CITY OF OLNEY
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 2010

AGENDA #1 “CALL TO ORDER” The February 18, 2010 special meeting of the Olney City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Olney City Hall located at 300 S. Whittle Avenue, Olney, Illinois, with Mayor Mark Lambird presiding.

AGENDA #2 “ROLL CALL” The following Council members were present: Gary Foster, Brad Brown, Pete Weber, Bob Ferguson and Mark Lambird. Also present were City Manager Randy Bukas, City Attorney Larry Taylor and City Clerk Belinda Henton. The following County Board members were present: Leo Ledeker, Greg Amerman, Gary Wachtel, Mary Spillman and Melinda Hunt. Also present was County Clerk Alice Mullinax. County Board member Bill Clow, Jr. entered later in the meeting.

AGENDA #3 “DISCUSSION: COMBINING DISPATCH CENTERS” Mr. Taylor gave an overview of the proposed combined dispatch agreement. The proposed Richland County Computer-Aided Dispatch (RICHLANDCAD) governing board requires two representatives from the City and two from the County. Three members will be considered a quorum, and it will take at least three affirmative votes to take action. The agreement also provides for an advisory committee consisting of one member designated by the City, one designated by the County, one designated by the Richland County Emergency Telephone System Board, one nonmember representative designated as a rural fire representative by the fire protection districts that are RICHLANDCAD user agencies, one representative designated by Richland Memorial Hospital and one representative from the RICHLANDCAD Dispatch Center employees. The advisory committee would make recommendations to the governing board.

The agreement also designates Richland County as the lead agency, but this could be changed if the City were to become the lead agency. The dispatch center would have three answering positions with nine full-time employees or equivalent. Funding requirements are also included in the agreement to determine the cost allocations. The agreement states that the Emergency Telephone System surcharge will be imposed at the maximum rate authorized by referendum. The Richland County Emergency Telephone System Board will budget the annual amount determined to be necessary to pay the ordinary expenses of the Board, including contingencies, but excluding all cost for the equipment purchases, replacements, repairs, and maintenance and cost of dispatcher salaries, benefits, and training. Funds remaining from the annual revenues after taking into consideration the ordinary expenses of the ETS Board will be budgeted for and disbursed to the lead agency for the expenses of RICHLANDCAD, including all enhanced 911 equipment purchases, replacements, repairs, and maintenance and cost of dispatcher salaries, benefits and training. Richland Memorial Hospital will continue to pay not less than $15,0000 to the lead agency toward the cost of combined dispatch. The lead agency will levy the required amounts necessary to fund the contribution requirements for the IMRF, social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, and liability insurance related to RICHLANDCAD services. Once the budget is prepared and the cost and expenses determined, the City and County will share equally in the remaining expense.

Mayor Lambird explained it is the consensus of the Council, in order for City to be willing to move forward with this project, the City would like to be the lead agency.

Mrs. Hunt asked for the reasoning for this decision. Mayor Lambird stated there is a feeling by the Council that they have to look out for the citizens of Olney. Some of the Council members feel that the quality and level of professionalism offered by the City dispatchers does not exist outside the City. The City is very comfortable with their employees, and the Council wants to continue to provide the same level of service that has always been provided. The only way to continue this level of service is to allow the City to become the lead agency.

Sheriff Hires stated the lead agency will make sure policies and procedures are followed and the lead agency will be the employer.

Mr. Ledeker stated it made more sense to use the 911 Board as the lead agency since they have the same board make up instead of creating a new board.

Sheriff Hires commented the 911 Board may have concerns that money they disburse to the lead agency may not be spent as it must be spent.

Mrs. Spilllman did not understand why the Council felt the County dispatchers are not of the same quality as the City. She disagreed with the Council’s opinion.

Councilman Foster stated the City represents the largest number of citizens. The Council feels the City needs to remain in control of their dispatchers. The Council has been elected to represent the citizens of Olney, and this is the way they can be better served.

Several different people pointed out the County represents both the citizens of Olney and the citizens of Richland County. Sheriff Hires stated the sheriff’s department has a vested interest in serving both the citizens of Olney and Richland County.

Councilman Foster worked under the old combined dispatch system when there were conflicts between the Police Chief and the Sheriff. He can foresee this happening in the future.

Sheriff Hires stated the lead agency was not important to him. There is less expense by allowing the County to be the lead agency. Sheriff Hires is confident that whoever runs the center will run it in an efficient manner. Sheriff Hires believes the center can be efficiently run with nine full time employees.

Mr. Bukas reported with nine dispatchers, and the City as the lead agency, the City would save $32,000 and the County would save approximately $51,000. With the County as lead agency, the City would save $54,000 and the County would save $75,000. These estimates are based on 2009 salary information.

Mrs. Hunt thought the amount of savings was a good enough reason to allow the County to be the lead agency.

It was Councilman Foster’s opinion that the $32,000 savings was not enough to justify losing control over the dispatchers.

Ray Vaughn pointed out this savings could be used to hire two police officers, or a couple of miles of street could be oil and chipped, or provide curbside recycling for the entire city. Mr. Vaughn questioned why this matter is being debated when $125,000 could be saved for the betterment of the community.

Councilman Weber addressed Mr. Ledeker’s question on why another administrative board should be formed. Councilman Weber expressed the City’s concern that all the members of the 911 Board are appointed by the County Board. The City would like to have a say who is on the 911 Board.

Sheriff Hires stated the 911 Board voted if the City and County agreed to combine dispatching centers, the 911 Board will consider running the center. It should be written into a contract that a certain number of City officials could be appointed to the Board. He felt it can be made to work and save money. He also pointed out there needs to be better radio communications between the City and County through improved radio equipment.

Councilman Foster pointed out the 911 system was sold on the fact that there would be two public service answering points, one at the Police Department and one at the Sheriff’s Department, with two answering positions in each location. At certain times two positions are not enough. It was Councilman Foster’s opinion that combined dispatch is reducing the coverage and efficiency by reducing the size of the dispatch center to three positions. He did not think this will benefit the citizens of Olney or the County by reducing the current efficiency.

If the 911 Board becomes the lead agency, it was States Attorney Hyde’s opinion that a union contract with the dispatchers would have to be renegotiated.

Councilman Foster pointed out that the City may have to hire an additional full time person to handle business calls and walk-ins during non-business hours if the dispatch center is moved.

Mrs. Hunt asked for a clarification, if the City is not the lead agency, combined dispatch is done. That is what Mayor Lambird understood from the Council.

Mrs. Hunt was offended when the City implied the County is not doing its job. She agreed Olney was the largest city in Richland County , but Olney is still located within Richland County. She felt it was a no-brainer to have the County be the lead agency considering the savings.

Councilman Foster stated he would rather see the County be the lead agency instead of the 911 Board.

Councilman Ferguson was open to any suggestions. He was in favor of combined dispatch.
Mr. Amerman did not care who runs the dispatch center, he just wants it to happen.

Councilman Foster commented it all sounds good on the surface, but in reality he does not think it will work. He has seen combined dispatch not work here and in other counties. When an elected official is going to be in charge of the lead agency, no one knows who is going to be in charge next. The City would have no control over that person, unlike the City having control over the Police Chief.

Jeremiah Brown asked is this 911 center not going to work or is it something that someone does not want to work. He had heard a lot of opinionated statements with no factual backup. He was appalled with the statement that the City is more professional than the County. All 911 dispatchers are certified in the same way. Mr. Brown commented this matter is being discussed for the benefit of the tax payers. If the tax payers’ money can be saved, it should. He would like to see the money saved spent on street repairs and extra police. He asked if this group is worried about saving money for the citizens or who has control.

Council Foster felt the issue was about the control the City has over the dispatcher. The City has control over the Police Chief and he works for the Council. The Sheriff does not answer to the County Board because he is an elected official.

Mr. Vaughn commented this group needs to get over the concept of mine and yours. The combined dispatch issue should not be about control. All dispatchers are trained, and will function better if together. Sheriff Hires agreed the community will be better served by having all dispatchers in the same building.

Sheriff Hires explained the problem the County and City have talking to each other through the current radio system. Different radios have been purchased just so the two departments can talk to each other. This problem could be corrected with combined dispatch.

Councilman Brown moved for a five minute recess, seconded by Councilman Weber. A unanimous voice vote was received. The Council recess at 6:46 p.m. and returned into open session at 6:54 p.m.

Mayor Lambird proposed working with the make up of the 911 Board. He asked if the County Board and the 911 Board would be amicable with an agreement where both the City and County are guaranteed four representative on the 911 Board with a rotating chairmanship every two years. He proposed having the 911 Board as the lead agency. Mr. Ledeker thought this proposal sounded good.

Councilman Weber asked if there were any state laws pertaining to the make up of the 911 Board. Mr. Taylor answered yes, the state statutes require at least one public representative at large and then certain public agencies of the providers have to be represented.

Jack Harrell commented there has been a recent change in the law pertaining to the make up of the 911 Board. Any elected official can be appointed to the 911 Board.

Mr. Ledeker asked if they could legally create a binding agreement concerning appointments. States Attorney Hyde commented a side agreement could be created.

Mr. Ledeker asked the dispatchers’ opinion of how things are going since the two dispatch departments combined during the construction of the new County dispatch center.

Juanita Kramer, 911 Coordinator, commented she can see the benefit for the citizens with combining the centers. There are always two EMD certified dispatchers working. It was her opinion they are working well together.

Assistant Police Chief Rob Brown commented the separation of departments work, but with a new system you do not know if it will work. Both groups are professional. If the centers are combined, it will cost many dollars to separate the two departments if the system does not work combined.

The cost savings with the 911 Board as lead agency would be the same as if the County was the lead agency.

Councilman Ferguson asked if the County Board is in favor of combined dispatch. The County Board members indicated they were in favor of combined dispatch.

Councilman Ferguson asked if the 911 Board was in favor of combined dispatch. Jack Harrell answered yes, under the proper contract.

Concerning the funding of combined dispatch, Councilman Weber believed there will be an additional savings for the City and County by charging the maximum ETS surcharge. It was his opinion this surcharge would be preferred rather than increased real estate tax.

Councilman Foster pointed out that the raising of the 911 surcharge would not necessarily increase the amount 911 contributes to combined dispatch.

Mr. Bukas pointed out someone has to be available to answer 911 calls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The $15,000 that is received from the 911 Board does not even pay for one dispatcher. There is no reason 911 should not pay for a minimum of two dispatchers if they are combined. Mrs. Kramer did a study last year that indicated that approximately 12% of the calls received were 911 calls. Based on that percentage, 911 should be providing approximately $60,000 for 911 services provided.

Mrs. Kramer commented that the ICC mandates 911 money is only to be used for 911 calls.

Mr. Watchel was opposed to increasing the surcharge because both the County and City are saving money by combining centers. Since the surcharge is user based, Councilman Weber thought it was a fairer way to take up the slack.

Mayor Lambird remarked the next step is to decide if the Council agrees in principal upon this agreement. Nothing further can be done until a new agreement is drafted.

Currently, the 911 surcharge is $1.55 for a land line and $.58 for a cell phone. The maximum rate is $1.95 on a land line. According to Mr. Harrell, 911 revenue is rapidly declining because of cell phone use.

Mr. Harrell assumed since Mrs. Kramer is already a salaried employee of 911, she would be the coordinator for combined dispatch.

Assistant Police Chief Brown expressed a concern with the City dispatchers being required to work through a probationary period again, lose seniority and earned vacation. It was Sheriff Hires’ opinion that the dispatchers should not lose anything when they become a County employee. These issues should be negotiated.

Assistant Police Chief Brown asked that both boards commit to not allowing less than two dispatchers on duty at any one time. He felt less than two dispatchers at one time was unacceptable for public safety. Sheriff Hires agreed with him unless the call load dramatically changes.

Mrs. Hunt wanted both attorneys to get together and draft an agreement with 911 as the lead agency and investigate the cost savings. She wants the most cost effective arrangement. The Boards can meet again and iron out issues.

Councilman Foster asked how long the County will continue to have a lower IMRF rate. No one knew this answer.

Councilman Ferguson moved for the City representatives to meet with the County and 911 Board to try to work out an agreement to see joint dispatch move forward. Mayor Lambird added with the 911 Board as the lead agency. Councilman Ferguson commented if that is the best way. Councilman Brown seconded Councilman Ferguson’s motion. Councilmen Brown, Weber, Ferguson and Mayor Lambird voted yes. Councilman Foster voted no. The motion carried.

The County Board reserved making a motion until both attorneys get together. States Attorney Hyde advised the Board not to vote on any matters tonight, because they are the City’s guests. He suggested action be delayed.

AGENDA #4 “ADJOURN” Councilman Brown moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilman Ferguson. A unanimous vote was received.

The meeting of the City Council adjourned at 7:24 p.m.


Belinda C. Henton
City Clerk