes the issue, we rely upon radio relay of information upon inter-county radio systems that receive very little testing in between uses. Long-term planning is needed to address this issue. An additional network link should be planned to connect our backup site to our radio or 911 network. Should a failure of the 911 lines (in or between) Frontier's 911 switch in Marion and our equipment; we could still receive rerouted calls via the microwave system without loss of any voice quality or ANI/ALI location data. This would be completely unnoticeable to the 911 caller. This enhancement is being identified as a required future upgrade to our current infrastructure. It provides the best possible service to our residents and visitors. It is NOT included in cost quotes at this time. Communications Center Security and Monitoring A new consolidated communications center could utilize a monitoring wall for dispatchers. The ability to have a live feed of high priority locations, intersections, business districts, schools, and other integral infrastructure within Huron County would be beneficial in deterring crime, catching criminal activity, and aiding the first responder network. The ability to monitor each police, fire, and EMS station for activity and the potential to have a safe site in every jurisdiction would be a great improvement. The approximate cost of the integration constantly changes


34

but, with current system in place, integration into the communications center would be relatively simple.

Enhancements to Provide Efficiency and Reduced Response Time The enhancements identified in this section are not necessary to meet minimums standards for a consolidated communications center but should be considered for future upgrades. Fire Station Alerting The current CAD system interfaces with a station alerting system called Locution. The implementation of this will improve first responder safety and reduce dispatcher workload by automatically alerting stations and controlling all functions of that station and personnel with a simple mouse click. This is very beneficial if implemented properly as it could cut response times by minutes. Full implementation of such a system provides a safer environment for firefighters by properly alerting, lighting, and activating station systems, from controlling garage doors and activating exhaust systems to turning off utilities and securing the facility. Integrating this system through every station in Huron County would bring the county into complete compliances with the NFPA standard for dispatching. Implementation of this system would cost approximately $18,000 per fire station for an approximate total $198,000 for all nine stations and two EMS services. Responder Alerting Currently in Huron County, volunteer fire departments have no way of knowing if anyone is responding to a call for service. This technology, called IAMResponding or Active911, interfaces with the responders so they can acknowledge the call; it also gives the ETA of each responder to the station or the scene based on availability. This integrates with our current CAD system at no additional cost. The cost to fully integrate this throughout Huron County would be $6,800-$10,000. This enhancement would benefit the communications center because the dispatcher would know if anyone is responding to the call or if a second alarm should be sent to request mutual aid, thereby decreasing response times and creating a fully developed response fire mitigation system within Huron County. This would also benefit EMS, especially entities like Firelands Ambulance Service and Citizens Ambulance Service, in the event of second calls for service. This system can be built for the Law Enforcement agencies to ensure officer safety and prevent freelancing. Creating this for law enforcement will ensure that the Huron County law enforcement community remains safe in all dispatched situations based on predetermined responses. Law Enforcement Interactive Station Law enforcement interactive stations could be placed at each law enforcement facility within the county. These kiosks can perform multiple functions and alleviate the concern of no personnel present at a facility to assist. This simple kiosk can also be integrated with city or village functions to allow for utility payments, police report printing, bond payments, and can be interactive with the 911 center. The kiosks can be as simple or complex as we want them to be to help improve service at currently unstaffed stations. They could also be monitored


35

remotely by the communications center for security and to provide the public interaction with a real person. There are many different applications but ultimately, if we can dream it, it can be built. The estimated cost per law enforcement facility is $10,000; providing at least one kiosk at each facility that would bring the total to approximately $80,000. EMS Community Action Community involvement in the response to medical emergencies is a new movement in the age of social interaction and media. By implementing PulsePoint, a well-known application for community alerting, the county would increase our community action and involvement. This application has the ability to increase the number of lives saved in Huron County. When activated by the communications center though the CAD system, PulsePoint would receive an alert notifying them that CPR or an AED was needed. This saves vital response time and could ultimately save a life if a citizen is nearby and he or she responds to the alert and renders aid prior to the arrival of public safety personnel. Public safety personnel are training citizens of all ages to perform CPR and use AEDs; this system would enable these citizens to make a difference. There is an annual fee of $8,000 for PulsePoint. While that may seem like a high cost, the potential impact on life safety is priceless. The annual fee includes all support, functions, training, and integration. This is an excellent community service; funding to support its implementation might be available through the regional hospital consortium. ASAP Integration Automated Secure Alarm Protocol (ASAP) is the new standard for alarm systems. Instead of a telephone call to the PSAP for activation, it is automatically integrated into the CAD system so that there is no misunderstanding of the alarm or location. Operators currently have to dial phones and speak with a 911 call taker to provide the necessary information. ASAP automates this process so an alarm is instantly created in the CAD system that includes all pertinent information, making the 911 center more efficient in alarm handling and public safety response faster. Currently, integration with our CAD software is not available but there is a pilot project in Ohio between Alert and the providers of ASAP. This will be a much-needed feature as soon as it is available. Estimated cost of integration is approximately $10,000. Tablet Command Tablet Command is a tablet-based incident control software that interfaces with our CAD system. This system allows the incident manager to handle and document incident management, scene safety, and responder management. This tool would be a highly valuable asset to public safety personnel. Software implementation costs are minimal with an estimated cost of $2,500. Hardware for implementation includes the cost of a tablet and data connection; this which could be included in the new center’s budget on a rotating basis throughout the county. Hardware cost is estimated to be $500 per agency. Mobile Computing Technology This technology is currently only utilized by law enforcement agencies in Huron County. During consolidation, it will be imperative to expand and maintain this service. The committee feels this could be a cost savings to local agencies should development and funding become


36

available. Every agency in the county would benefit by developing standards, equipment replacement schedules, mandating the use of GPS devices, and exploiting this technology in order to keep officers on the road with all the necessary tools at their disposal for effective and efficient data and communication directly with the telecommunicators. The fire and EMS services within the county do not currently have access to this technology due to budget constraints and priorities with mobile data technology. The basic structure exists to deploy these services to every agency so they can have information at their fingertips in time of need. The cost is hard to predict, but based on current technology, it would be approximately $5,000 per unit to begin this process. It is estimated that providing this technology to every fire and EMS unit served by the consolidated communications center, it will cost approximately $150,000 - $170,000; this cost could be phased in over a few years with each department. Mobile computing technology needs to be the gold standard in every public safety vehicle within Huron County. Implementing this technology will be an asset to every public safety responder and is the way of the future to increase safety and decrease liability. Alarm Monitoring Systems Integration of current and future alarm monitoring systems has become rather simple thanks to the radio console upgrades provided by Huron County EMA. The new Telex radio control system allows for integration into the dispatcher’s console simply by IP addressing. Therefore, continual monitoring of alarm systems can be accommodated and possibly reduce costs for facilities across the county. This service could be expanded to other avenues; it increases income into the consolidation communications center. The cost of alarm monitoring is the installation cost per facility, which can vary depending on specific needs.


37

SURVEY AND FEEDBACK This Work Group has created a survey that will gather feedback from several important groups. Current 911 call takers/dispatchers, police, fire & EMS professionals, public safety agency executives, elected officials and our residents will all have very unique points of view and experience to draw upon. Responses to the survey shall be anonymous on an individual basis, but each respondent will be asked to identify a Group that they best represent. The survey has been created in an effort to effectively record each respondent's data in order to present elected officials with an overview that highlights trends and the strength or weakness of support for each identified governance structure and funding method. The survey data will also show levels of concern and anticipation of benefits for each of the different responding groups. The survey results may identify areas of the research that need better explanation, additional discussion and/or time to select the most appropriate choices. This Work Group will also lead any public information campaigns that are required to inform the public and garner their feedback as well.


38

EXECUTIVE CONCLUSION Thank you for reading our report. I hope you have a much better understanding of this

important topic and its urgency. We have tried to be as thorough as we could be in detailing

our current situation, new challenges and potential options. Now we need your input. Please

keep the following two thoughts in mind as you write your comments and questions in

preparation for our survey. These are recurring themes from each of our Work Groups.

The Governance and Funding of a new center will need to be on very solid ground with

the long-term stability of both as a primary objective.

The employees currently holding positions as 911 call takers/dispatchers need to be

treated respectfully, fairly and equitably. Exactly how we make sure this happens has

been open to discussion, but the initial statement is not negotiable in the eyes of our

working members.

Huron County knows what it takes to be on the leading edge providing the highest quality

service to our residents. We were the third county in Ohio to become wireless phase II

compliant by having GIS mapping networked into our 911 system. Since then public

expectations, professional standards and technology have changed and we have not. Our

system design is forcing time sensitive delays. Our staffing levels are not adequate to meet call

answering/dispatching standards and our professional development training, oversight and

quality assurance programs all but don't exist. In short, trying to do more with less does not

give our dedicated workers the tools they need for success.

The ESINet rules will be required by law in about two years. That is not much time to decide a

path and implement it. Valid concerns have been raised. While we won't discount them, we

cannot let them hinder excellence. These challenges need creative solutions and/or staff

remaining at the current locations to continue performing essential non-911 duties. This will

cost more. Excellence always costs more; but in public safety, excellence saves more lives than

mediocrity.

Sincerely,

Jason Roblin, Director

Huron County EMA/911


39

ADDENDUM A: PSAP CONSOLIDATIONS ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Board of Huron County Commissioners

Huron County 911 Planning Committee

BENEFITS & CONCERNS

Captain Jeff Matter, Bellevue PD Curt Stang, Norwalk Fire Doug Coletta, Willard Fire Kristi Ely, Bellevue PD Joel Bickhart, Bellevue PD Ken Stewart, North Central EMS

FUNDING & COSTS

William Ommert, HCEMA(retired) Tacy Bond, Norwalk PD Chief Light, Norwalk PD Mike Conney, Norwalk PD Jason Roblin, HCEMA

GOVERNANCE & CONSOLIDATION

PATHS

Tom Dunlap, HC Commissioner Shawn Tappel, Willard City Manager Chief Chapin, New London Fire Joe Stang, Ridgefield Township Trustee/HC Township Trustees’ Association

SURVEY & FEEDBACK

Chief Soisson, Norwalk PD Deb Wagner, Norwalk PD (retired) Tom Gray, Village of Monroeville Administrator

TECHNOLOGY

Ken Stewart, North Central EMS John Weiss, Willard Fire Deb Wagner, Norwalk PD (retired) Tom Gray, Village of Monroeville Administrator

911 COORDINATOR Jason Roblin

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Tina Norton

911 Technical Advisory Committee


40

Organization Chart Description

Organization and Leadership The Huron County Planning Committee is responsible for the maintenance of the E911 Final Plan for Huron County (ORC 128.06). 3 voting members are the Mayor of Norwalk, the City Manager of Willard and the President of the Huron County Board of Commissioners.

The City of Bellevue mayor or designee shall be invited to all 911 Planning Committee meetings and work sessions for their input.

Huron County Board of Commissioners will work in conjunction with the Huron County 911 Planning Committee The Huron County 911 Coordinator and E911 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will work to complete the PSAP consolidation research by:

Identifying critical topics and assigning them to the ORG Chart.

Assigning leadership and assistance roles to E911 TAC members as well as from residents of the county.

Organizing the research into a simply formatted report for distribution

Send the report to Public Safety Officials and elected officials throughout Huron County. Request feedback via a survey with space for additional comments.

Compile and present the report with survey results to the Huron County Commissioners and 911 Planning Committee with recommendations from the PSAP Consolidation Committee based upon the feedback received.

Public Information Officer (PIO) duties include:

• Document meeting minutes of PSAP Consolidation Committee and 911 Planning Committee. Distribute to interested parties.

• Press releases as requested by 911 PSAP Consolidation Committee and 911 Planning Committee.

Work Groups The following work groups performed specific functions in the process of developing this report: Benefits & Concerns

• List known benefits of Consolidation both immediate and longer term, both direct and indirect.


41

• List cost savings if applicable to the E911 system, political subdivisions and/or residents.

• List concerns that have been raised previously by public safety agencies. Solicit new concerns from public safety and elected officials.

• Identify to the extent possible the potential resolutions and costs to satisfactorily

address the concerns listed. Funding & Costs

• Identify funding methods allowed by law in the State of Ohio.

• Determine the funding needed for each identified consolidation path.

• Consider new construction versus remodel of existing structure(s), personnel and technology.

• Identify current costs.

Governance & Consolidation Paths

• Identify how a Regional Council of Governments can be established per ORC 128.03 D(2) to operate a PSAP.

• Identify how other PSAPs are governed.

• Give strengths and weaknesses of each governance type identified.

• Identify methods of consolidation.

• List the benefits and challenges of each method identified. Survey & Feedback

• Research and implement electronic and print media options for final distribution of the final report.

• Develop a survey based upon the final report.

• Distribute the survey to Public Safety Officials and Elected Officials in a way that sorts

the information collected by job title while still achieving a level of anonymity for the respondents.

• Document the survey results for distribution with the final report to the Huron County

Commissioners and the E911 Planning Committee.

• Assist other Work Groups with data collections surveys as needed.


42

Technology • List specifications of required technologies (E911, GIS mapping, CAD/RMS, radio,

network interfaces, etc.) based upon professional standards. Where optional levels are available, list them in a “Good, Better, Best” format with capability level differences.

• Report known costs and identified resources already owned by, or available to Huron County to the Funding Work Group.


43

ADDENDUM B: 2015 HURON COUNTY 911 STATISTICS

2015 911 Call Totals

2015 Huron County 911 Huron County PSAP Counts

Total Exclusive 911 Calls 14855

Huron County Sherriff 7343

City of Bellevue 1069

City of Norwalk 4648

City of Willard 2804

North Central EMS 3251

Total Calls Transferred 4260

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Huron County Sherriff

City of Bellevue

City of Norwalk

City of Willard

North Central EMS

2015 911 Calls by PSAP

2015 911 Calls

Total Exclusive 911 Calls Total Calls Transferred


44

2015 Countywide 911 Performance

ESINET rules dictate that 90% of 9-1-1 calls/requests received will be answered within ten seconds. The following data shows the times of day during 2015 we were sufficient and deficient of this standard.

911 County-Wide Performance

Time of Day

Avg Answer Time

% Answered 10 secs. Longest Ans. Time Total Calls Abandoned

0:00 5.1 89.10% 27.9 403 27

1:00 4.7 91.60% 34.5 334 22

2:00 5.1 92.90% 41.6 281 9

3:00 5.4 88.80% 28.8 251 15

4:00 4.9 94.60% 18.1 203 5

5:00 5.1 92.00% 58.2 261 11

6:00 4.6 92.60% 52.3 325 17

7:00 4.4 93.20% 32.6 365 15

8:00 4.6 91.40% 40.1 501 28

9:00 5 88.00% 51.3 608 41

10:00 4.9 88.60% 56 748 44

11:00 5 88.50% 55.9 766 42

12:00 4.9 89.70% 99.8 790 44

13:00 4.9 88.90% 84 859 53

14:00 4.6 89.10% 78.2 970 76

15:00 4.7 91.10% 46.2 954 49

16:00 5.5 87.30% 125.9 884 56

17:00 5.1 87.00% 83.4 935 73

18:00 5.1 87.80% 78.4 871 56

19:00 5.6 85.10% 73.8 812 66

20:00 5.4 85.80% 75.6 818 69

21:00 5.3 86.30% 46.7 744 61

22:00 5.3 87.50% 74.7 622 38

23:00 5.1 90.20% 45.6 550 26

Averages 5 88.80% 14855 943


45

Countywide Performance Graphs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Avg Answer Time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total Abandoned

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Total Calls


46

ADDENDUM C: OHIO PSAP OPERATIONS RULES PROPOSAL


47


48


49


50


51


52


53

ADDENDUM D: INSURANCE

Insurance Rate Information

Battles Insurance Agency, Inc. (Perry Dryden) Company A Company B Company C

Residential/Typical Home in Norwalk

Protection Class 3 $700 No change from a PC 4 $685 No change $639 Protection Class 4 $700 $98 savings over PC5 $685 No change $639 Protection Class 5 $798 No change from a PC6 $685 $5 savings from PC6 $639 Protection Class 6 $798 $690 $639

Residential/House at

Eagle Creek Protection Class 3 $1,628 No change from a PC4 $1,915 No change $1,522 Protection Class 4 $1,628 $61 savings over PC5 $1,915 No change $1,522 Protection Class 5 $1,689 No change from a PC6 $1,915 $15 savings over PC6 $1,522 Protection Class 6 $1,689 $1,930 $1,522

Commercial Building

in Norwalk Protection Class 3 $1,008 $48 savings over PC4 Protection Class 4 $1,056 $12 savings over PC5 Protection Class 5 $1,068 $42 savings over PC6 Protection Class 6 $1,110

Condominium in

Norwalk Protection Class 3 $2,283 $116 savings over PC4 Protection Class 4 $2,399 $36 savings over PC5 Protection Class 5 $2,435 $98 savings over PC6 Protection Class 6 $2,533

Two Family Rental

Property in Norwalk Protection Class 3 $623 $7 savings over PC4 Protection Class 4 $630 $9 savings over PC5 Protection Class 5 $639 $26 savings over PC6 Protection Class 6 $665


54

Myers-Ziemke Insurance (Michael Moore) Company A

Commercial Business/Building and

Contents

PC 4 (Norwalk) $6,143 $60 savings over PC5 PC 5 (Norwalk) $6,203 $179 savings over PC6 PC 6 (New London) $6,382 PC 8B Suburbs $7,265 $176 savings over PC9 This would be located around 5 miles from a fire

department and hydrant within 1,000 feet PC 9 $7,441 This would be located over 5 miles from a fire

department and over 1,000 feet from a hydrant

Homeowner ($175K) PC 4 (Norwalk) $1,390 PC 5 (Milan) $1,388 PC 6 (Greenwich) $1,722 PC 6 (New London) $1,730 PC 4x (Norwalk) $1,905 This is a rural rate, over 5 miles from a fire department and over 1,000 feet

from a hydrant


55

ISO Rating Information

CITIES Bellevue Norwalk Willard

ISO Rating 5 4 4 Total Points 53.91 61.83 65.38 Points Needed for Next Level 6.09 8.17 4.62 Points Available if Dispatch Achieves 10/10 Points

5.35 3.89 4.41

Points Remaining 0.74 4.28 0.21

VILLAGES Fairfield Greenwich Monroeville New London Plymouth Wakeman

ISO Rating 6 6 4 6 6 6 Total Points 41.73 61.48 45.46 47.26 47.96 Points Needed for Next Level

8.27 8.52 4.54 2.74 2.04

Points Available if Dispatch Achieves 10/10 Points

2 2 2 4.25 2

Points Remaining 6.27 6.52 2.54 0 0.04


56

Insurance Carriers Consulted

The Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following insurance companies for providing information utilized in this study.

• Allstate/Tonia Maxwell, Norwalk • American Family Insurance/Patrick Amburgy, Norwalk • Battles Insurance, Norwalk • Bungard-Mack Insurance, Norwalk • Carabin Insurance, Norwalk • Cashman Insurance/James L. Bond, Plymouth • Copley Insurance, Milan • Flickinger Insurance, Norwalk • Hall Insurance Services, Norwalk • Hamilton Smith Insurance, New London • Hasselbach-Paul Agency, Willard • Insurance Services of Norwalk, Norwalk • Langhurst Insurance Agency, Willard • Lindsey Insurance Agency, Willard • Myers Ziemke Insurance, Monroeville • Nationwide Insurance, Norwalk • Nationwide Insurance/Trent Group, Norwalk • State Farm/Penny Pennell, Willard • State Farm/Cindy Norcross, Norwalk • State Farm/Greg Obringer • Van Allen Agency, Wilalrd • Willis Insurance, Bellevue

Several of the insurance agencies consulted indicated that ISO ratings are not a significant factor in their rate determination. These agencies include:

Hamilton Smith Insurance

Langhurst Insurange Agency

State Farm/Cindy Norcross

State Farm/Greg Obringer


57

ADDENDUM E: HURON COUNTY 911 TECHNOLOGY COST

ITEM RECURRING COST

CURRENT COST

IMMEDIATE NEEDS

EXPANDED SERVICE

CAD/RMS X $27,331 911 Experient X $18,000 911 Network X $1,621 Everbridge X $13,874 Master Time Clock $18,423 Radio System $121,641 Voice/CAD/QA Recording $38,000 Office Technology (30-MSOnl) X $375 Console Furniture $192,658 Phone System (12) $16,242 Monthly Phone Line (PRI-20) X $400 PST/EMD/EFD Training (30) $22,371 Pre-Arrival Software License (8) $30,000 Access Control System $22,506 Scheduling Software X $200 Microwave Links (4) $102,857 Secondary Network X $2,500 NextGen Connection (OAR) Unable to

Determine Ohio MARCS – Radio Integration $2,372 Video Monitoring WAN $100,000 Fire Station Alerting $198,000 Responder Alerting (A911/IAR) X $6,800 Law Interactive Station $80,000 Mobile Data Terminals $150,000 EMS Pulsepoint X $8,000 ASAP Integration $10,000 Tablet Command Hardware $4,000 Tabled Command Software $2,500

TOTALS $60,826 $539,959 366,172


58

ADDENDUM F: OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 2015-004

February 5, 2015

The Honorable D. Andrew Wilson

Clark County Prosecuting Attorney

50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449

Springfield, Ohio 45502

SYLLABUS: 2015-004

1. A board of county commissioners and a municipal corporation may establish a

regional council of governments (1) to operate a public safety answering point

under R.C. Chapter 128 and, (2) if the regional council of governments is

authorized to act on behalf of the board of county commissioners pursuant to

R.C. 167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08, to operate a countywide public safety

communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63.

2. A regional council of governments that operates a public safety answering

point under R.C. Chapter 128 may not receive funding through contracts for

dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions when the dispatch

services are provided in association with the public safety answering point. A

regional council of governments may, however, receive funding for the costs

of establishing, equipping, furnishing, operating, or maintaining a public

safety answering point operated by the regional council of governments as set

forth in the formula in the county’s final 9-1-1 plan adopted pursuant to R.C.

128.03 and R.C. 128.07.

3. A regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C. Chapter

128 to receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to

other political subdivisions when the dispatch services are not provided in

association with a public safety answering point.

4. A regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C. 307.63 to

receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to other


59

The Honorable D. Andrew Wilson - ii -

political subdivisions when the dispatch services are not provided in


5. A regional council of governments may receive funding from a contract with a

municipal corporation or township within the county pursuant to R.C. 307.15

for dispatch services provided by the regional council of governments to the

municipal corporation or township when the dispatch services are not provided

in association with a public safety answering point, so long as the regional

council of governments is authorized to act on behalf of the board of county

commissioners pursuant to R.C. 167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08.

6. A regional council of governments that is empowered to act on behalf of a

county sheriff pursuant to R.C. 167.08 may receive funding from a contract

with a municipal corporation or township pursuant to R.C. 311.29 for dispatch

services provided by the regional council of governments to the municipal

corporation or township when the dispatch services are not provided in




with a township pursuant to R.C. 505.43 for dispatch services provided by the

regional council of governments to the township when the dispatch services

are not provided in association with a public safety answering point.

8. Pursuant to R.C. 167.06, a county auditor may serve as the fiscal officer of a

regional council of governments. (1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, syllabus,

paragraph 7, overruled.)


60

Opinions SectionOffice 614-752-6417 Fax 614-466-0013 30 East Broad Street, 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 www.OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov

February 5, 2015

OPINION NO. 2015-004

The Honorable D. Andrew Wilson

Clark County Prosecuting Attorney

50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449

Springfield, Ohio 45502

Dear Prosecutor Wilson:

You have asked several questions related to a regional council of governments. The Clark

County board of commissioners would like to enter into an agreement with the City of Springfield, a

municipal corporation located within the county, to establish a regional council of governments. The

regional council of governments will be formed for the purpose of operating a countywide public

safety communications system under R.C. 307.63 and a public safety answering point under R.C.

Chapter 128.

The regional council of governments will be funded by contributions from its members, the

county and the city, pursuant to the agreement establishing the council. The county and city also

would like to fund the council’s operations through contracts for dispatch services provided to other

political subdivisions within the county. It also is our understanding that Clark County previously

adopted a 9-1-1 final plan in accordance with R.C. Chapter 128. The county and city believe that

consolidating dispatch services will provide more effective, efficient, and less expensive services than

are currently provided by several separate agencies.

Because the county commissioners would like to fund the regional council’s operations

through contracts for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions, your first five

questions ask whether a regional council of governments may enter contracts to provide dispatch

services pursuant to various statutes and receive funding through those contracts. Your remaining

questions ask whether particular county officers or employees may be appointed to serve as the fiscal

officer of a regional council of governments. Specifically, you ask:

1. Can the board of county commissioners and the city establish a regional

council of governments, for the purpose of operating a public safety answering

point under R.C. Chapter 128 and a countywide public safety communications

system under R.C. 307.63, that receives funding through contracts for dispatch

services provided to other political subdivisions within the county pursuant to

R.C. Chapter 128?


61

The Honorable D. Andrew Wilson - 2 -

2. Can the regional council of governments that the board of county

commissioners and the city intend to establish receive funding through

contracts for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within

the county pursuant to R.C. 307.63?

3. Can the regional council of governments receive funding through contracts for

dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within the county

pursuant to R.C. 307.15?







6. If the regional council of governments agreement and by-laws provide for the

regional council of governments’ funds to be kept under the custody of the

county treasurer, can the county auditor be appointed as the fiscal officer of

the regional council of governments?

7. If the county auditor cannot be appointed as the regional council of

governments’ fiscal officer, can an employee of the county auditor be

appointed as fiscal officer?

8. If the answer to the sixth and seventh question is in the negative, can the

county treasurer or an employee of the county treasurer be appointed as fiscal

officer?

Regional Councils of Governments—R.C. Chapter 167

Regional councils of governments are governed primarily by R.C. Chapter 167. The

governing bodies of two or more counties, municipal corporations, townships, special districts, school

districts, or other political subdivisions may enter into an agreement to establish a regional council of

governments. R.C. 167.01.1 Membership in the regional council consists of the political subdivisions

1 A regional council of governments, being formed of various political subdivisions, is not a

county board or an agency or department of county government. 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-026,

at 2-224. Therefore, a county prosecutor is under no duty to advise such a council. See R.C. 309.09;

2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-026, at 2-224; 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-271; 1986 Op.

Att’y Gen. No. 86-084, at 2-472 to 2-473; 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 86-068, at 2-374. The Attorney

General, then, generally is not able to render advice to a county prosecutor with respect to the powers


62


that established the council as well as other political subdivisions subsequently admitted to

membership. R.C. 167.02(A).

The powers of a regional council of governments are set forth in R.C. 167.03. A regional

council of governments is authorized to operate a public safety answering point. R.C. 167.03(A)(5).

A regional council also is authorized to promote cooperative arrangements and contracts, make studies

and recommendations, and perform planning functions. R.C. 167.03(A); see also R.C. 167.03(B).

Additionally, a regional council of governments may be empowered to perform a variety of functions

on behalf of its member subdivisions. R.C. 167.03(C) permits a regional council to “perform such

other functions and duties as are performed or capable of performance by the members and necessary

or desirable for dealing with problems of mutual concern” when authorized by the governing bodies

of the member subdivisions. The council also may contract with its members or other political

subdivisions to provide or receive services. R.C. 167.08. Such a contract also may authorize the

council “to perform any function or render any service” on behalf of a political subdivision that the

political subdivision may perform or render. Id.

A regional council of governments is governed, inter alia, by its by-laws. By-laws must be

adopted designating the officers of the council and their method of selection, creating a governing

board that may act for the council, and providing for the conduct of the council’s business. R.C.

167.04(A). A regional council also appoints a fiscal officer who maintains the funds of the regional

council. See R.C. 167.04(B) (fiscal officer “shall receive, de posit, invest, and disburse the funds of the

council in the manner authorized by the by-laws or action by the council”); 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No.

89-063, at 2-273. Funding for a regional council of governments primarily comes from appropriations

by its members. See R.C. 167.06; 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-273. A regional council of

governments may establish schedules of dues to be paid by its voting members. R.C. 167.06(A).

Members of a regional council of governments also may provide real and personal property, services

of personnel, use of equipment, office space, and other necessary services to the council as part of

their financial support. R.C. 167.06(A). A regional council of governments also has broad authority

to accept funds, grants, gifts, and services from its members, other governmental entities, and private

or civic sources. R.C. 167.06(A)-(B).

of a regional council of governments. See R.C. 109.14; 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-026, at 2-225;

1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-271; 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 86-084, at 2-472 to 2-473; 1986

Op. Att’y Gen. No. 86-068, at 2-374.

Here, however, the county is exploring the establishment of a regional council of governments

and needs advice regarding how such a council may be funded and who may be appointed fiscal

officer of the council. Your questions, therefore, reflect the concerns of the board of county

commissioners, which is entitled to your legal counsel under R.C. 309.09. Accordingly, we believe

that your questions involve the duties of your office about which we may advise you under R.C.

109.14. See 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-026, at 2-225; 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-271;

1986 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 86-068, at 2-374.


63


Countywide Public Safety Communications Systems—R.C. 307.63

A board of county commissioners is authorized to establish a countywide public safety

communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63(B). A countywide public safety communications

system is defined as

a system of communications facilities, equipment, and services that helps to provide

immediate field exchange of police, fire, and emergency medical services information

between the county and participating states, political subdivisions, and other public

entities, without regard to which jurisdiction holds title to real or personal property

used in the system or employs the persons responsible to dispatch emergency

personnel using the system.

R.C. 307.63(A). In other words, a countywide public safety communications system enables police,

fire, and emergency medical services personnel to communicate directly between themselves. State

ex rel. Simmons v. Geauga Cnty. Dep’t of Emergency Servs., 131 Ohio App. 3d 482, 495, 722 N.E.2d

1063 (Geauga County 1998) (“R.C. 307.63 was meant to apply only to those communication

facilities, equipment, and services which enable the officer of one department to convey ‘field’

information to an officer of a second department”); 1998 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 98-032, at 2-179 n.1 (a

countywide public safety communications system “enables police, fire, and emergency medical

services personnel of either the same or different political subdivisions to have direct communications

with each other for the purpose of coordinating their provision of emergency aid or assistance”).

R.C. 307.63 also gives a board of county commissioners specific contracting authority related

to a countywide public safety communications system. A board of county commissioners may

contract for communications facilities, computers and other equipment, and personal services in

association with the countywide public safety communications system. R.C. 307.63(C). Further, a

board of county commissioners “may enter into agreements with this state, political subdivisions of

this state, an adjoining state or any of its political subdivisions, or any other public entity concerning

the use of the countywide public safety communications system.” R.C. 307.63(D).

Public Safety Answering Points—R.C. Chapter 128

A public safety answering point is part of a countywide 9-1-1 system, which is governed by

R.C. Chapter 128.2 A countywide 9-1-1 system is “a system through which individuals can request

emergency service using the telephone number 9-1-1.” R.C. 128.01(A). When a person in Ohio calls

2 The Revised Code sections governing a countywide 9-1-1 system have been renumbered

several times in recent years. In 2012, the provisions governing a countywide 9-1-1 system that

appeared in R.C. Chapter 4931 were recodified in R.C. Chapter 5507. Sub. H.B. 360, 129th Gen. A.

(2012) (eff. Dec. 20, 2012). In 2013, the provisions governing a countywide 9-1-1 system in R.C.

Chapter 5507 were recodified in R.C. Chapter 128. Am. Sub. H.B. 59, 130th Gen. A. (2013) (eff.

June 30, 2013, with certain sections effective on other dates).


64


9-1-1, the call is routed to a public safety answering point, a facility “where personnel respond to

specific requests for emergency service by directly dispatching the appropriate emergency service

provider, relaying a message to the appropriate provider, or transferring the call to the appropriate

provider.” R.C. 128.01(P); see also 2014 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2014-013, at 2-106. “[C]ountywide

public safety communications systems and countywide 9-1-1 systems serve distinctly different

purposes.” 1999 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 99-017, at 2-128. We have explained:

it is readily apparent that a countywide 9-1-1 system is a communications system

whereby the public can request emergency service. The primary purpose of a

countywide 9-1-1 system is to dispatch the appropriate emergency service provider to

a location. A countywide 9-1-1 system is not used to provide immediate field

exchange of police, fire, and emergency medical services information between the

county and other political subdivisions. Accordingly, because a countywide 9-1-1

system is not used to provide immediate field exchange of police, fire, and emergency

medical services information between the county and other subdivisions, a countywide

9-1-1 system … is not a countywide public safety communications system, as defined

by R.C. 307.63(A).

1998 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 98-032, at 2-180; see also 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2010-021, at 2-144 n.1.

Generally, a countywide 9-1-1 system includes all of the townships and municipal

corporations in the county and any portion of such a municipal corporation that extends into an

adjacent county. R.C. 128.03(A). The process for establishing a countywide 9-1-1 system begins

when a board of county commissioners or the legislative authority of any municipal corporation in the

county with at least thirty percent of the county’s population adopts a resolution to convene a 9-1-1

planning committee to prepare a proposal for the implementation of a countywide 9-1-1 system. R.C.

128.06-.07. After a public meeting to explain the proposal and to receive comments from public

officials, the 9-1-1 planning committee may modify the implementation proposal and adopt a final

plan for implementing a countywide 9-1-1 system. R.C. 128.07. A final plan becomes effective when

it is approved in the manner set forth in R.C. 128.08 by the board of county commissioners, the

legislative authority of each municipal corporation in the county, and the legislative authority of each

township whose territory is proposed to be included in a countywide 9-1-1 system. R.C. 128.08.

Once a final plan is adopted, all subdivisions and regional councils of governments included in the

plan are subject to the requirements of the final plan and to R.C. Chapter 128. R.C. 128.08(C). Every

emergency service provider that provides emergency service within the territory of the countywide 9-

1-1 system also must participate in the system. R.C. 128.03(C); see also R.C. 128.01(N) (defining

“emergency service”); R.C. 128.01(O) (defining “emergency service provider”).

The operation of each public safety answering point in a countywide 9-1-1 system is governed

by the relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 128 and the terms of the county’s final plan. As previously

noted, a public safety answering point “is the facility to which 9-1-1 calls for a specific territory are

routed for response.” 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2000-044, at 2-270; R.C. 128.01(P). R.C.

128.03(D)(1) provides that “[e]ach public safety answering point shall be operated by a subdivision or

a regional council of governments and shall be operated constantly.” Additional, more specific


65


provisions regarding the establishment and operation of the public safety answering points in a

countywide 9-1-1 system must be set forth in the final plan. R.C. 128.07(B). For example, the final

plan must set forth the location and number of public safety answering points, which subdivisions will

be served by the answering point, and which subdivision or regional council of governments will

establish, equip, furnish, operate, and maintain a particular public safety answering point. R.C.

128.07(B)(2), (3).

The funding of each public safety answering point in a countywide 9-1-1 system also is

governed by the relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 128 and the terms of the county’s final plan.

R.C. 128.03(D)(2) states that a subdivision or regional council of governments that operates a public

safety answering point shall pay all of the costs associated with establishing, equipping, furnishing,

operating, and maintaining that facility and “shall allocate those costs among itself and the

subdivisions served by the answering point based on the allocation formula in a final plan.”

(Emphasis added.) Unless the final plan provides for funding of a 9-1-1 system in part through

charges imposed on improved real property under R.C. 128.22, R.C. 128.03(E) requires each

subdivision served by a public safety answering point to pay the subdivision or regional council of

governments that operates the answering point “the amount computed in accordance with the

allocation formula set forth in the final plan.” (Emphasis added.) The final plan, in turn, is required to

specify “[w]hether the cost of establishing, equipping, furnishing, operating, or maintaining each

public safety answering point should be funded through charges imposed under [R.C. 128.22] or will

be allocated among the subdivisions served by the answering point and, if any such cost is to be

allocated, the formula for so allocating it.” R.C. 128.07(B)(5); see also 2014 Op. Att’y Gen. No.

2014-013, at 2-107. Therefore, the costs of a public safety answering point must be paid in

accordance with the terms of a final plan.3 See 2014 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2014-013, at 2-107.

Once a final plan is established, R.C. 128.12 requires the amendment of such a plan for

certain purposes. For example, a final plan must be amended in order to expand the territory included

in the countywide 9-1-1 system, to adjust the territory served by a public safety answering point, to

permit a regional council of governments to operate a public safety answering point, or to represcribe

the funding “as between the alternatives” set forth in R.C. 128.07(B)(5), which requires funding of

public safety answering points through charges imposed under R.C. 128.22 or allocating the costs

pursuant to a formula among the subdivisions served by the answering point. R.C. 128.12(A); see

also 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2010-021, at 2-147 to 2-148.

3 Although the General Assembly has provided two funding options for counties where a final

plan either has not been adopted or has not been implemented because of a lack of funding, see R.C.

128.25-.26; 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2000-044, at 2-270 to 2-271, we need not address these funding

options because it is our understanding that Clark County has adopted and implemented a final plan.


66


Regional Council of Governments May Operate a Public Safety Answering Point and a

Countywide Public Safety Communications System

You first ask whether a board of county commissioners and a city may establish a regional

council of governments for the purpose of operating a public safety answering point under R.C.

Chapter 128 and a countywide public safety communications system under R.C. 307.63. A regional

council of governments has express statutory authority to operate a public safety answering point.4

R.C. 167.03(A)(5) (a regional council shall have the power to “[o]perate a public safety answering

point in accordance with [R.C. Chapter 128]”); see also R.C. 128.03(D)(1) (“[e]ach public safety

answering point shall be operated by a subdivision or a regional council of governments”).

A regional council of governments also is expressly permitted to “perform such other

functions and duties as are performed or capable of performance by the members and necessary or

desirable for dealing with problems of mutual concern” when authorized by the governing bodies of

the member subdivisions. R.C. 167.03(C). A regional council also is permitted to enter into contracts

with political subdivisions, including member political subdivisions, that authorize the council “to

perform any function or render any service” on behalf of the political subdivisions, which such

political subdivisions may perform or render. R.C. 167.08; see also 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-

026, at 2-226 to 2-227 (political subdivisions, “including the member political subdivisions of a

regional council of governments,” may contract with the regional council under R.C. 167.08); 1998

Op. Att’y Gen. No. 98-004, at 2-23 (a regional council of governments “may contract with its

members or other political subdivisions” under R.C. 167.08); 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-103, at 2-

282 to 2-283 (under R.C.167.08, a regional council of governments may perform functions and duties

on behalf of a member political subdivision); 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-013, at 2-16 (R.C. 167.08

“specifically provides that any one or group of political subdivisions may contract with the council to

perform any function which the subdivisions themselves may perform. This language appears clearly

to be broad enough to enable the council to perform purchasing on behalf of its contracting

members”). A board of county commissioners is authorized to establish a countywide public safety

communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63. Therefore, a regional council of governments may

establish a countywide public safety communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63 so long as the

regional council is authorized to act on behalf of the board of county commissioners pursuant to R.C.

167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08.

In sum, a board of county commissioners and a municipal corporation may establish a

regional council of governments (1) to operate a public safety answering point under R.C. Chapter

128 and, (2) if the regional council of governments is authorized to act on behalf of the board of

4 A county’s final 9-1-1 plan must specify which subdivision or regional council of

governments will establish, equip, furnish, operate, and maintain a particular public safety answering

point. R.C. 128.07(B)(3). If a county’s final plan does not specify that a regional council of

governments will operate a particular public safety answering point, R.C. 128.12(A)(4) requires that

the final plan be amended to permit the regional council of governments to operate the public safety

answering point.


67


county commissioners pursuant to R.C. 167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08, to operate a countywide public

safety communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63.

Funding For Dispatch Services Provided In Association with a Public Safety Answering

Point

You ask about the authority of a regional council of governments pursuant to R.C. Chapter

128, R.C. 307.63, R.C. 307.15, R.C. 311.29, and R.C. 505.43 to receive funding through contracts

“for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within the county.” Your questions do

not distinguish between funding for dispatch services provided in association with a public safety

answering point pursuant to R.C. Chapter 128 and funding for dispatch services that are not associated

with a public safety answering point (in other words, dispatch services that are separate from the

dispatch services provided by personnel of a public safety answering point in direct response to a 9-1-

1 call). A countywide 9-1-1 system (of which public safety answering points are a part) and a

countywide public safety communications system are separate systems. See 1999 Op. Att’y Gen. No.

99-017, at 2-128; 1998 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 98-032, at 2-180. They serve distinct purposes, are

governed by different sections of the Revised Code, and, significantly, have different funding

schemes. Therefore, to answer your questions whether a regional council of governments may receive

funding through contracts “for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within the

county,” we will separately consider the authority of a regional council of governments to fund

dispatch services provided as part of a public safety answering point and to fund dispatch services that


We first consider whether a regional council of governments has authority to receive funding

through contracts for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within the county when

the dispatch services are provided in association with a public safety answering point. A public safety

answering point is a facility to which 9-1-1 system calls are routed for a response and personnel may

respond to requests for emergency service by directly dispatching the appropriate emergency service

provider. R.C. 128.01(P).

“[T]he General Assembly has carefully constructed a complex, detailed system for funding 9-

1-1 systems,” including each public safety answering point within the county’s 9-1-1 system. 2000

Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2000-044, at 2-269. Under the framework established in R.C. Chapter 128, the

costs associated with a public safety answering point shall be paid in the manner set forth in the

county’s final 9-1-1 plan. See R.C. 128.06-.07; 2014 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2014-013, at 2-107. A

regional council of governments that operates a public safety answering point pays the costs of

establishing, equipping, furnishing, operating, and maintaining that facility. R.C. 128.03(D)(2).

Those costs are to be allocated between the regional council of governments and the subdivisions

served by the answering point “based on the allocation formula in the final plan.” R.C. 128.03(D)(2);

see also R.C. 128.07(B)(5). Each subdivision served by a public safety answering point is required to

pay the regional council of governments that operates the answering point the amount set forth in the

final plan. R.C. 128.03(E).


68


We believe that the comprehensive nature of the funding mechanisms prescribed by R.C.

Chapter 128 indicates the General Assembly’s intent to fund a public safety answering point in the

manner set forth therein. That is, a public safety answering point is funded in accordance with the

formula allocation in the county’s final plan. Accordingly, a regional council of governments that

operates a public safety answering point may not receive additional funding through contracts for

dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions when the dispatch services are provided in

association with the public safety answering point operated by the regional council. Rather, a regional

council of governments that operates a public safety answering point may receive funding for a public

safety answering point only in accordance with the county’s final plan.

This conclusion is supported by a prior Attorney General opinion in which we advised that a

county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point may not receive funding through a

contract with another political subdivision for dispatch services provided in association with the

operation of that public safety answering point. 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2010-021. The opinion

considers whether a county sheriff who operates a public safety answering point may charge a

township that is served by the answering point a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and for dispatch services,

and the opinion concludes that such a fee is not authorized. 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2010-021, at 2-

144 to 2-146. The opinion explains that a sheriff who operates a public safety answering point is

prohibited from charging a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel in

the township. Id. at 2-145 to 2-146. In part, the opinion reasons that a sheriff lacks statutory authority

to charge a township for receiving calls and dispatching police and fire personnel. Id. at 2-145.

Notably, the opinion further relies on the laws governing the funding for public safety answering

points. “A review of the options available to a county to fund the operations and maintenance of

[public safety answering points] discloses that the General Assembly has carefully and very

specifically provided a comprehensive scheme for the funding of [public safety answering points]”

and that scheme does not include “the imposition of fees by the operators” of public safety answering

points. Id. at 2-146; see also 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-004, at 2-21 (“the cost of a 9-1-1 system

as a whole is projected and then apportioned among the participating subdivisions…. Nowhere in the

scheme are offices of a participating subdivision authorized to charge their own or other participating

subdivisions fees to cover the costs their offices incur in operating a [public safety answering point]”).

The 2010 opinion also considers whether a county sheriff who operates a public safety

answering point and a township served by the answering point may enter into a contract whereby the

township pays the sheriff for receiving 9-1-1 calls and for providing dispatch services. 2010 Op. Att’y

Gen. No. 2010-021, at 2-146. The opinion relies on its earlier conclusion that a sheriff is prohibited

from charging a township a fee for receiving 9-1-1 calls and providing dispatch services. Id.

Accordingly, the opinion concludes that a sheriff who operates a public safety answering point and a

township that is served by the answering point “may not enter into a contract whereby the township

pays the sheriff for receiving 9-1-1 calls and dispatching police and fire personnel to respond to 9-1-1

calls in the township.” Id. (syllabus, paragraph 2).

Accordingly, we conclude that a regional council of governments that operates a public safety

answering point under R.C. Chapter 128 may not receive additional funding through contracts for

dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions when the dispatch services are provided in


69


association with the public safety answering point. A regional council of governments may, however,

receive funding for the costs of establishing, equipping, furnishing, operating, or maintaining a public

safety answering point operated by the council as set forth in the formula in the county’s final 9-1-1

plan adopted pursuant to R.C. 128.03 and R.C. 128.07.

R.C. Chapter 128 Does Not Authorize a Regional Council of Governments to Receive

Funding for Dispatch Services Provided to Other Political Subdivisions

We next consider whether a regional council of governments has authority to receive funding

through contracts for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions within the county when

the dispatch services are not provided in association with a public safety answering point (that is, the

dispatch services are not provided by personnel of a public safety answering point in direct response to

a 9-1-1 call). We will first determine whether a regional council of governments has this authority

pursuant to R.C. Chapter 128.

R.C. Chapter 128 addresses dispatch services only in the context of a public safety answering

point; no language in R.C. Chapter 128 addresses contracts for dispatch services generally. Nor does

any language in R.C. Chapter 128 provide general contracting authority for a regional council of

governments. Therefore, a regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C. Chapter

128 to receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions

when the dispatch services are not provided in association with a public safety answering point.

R.C. 307.63 Does Not Authorize a Regional Council of Governments to Receive Funding

For Dispatch Services Provided to Other Political Subdivisions

Next, we consider whether a regional council of governments has authority pursuant to R.C.

307.63 to receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to other political

subdivisions within the county when the dispatch services are not provided in association with a

public safety answering point. R.C. 307.63 does not provide such authority to a regional council of

governments.

R.C. 307.63 addresses the authority of a board of county commissioners. We nevertheless

consider this statute because a regional council of governments may be empowered to perform a

variety of functions on behalf of its member subdivisions. See R.C. 167.03(C); R.C. 167.08.

R.C. 307.63 permits a board of county commissioners to establish a countywide public safety

communications system. The statute also permits a board of county commissioners to enter into an

agreement with other political subdivisions “concerning the use of the countywide public safety

communications system.” R.C. 307.63(D). Although the statute permits a board of county

commissioners to enter into an agreement that permits other political subdivisions to use the

countywide public safety communications system, including using the system to dispatch their own

police officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical services personnel, the statute does not permit a

county to charge a political subdivision for its use of the system. See 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-

004, at 2-17. Further, no language in R.C. 307.63 authorizes a board of county commissioners to

enter into an agreement whereby the county may provide dispatch services to other political


70


subdivisions. Accordingly, a regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C.


subdivisions when the dispatch services are not provided in association with a public safety answering

point.

A Regional Council of Governments May Be Empowered to Receive Funding For

Dispatch Services Provided to Other Political Subdivisions Under R.C. 307.15

We next consider whether a regional council of governments has authority pursuant to R.C.


subdivisions within the county when the dispatch services are not provided in association with a

public safety answering point. R.C. 307.15(A)(1) permits a board of county commissioners to:

enter into an agreement with the legislative authority of any municipal corporation,

township, port authority, water or sewer district, school district, library district, health

district, park district, soil and water conservation district, water conservancy district, or

other taxing district, or with the board of any other county … whereby the board

undertakes, and is authorized by the contracting subdivision, to exercise any power,

perform any function, or render any service, on behalf of the contracting subdivision

or its legislative authority, that such subdivision or legislative authority may exercise,

perform, or render.

R.C. 307.16 requires that an agreement under R.C. 307.15 specify the method of payment for the

services provided pursuant to the agreement. Based on the language of R.C. 307.15 and R.C. 307.16,

1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004, at 2-18 concluded that a board of county commissioners may enter

into a contract to dispatch the police officers, fire fighters, and emergency personnel of townships and

municipal corporations.5 The opinion further advised that “[t]he allocation of costs incurred by the

county in providing dispatching services to the municipal corporation or township is a matter that may

5 Municipal corporations and townships are authorized to provide police protection, fire

protection, and emergency medical services to their citizens. R.C. 505.37-.42 (authorizing a township

to provide fire protection and emergency medical services); R.C. 505.48-.55 (authorizing a township

to provide police protection); R.C. 509.01 (a township may appoint constables to preserve the

township peace); R.C. 715.05 (municipal corporations may maintain police and fire departments);

R.C. 737.11 (describing powers and duties of police force and fire department of a municipal

corporation); R.C. 5705.19(I) (authorizing township or municipal corporation to levy special tax for

the purpose of providing a fire department or to purchase ambulance equipment, or to provide

ambulance, paramedic, or other emergency medical services operated by a fire department); 1967 Op.

Att’y Gen. No. 67-078 (syllabus, paragraph 2) (R.C. 715.37 authorizes a city to provide ambulance

service as a related adjunct of hospital service). Because the power to dispatch emergency personnel

is necessarily implied by the authority to provide police protection, fire protection, and emergency

medical services, 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004 concluded, at 2-19, th at municipal corporations and

townships are authorized to establish a dispatch service.


71


be negotiated by the county and the municipal corporation or township as a part of the agreement for

dispatching services that they enter into pursuant to R.C. 307.15.” Id. at 2-21.

A regional council of governments is permitted to perform functions and duties that are

performed or are capable of performance by the council’s members and that are necessary or desirable

for dealing with problems of mutual concern when authorized by the governing bodies of the member

subdivisions. R.C. 167.03(C). A regional council also may enter into a contract with its members or

other political subdivisions, including a board of county commissioners, that authorizes the council “to

perform any function or render any service” on behalf of the political subdivisions, which such

political subdivisions may perform or render. R.C. 167.08. See also 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-

026, at 2-226 to 2-227; 1998 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 98-004, at 2-23; 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-103, at

2-282 to 2-283; 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-013, at 2-16. A board of county commissioners may

enter into a contract with a municipal corporation or township pursuant to R.C. 307.15 whereby the

county provides dispatch services, the costs of which may be negotiated as part of the contract. 1995

Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004 (syllabus, paragraph 2). Accordingly, a regional council of governments

may enter into a contract with a municipal corporation or township pursuant to R.C. 307.15 to provide

dispatch services, the costs of which may be negotiated as part of the contract, so long as the regional

council is authorized to act on behalf of the board of county commissioners pursuant to R.C.

167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08.

A Regional Council of Governments May Be Empowered to Receive Funding For

Dispatch Services Provided to Other Political Subdivisions Pursuant to R.C. 311.29 or

R.C. 505.43

Your final two questions require us to consider whether a regional council of governments has

authority pursuant to R.C. 311.29 or R.C. 505.43 to receive funding through contracts for dispatch

services provided to other political subdivisions within the county when the dispatch services are not

provided in association with a public safety answering point. These statutes also were considered in

1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004. R.C. 311.29 authorizes a county sheriff to enter into contracts with

certain political subdivisions, including a township and municipal corporation, to perform police

functions on behalf of the political subdivision that the political subdivision may perform. R.C.

311.29(B). R.C. 311.29(D) requires that a contract under R.C. 311.29 provide “for the reimbursement

of the county for the costs incurred by the sheriff.” A township and a municipal corporation are

authorized to dispatch their police officers. See 1995 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004, at 2-21. Therefore,

a township or a municipal corporation may enter into a contract with the county sheriff in which the

county sheriff dispatches the officers of the township or municipal corporation, and the township or

municipal corporation pays the county for the costs incurred by the sheriff under the contract. 1995

Op. Att’y Gen. No. 95-004, at 2-21.

R.C. 505.43 permits a township to contract with a county sheriff for use of police services or

equipment of the sheriff, including dispatch services provided by the county sheriff. See 1995 Op.

Att’y Gen. No. 95-004, at 2-21 to 2-22. The statute also provides for the payment of costs incurred by

the county sheriff in his provision of dispatch services to a township. R.C. 505.43; see also 1995 Op.

Att’y Gen. No. 95-004, at 2-22.


72


A regional council of governments may act on behalf of the “appropriate officials, authorities,

boards, or bodies of counties, municipal corporations, townships, special districts, school districts, or

other political subdivisions” by contract. R.C. 167.08. Thus, a regional council of governments may

be empowered to act on behalf of a county sheriff. A regional council of governments that is

empowered to act on behalf of a county sheriff pursuant to R.C. 167.08 may receive funding from a

contract with a municipal corporation or township pursuant to R.C. 311.29 for dispatch services

provided by the regional council of governments to the municipal corporation or township when the

dispatch services are not provided in association with a public safety answering point. Similarly, a

regional council of governments that is empowered to act on behalf of a county sheriff pursuant to

R.C. 167.08 may receive funding from a contract with a township pursuant to R.C. 505.43 for

dispatch services provided by the regional council of governments to the township when the dispatch

services are not provided in association with a public safety answering point.

Fiscal Officer of a Regional Council of Governments

You ask several questions regarding the appointment of a fiscal officer of a regional council of

governments. R.C. Chapter 167 requires a regional council of governments to appoint a fiscal officer

but does not specify who may serve in this position. See R.C. 167.04(B). You first ask whether a

county auditor may serve as fiscal officer for a regional council of governments.

You note in your letter that 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063 addressed whether a county

auditor may be appointed as fiscal officer of a regional council of governments composed of

community health districts established pursuant to R.C. 340.01. In this regard, the opinion states as

follows:

The regional council may … pursuant to R.C. 167.06, accept the services of

personnel of its members. As I have just discussed in your previous question, R.C.

167.07 permits a public officer to hold an office of the regional council. Thus R.C.

Chapter 167 neither requires nor precludes appointment of a county auditor as the

county fiscal officer.

1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-285. We believe that this observation is accurate. R.C. 167.06

permits a regional council of governments to accept “services of personnel” and “other necessary

services” from members of the regional council of governments and states that members may give

“services” to the council. R.C. 167.06(A). R.C. 167.07 also provides that holding an office of the

regional council of governments “does not constitute the holding of a public office or employment

within the meaning of any section of the Revised Code,” shall not constitute an interest in a contract,

and that an officer of the council shall not be disqualified from holding any public office or

employment because of his position as an officer of the council.

1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063 concluded that a county auditor may not serve as fiscal

officer of a regional council of governments composed of community health boards established by

R.C. 340.01. The opinion reasons that the county auditor is a creature of statute and may exercise

only those powers that are expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied thereby. 1989 Op. Att’y


73


Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-286. The opinion finds no authority in R.C. Chapters 167 or 3196 or in R.C.

340.10 for the county auditor to serve as the fiscal officer of a regional council of governments. Id.

Upon further consideration, we believe that the language of R.C. 167.06(A) is broad enough to

permit a county auditor to serve as the fiscal officer of a regional council of governments. The statute

permits a regional council of governments to accept “services of personnel” from its members. This

necessarily implies that the members are permitted to give those services. We must then determine

what is included in “services of personnel” from the members of the regional council.

In this matter, Clark County will be a member of the regional council of governments. See

R.C. 167.02(A). R.C. 167.06 does not specify or limit which agencies or officials of the county may

contribute services of personnel to the regional council of governments. We therefore believe that the

contribution may come from the auditor of Clark County, as a county official. “Personnel” is defined

as a body of persons employed in some service or persons of a particular group, as professional or

occupation. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1687 (unabr. ed. 1993). This term is

broad enough to encompass a county auditor as a member of a particular group or as an elected county

official.

We previously concluded that a county auditor may not serve as a fiscal officer because a

county auditor is a creature of statute and may exercise only those powers expressly delegated by

statute or necessarily implied thereby. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-286. Here, however,

R.C. 167.06(A) expressly permits a regional council of governments to accept “services of personnel”

from a member, and necessarily implied by that language is the power of a member to contribute

those services. Accordingly, we conclude that pursuant to R.C. 167.06, a county auditor may serve as

the fiscal officer of a regional council of governments.7 To that extent, we overrule syllabus

paragraph 7 of 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063.

This conclusion also finds support in the purpose of R.C. Chapter 167. The provisions

governing a regional council of governments are designed to permit the members to provide more

than the traditional contributions of financial support. In addition to providing money, members may

provide funds, services of personnel, equipment, real or personal property, or other necessary services.

R.C. 167.06. Additionally, the language of R.C. 167.07 demonstrates that the General Assembly

6 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, at 2-286, refers to R.C. Chapter 317, which governs the

powers of a county recorder, rather than R.C. Chapter 319, which governs the powers of a county

auditor. Because the opinion addressed the authority of a county auditor, we believe this was a

typographical error and that the opinion intended to refer to R.C. Chapter 319.

7 Because we have concluded that the county auditor may serve as the fiscal officer of a

regional council of governments, we need not address your final two questions.


74


recognizes that a person may serve as an officer of the regional council of governments while also

serving in another public office or position.8

Conclusions

Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised as follows:

1. A board of county commissioners and a municipal corporation may establish a

regional council of governments (1) to operate a public safety answering point

under R.C. Chapter 128 and, (2) if the regional council of governments is

authorized to act on behalf of the board of county commissioners pursuant to

R.C. 167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08, to operate a countywide public safety

communications system pursuant to R.C. 307.63.

2. A regional council of governments that operates a public safety answering

point under R.C. Chapter 128 may not receive funding through contracts for

dispatch services provided to other political subdivisions when the dispatch

services are provided in association with the public safety answering point. A

regional council of governments may, however, receive funding for the costs

of establishing, equipping, furnishing, operating, or maintaining a public

safety answering point operated by the regional council of governments as set

forth in the formula in the county’s final 9-1-1 plan adopted pursuant to R.C.

128.03 and R.C. 128.07.

8 R.C. 167.07’s declaration that holding an office of a regional council of governments does not

constitute a public office, shall not constitute an interest in a contract, and that an officer of the council

shall not be disqualified from holding any public office by reason of his position as an officer of the

council resolves the question whether a potential conflict of interest may prohibit a person from

serving simultaneously as county auditor and fiscal officer of a regional council of governments. See

generally 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-010, at 2-87 (describing the seven question compatibility test

used to determine whether a person may serve simultaneously in two public positions). Similar

language in other statutes has been considered sufficient to permit a public officeholder to serve in

another public office or position, regardless of any potential conflicts of interest that may arise. See

2014 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2014-039, slip op. at 7 (“[w]here the General Assembly has sanctioned

overlapping roles for a public officer …, despite the potential for conflicts of interest, we have advised

that the potential conflicts of interest do not prohibit the actors from performing their statutory

duties”); 2012 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2012-040, at 2-351 (considering R.C. 1724.10(B)(1), “the General

Assembly has authorized a person to serve simultaneously as a township trustee and member of the

governing board of a county land reutilization corporation even though conflicts of interest may exist

between the two positions”); 2009 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2009-010, at 2-91; 1977 Op. Att’y Gen. No.

77-034, at 2-123.


75


3. A regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C. Chapter

128 to receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to

other political subdivisions when the dispatch services are not provided in


4. A regional council of governments has no authority pursuant to R.C. 307.63 to

receive funding through contracts for dispatch services provided to other

political subdivisions when the dispatch services are not provided in


5. A regional council of governments may receive funding from a contract with a

municipal corporation or township within the county pursuant to R.C. 307.15

for dispatch services provided by the regional council of governments to the

municipal corporation or township when the dispatch services are not provided

in association with a public safety answering point, so long as the regional

council of governments is authorized to act on behalf of the board of county

commissioners pursuant to R.C. 167.03(C) or R.C. 167.08.



with a municipal corporation or township pursuant to R.C. 311.29 for dispatch

services provided by the regional council of governments to the municipal

corporation or township when the dispatch services are not provided in




with a township pursuant to R.C. 505.43 for dispatch services provided by the

regional council of governments to the township when the dispatch services


8. Pursuant to R.C. 167.06, a county auditor may serve as the fiscal officer of a

regional council of governments. (1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 89-063, syllabus,

paragraph 7, overruled.)

Very respectfully yours,

MICHAEL DEWINE

Ohio Attorney General


76

ADDENDUM G: REFERENCES The resources identified in this section were utilized in the development of this plan and are referenced throughout. Underlined references are hyperlinked to the original document.

Ohio Revised Code

ORC 128 – Emergency Telephone Number System

ORC 128.021 – Adoption of rules establishing technical and operational standards for public safety answering points

ORC 128.57 – County systems receiving disbursement to provide wireless 9-1-1 service

ORC 128.571 – Limitation on use of R.C. 128.57 payments

ORC 128.06 – Planning committee and technical advisory committee

Rules and Requirements

APCO Project 25 Statement of Requirements

NENA I3 Technical Requirements Document

NENA Security for Next Generation 9-1-1 Standard

State of Ohio Proposed Rules for Statewide Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESINEt) Steering Committee

Plans and Reports

City of Parma, August 23, 2011 – The Center for Public Management, Maxine Goodman

Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

Feasibility Study: Consolidated Dispatch Center for Police, Fire and EMS Services

Prepared for Cities of Parma, Berea, Brecksville, Broadview Heights, Brooklyn, Brooklyn

Heights, Brook Park, Garfield Heights, Independence, Middleburg Heights, North

Royalton, Parma Heights, Seven Hills, and Valley View, December 2009 – The Center for

Public Management, Levin College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University

Huron County PSAP Consolidation Study, 2009

Highland Park, Lake Bluff, and Lake Forest, Illinois, December 2013 – Matrix Consulting

Group

Red River Regional Dispatch Center 2013 Annual Report

Report for the 9-1-1 Preservation Task Force, Hamilton County, Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2015 – L.R. Kimball

Site Visits

Chagrin Valley Dispatch Venter

Southeast Emergency Communications Center – Serves the communities of Bedford, Bedford Heights, Garfield Heights and Maple Heights

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/128

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/128.021





https://www.apcointl.org/images/pdf/SOR-2010.pdf

http://911.ohio.gov/Portals/0/ESINet%20Steering%20Committee/NENA_08-751-v1_i3_Requirements_LTD.pdf

http://911.ohio.gov/Portals/0/ESINet%20Steering%20Committee/NENA_08-751-v1_i3_Requirements_LTD.pdf

http://www.registerofohio.state.oh.us/jsps/publicdisplayrules/processPublicDisplayRules.jsp?agencyNumberString=5507&actionType=proposed&doWhat=GETBYFILINGAGENCY&Submit=Search

http://www.registerofohio.state.oh.us/jsps/publicdisplayrules/processPublicDisplayRules.jsp?agencyNumberString=5507&actionType=proposed&doWhat=GETBYFILINGAGENCY&Submit=Search


77

ADDENDUM H: DEFINITIONS

ACRONYM DEFINITION

APCO The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials ASAP The Automated Secure Alarm Protocol CAD Computer Aided Dispatch COG Council of Governments CTO Communications Training Officer EMD Emergency Medical Dispatch ESINET Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network GIS Geographic Information Systems HCDC Huron County Development Council ISO Insurance Service Office JCARR Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review NFPA National Fire Protection Association ORC Ohio Revised Code PSAP Public Safety Answering Point RMS Records Management System TAC Technical Advisory Committee

huron county 911 · huron county 911 3/16/16 2016 psap consolidation study 5 acknowledgement this...

Documents