CLARK COUNTY — Clark County’s 911 system is facing a state mandate to consolidate its five dispatch centers before 2015. If officials fail to meet the deadline, the county faces losing nearly $1 million in state funding, which pays for nearly half the entire dispatch network.

Currently there are five public safety answering points (PSAP), or dispatch centers, in Clark County. Central Alarm, which is located in Sellersburg, serves as the primary PSAP. Central Alarm responds to all 911 calls made in Clark County and directly dispatches all fire and emergency medical services and the Clark County Sheriff’s Department.

When a law enforcement service, other than the sheriff’s department, is needed by a 911 caller, Central Alarm transfers the call to one of the four additional PSAP centers, which are located in Jeffersonville, Clarksville, Charlestown and Sellersburg.

Each of the four subsidiary PSAP centers dispatch law enforcement only.

Central Alarm also provides dispatch for Indiana Department of Natural Resources, and Utica and Borden police departments.



WHAT’S ON THE WAY

The mandate requires that Clark County consolidate the five PSAP centers to a single primary center, with the option of a secondary center to serve as a back up alternative.

Officials convened recently at a Clark County Board of Health meeting to take a step toward getting all municipalities across the county working on the singular goal of meeting the Dec. 31, 2014, deadline.

From the litany of questions from various officials during the meeting, however, it appears there are many more unknowns surrounding how the consolidation will unfold, as compared to certainties.

What officials made clear is that the next step in the process will be the formation of a fiscal body to steer the consolidation effort. An early version of the interlocal cooperation agreement for the creation of the body was drafted and distributed at the meeting by assistant Clark County attorney Bob Bottorff.

“[The intermunicipality fiscal board] is going to be a new board to make decisions regarding the funding structure and how that consolidation works,” Bottorff said.

According to the working document, the fiscal board will be comprised of two members from both the Jeffersonville City Council and the Clarksville Town Council. One member of the Charlestown City Council, Clark County Board of Commissioners and the Clark County Council will round out the seven-member fiscal body.

Before the board can be assembled, however, the cooperation agreement must be finalized, which will follow a meeting of attorneys representing the various municipalities.

Bottorff said he hopes to have the document finalized within the next few weeks.



MORE BOARDS?

During the meeting, several officials spoke about the need of an operational committee in addition to the fiscal body, with the apparent implication that the financial authority may not be the best body to create and monitor emergency response standards.

Bottorff said the operational concerns should be addressed, but with a looming deadline, officials should focus on first creating the fiscal board.

“I think the biggest obstacle we are dealing with is a general human tendency of staying away from change or a fear of change,” he said.  “I think we are forced into change in this setting or otherwise we are not going to be able to function with an emergency system.”

Bottorff said whether or not an operational board is formed in addition to the fiscal board is second to having an operational 911 dispatch service.

He said the some of the duties of the fiscal board will be addressing the unknowns that come with consolidation. Those include the management of dispatch employees working for the four municipality dispatch centers — primarily those employees’ salaries, benefits and the various levels of seniority.

“All of those things are unknowns,” Bottorff said.

He said it remains unclear if all the employees will be under a single pay scale, if they will keep their benefits or if their longevity as a municipal employee will be recognized.

“That is the purpose of setting up a representative board for each governmental entity. That is their purpose — to make those determinations,” Bottorff said.

He said the fiscal board is designed to give a voice to the employees through the board member that represents their municipality. Bottorff said while there is currently a lot of gray area at this point in the process, the goal of the county officials he represents is clear.

“My clients’ biggest concern is that moving forward we have a workable, consolidated emergency dispatch system,” Bottorff said.



WHAT’S TO GAIN

Central Alarm administrator Brad Meixell said the consolidation could create many efficiencies for the 911 system, and he doesn’t expect the leaner network to result in layoffs for any dispatchers.

“You create efficiencies when you consolidate, and while we will not need as many people in dispatcher positions, we will have to create additional positions for dispatch,” he said. “I would not expect anybody to lose their job.”

Meixell said the new system will result in a need for more shift supervisors and administrative support positions. He explained that many of the civilian dispatchers working at the police departments provide services outside of dispatching — such as records management, secretarial duties and administrative operations. Meixell said he expects some of the municipalities will choose to keep those employees, which could result in the consolidation creating jobs in the county.

The process of the consolidation could mean big savings for the municipalities that are funding their own police dispatch, Meixell said. If a municipality’s dispatching staff transfers to the county’s payroll, that city or town will no longer have to pay the salary or fund the facility.

“The municipalities really save in this,” Meixell said. “They free up their general fund money by removing the cost that they pay now for dispatch. It comes off of Local Option Income Tax, which they are receiving now, but LOIT was passed by the county with the intention of paying for this.

“I don’t view it as a loss for the municipalities at all, and not a loss for the county because that is what this tax was introduced for.”