911 update: Council votes to schedule vote
, Richmond News Staff
11-12-2009
Bob Bond started letting his frustrations show.
The Richmond City Council member and Public Safety Committee chairman made his desire for a vote whether or not to consolidate Richmond’s 911 service with Ray County’s known immediately.
He did so in no uncertain terms.
“I’m only one member of the city council and each councilperson will have their own views,” Bond said Tuesday evening, adding this most recent round of contract negotiations with the Ray County 911 Board enters its seventh month in November. “I say, enough is enough.”
Bond motioned for an immediate vote to adopt Ray County’s proposed $337,652, two-year contract to consolidate. However, Richmond Mayor Lance Green, City Administrator Rick Childers and City Attorney Chris Williams pointed out the city hadn’t publicly posted the contract for viewing yet.
Therefore, Bond and the council settled for a unanimous 8-0 vote to post the contract and accompanying ordinance, with a vote likely coming in two weeks.
For Bond and other council members backing consolidation, the evening’s heated debate began at the 5:30 p.m. Public Safety Committee meeting. Ray County 911 Director Scott Enss attended both meetings, alongside 911 board member Paul Harris.
Consolidation soon will not be optional, Enss said. Pressures trickling down from the Department of Homeland Security to Missouri’s state legislature – including failure to consolidate systems hinders grant consideration – will make consolidation a necessity, Enss said.
Enss made another point – a more immediate factor: The state is approaching consolidation of smaller entities on a five-year goal for completion, but to stay ahead of rising costs, it needs to happen sooner.
“[911 service] is going to get more expensive, and smaller entities just will not be able to survive,” Enss told the committee. Richmond Police Chief Terri McWilliams reminded Enss former State 911 Director R.D. Porter once told city officials the state would never force consolidation on any entity.
“R.D. Porter is no longer in that position,” Enss reminded McWilliams. “He ruffled a lot of feathers by saying that … Every bill (911 directors) throw up is a consolidation issue.”
It was Childers who first resurrected the cost issue.
Bond addressed several concerns he said Childers raised in a previous e-mail, including several suggestions for controlling the contract’s costs. Childers asked that an annual third-party audit verify Ray County 911 expenses, to ensure Richmond pays the right cost.
Bond likened it to his own Ray County Board of Services contemplating similar audits once upon a time.
“We’re not a big organization,” Bond said of his employer. “That (audit cost) figure was between $4,000 and $6,000 from Rick Westbrook. We felt that money could be used for a better purpose.”
Enss added the audit would say nothing of Richmond’s call volume, which he has said throughout negotiations is the biggest determining factor. Bond proposed one solution to most issues: a city presence at the Ray County 911 Board’s monthly public meeting, held the last Thursday of each month.
Enss balked at Childer’s request that the city pay on a per-call basis.
“At whose call-volume, your $21 per call (cost) or our $11 per call?” he asked.
Bond reiterated his push for closer interagency communication at Childers’ suggestion that Richmond withhold monthly payments, pending receipt of monthly call figures and cost formulations. Enss said Richmond could structure its payments however it would like, but Bond once more pointed out a simpler solution.
“The key is going to the meeting, resolving problems – and if there’s issues at that time – bring it up,” he said.
Green raised the cost issue once more around two hours later, as the full council sat debating a vote’s prudence.
“I’m a little concerned as to where the money’s going to come from,” Green said. “We’re spending public dollars and we have to be accountable.”
Finance Director Melanie Allwood concurred, saying, “I would like some kind of formula so when I get a bill I can say, ‘Yes, this is the amount calculated. This is the amount we owe.’”
Councilwoman Terrie Stanley soon echoed Bond’s frustration.
“We’ve went over this and over this and over this,” she said. Stanley had also claimed, during the Public Safety session, an informal survey of her Ward IV voters voiced overwhelming support for the move as a key issue.
“Mr. Harris is here again to tell you how to come up with it. Mr. Enss is here again to tell you how to come up with it. (Brian) Bush is here again to tell you how to come up with it.”
Enss, in the audience, smiled, looking almost amused at the continued debate.
Councilman Roger Kepple joined in at that juncture.
“I don’t remember anything like this happening when we pulled away from 911 the first time,” he said, showing similar frustration in his voice. “Did the city know what the expense was going to be before we moved back?”
Just as Green responded “Yes,” an audience member began to applaud Kepple. That momentarily broke Green’s composure.
“Excuse me, we don’t need that,” he admonished. “If you have something to say, please approach.”
Eventually, Green conceded to end the debate.
“A few meetings ago it was very, very crucial we have a surplus in the budget,” he said. “If the council’s happy with it, that’s fine. It’ll be on the agenda next time.”
Other Top Stories
