6/13/1985 - Special
~o
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
June 13, 1985
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, this being an adjourned meeting from June
12, 1985, which was an adjourned meeting from June 11, 1985.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McGraw called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.
The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Steven A. McGraw; Vice-Chairman
Athena E. Burton; Supervisors Alan H.
Brittle, Harry C. Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Supervisor Minter (arrived at 5:24 p.m.)
IN RE:
E911 DISCUSSIONS
The following people were present from surrounding
localities: Randy Smith, Assistant City Manager of Salem; Harry
Haskins, Chief of Police of the City of Salem; David Bowers,
Roanoke City Councilman, (left at 4:30 p.m.); Bill Clark, Roanoke
City Director of Public Works; Al Beckley, Roanoke City Manager
of Communications; George Snead, Roanoke City Director of
Administration of Public Safety; John Hubbard, Roanoke County
Superintendent of Public Facilities; Warren Trent, Coordinator of
Emergency Services for Roanoke City; Tommy Fuqua, Fire and
Emergency Services Coordinator of Roanoke County; Paul Mahoney,
Roanoke County Attorney and Acting County Administrator; George
Nester, Town Manager of Vinton; Harry Franks, Data Processing
rl -¿ 1 '
June 13, 1985
Coordinator for Roanoke County; John Chambliss, Superintendent of
Fiscal Management of Roanoke County; steve Ayers, Universal
Communications; Mike Kavanaugh, Roanoke County Citizen; John
Schearr, C & P Telephone; Don Reed, C & P Telephone; Mr. Red
Cable, Director of Communications for Roanoke County, Parker
Foley, Salesman, Sperry Computers.
Supervisor Brittle reported that Roanoke County has
been working on its E911 system since January and the system is
due to begin operation in October 1987. Supervisor Brittle feels
that there is a need to examine the one system approach so that
a public safety officer will have the most complete information
when calls are received and so that the citizens will get the
results of best efforts of all localities. He also feels that
the more the systems are integrated, the less likely for an error
to occur in an emergency response. Supervisors McGraw and
Burton, both voiced their support for the system.
Roanoke City Councilman, David Bowers, reported that
the city is on a different frequency but that is just a technical
matter that can be disposed of and that the enhanced delivery of
public safety services should be the issue.
Harry Haskins, Chief of Police of the City of Salem,
reported that there would be no cost savings since Salem would
have to hire additional personnel, supplemental police officers
and more experienced dispatchers. Chief Haskins was also
concerned that if the something happened to the building, the
entire Valley would lose communications. Supervisor Brittle
reported that the Baltimore district has their system located in
the basement of a building. Supervisor Nickens reported that the
Board had discussed placing the system in a bunker type building.
Supervisor Nickens felt that the localities should be able to
overcome the technical problems involved in consolidating this
system and should be able to to devise a system so that employees
will not be charged to only one locality. Supervisor Nickens
Q
~
June 13, 1985
also felt that fiscal location should not be a problem and also
that there will be no cost savings except where construction is
concerned, but that should not be the issue.
Randy Smith presented a list of things to consider:
1. Most emergency operations plans call for certain
agency heads to meet at the Emergency Operating Center in time of
disaster to coordinate emergency services. with one consolidated
center, this would be impossible to accomplish since dispatchers'
functions would be removed from each jurisdiction.
2. Each police agency, rescue squad, and fire
department has its own set of operating procedures, protocols and
policies, plus there is no common radio frequency among all
Valley police agencies, rescue squads, or fire departments.
Changing radio equipment to accomplish common frequencies would
be very expensive to accomplish.
3. Training new employees for a consolidated center
would be a most difficult task due to the different policies and
procedures, as well as the problem of having to be familiar with
the geographic and street layout of the entire Valley.
4. There is a question of legal liability should an
error be made in the handling of calls.
5. Certainly legitimate questions are:
a. Where would such a new center be constructed?
b. Who would build it?
c. Who would run it?
d. How would equipment for the center be
purchased?
e. What type of equipment would be bought?
6. If the dispatchers who would staff a consolidated
center remained employees of their respective jurisdictions,
control over these employees may be lost.
~3.
June 13, 1985
7. If one center were used for the entire Valley and a
disaster or terrorism struck the center, the entire Valley would
be without communications.
8. In the City of Salem, the dispatchers on duty also
serve a Desk Sergeant function after hours for those citizens who
come to the Public Safety Building with questions or concerns
plus the Salem Center, as does many other communications centers,
serves as a control and call back point for public works after
hours.
Chairman McGraw felt that the final decision would be
left to the elected officials of each locality and also that even
if the consolidation cost a little more, it would be better for
safety of all concerned. Chairman McGraw also felt that most of
the problems are technical and can be worked out.
Supervisor Nickens suggested that a committee be
established of technical people of Roanoke County, Roanoke City,
City of Salem, and Town of vinton that would look at concerns and
questions provided by Randy Smith to report back to the Valley
governments.
George Nester, Town Manager of Vinton, reported that
the Council would be glad to look at any alternatives but they
will experience staffing problems.
Bill Clark, Roanoke City Director of Public Works,
reported that he would present the suggestion to council and will
report back to the County.
Randy Smith, Assistant City Manager of Salem, reported
that in December, 1984, Council rejected the idea of
consolidating the E9ll service but that he would present the idea
once again at the June 24 meeting.
Michael Kavanaugh suggested to the Board that setting
up another committee to study this prospect would be a repeat of
the study performed in December.
June 13, 1985
· ,/!J 4
,< ,.,.~'
Supervisor Nickens suggested that the County proceed
with the E9l1 system with an effective date of October 1987, that
each political subdivision continue to pursue the alternative
they had chosen before this meeting and that the localities
attempt to have technicians to look at issues regarding a common
frequency for animal control and bands for emergency services.
Supervisor Nickens moved that the County proceed with
the time frame of October, 1987. That the current committee not
be asked to evaluate their December, 1984, final report but that
the Board communicate with the chief elected officials for each
political subdivision asking participation in creating a
technical committee to look at common radio band with common
frequencies for different service areas for valley-wide use. The
other political subdivisions to proceed with their time frame for
instituting E911.
Supervisor Burton requested that Supervisor Nickens add
to his motion that the communications experts of each locality
consider the coordination of equipment.
Supervisor Nickens agreed to include this in his motion
and called for questions. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Brittle, Burton, and McGraw
NAYS: None
Chairman McGraw brought up the concerns of John Willey,
County Assessor, regarding surplus property. Paul Mahoney,
County Attorney, requested that the Board authorize him to
advertise all the surplus property that the County currently
holds for the July 9, 1985, meeting. He feels that this would
speed the process by which potential buyers could actually have
possession of the property. Supervisor Minter moved to authorize
Paul Mahoney to advertise all surplus property for public hearing
at the July 9, 1985, board meeting. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
8 4 5 ~ ' June 13, 1985
AYES: Supervisors Minter, Brittle, Burton, and McGraw
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Nickens
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Supervisor Minter moved to adjourn at 6:05 p.m. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
~C(,~~
Chairman
\
\
\