Commission votes to upgrade dispatch center

The Washington County Communications Commission voted to use the commission?s reserve funds to remodel the current dispatch center and to ?look down the road five to eight years for a new plan.? Communications supervisor Cara Sorrells said the commission has between $40,000 and $44,000 available to spend in reserve funds. The motion did not specify what would be remodeled or the amount of money to be spent on remodeling.

Commissioners Ryan Miller, Bob Shepherd, Wes Rich, Adam Mangold and Paul Shelangoski voted for the motion. Commissioner Merlin Hagie voted against it, citing the lack of a lease agreement between the commission and the county.

Miller, one of the two representatives of the surrounding towns, began the meeting by informing the other commissioners of the proceedings of the mayors? meeting the prior week. Miller said the mayoral representatives reviewed letters drafted by the dispatch employees. He said a majority of the employees were in favor of staying at the current location. Sorrells told the representatives that some of the 911 equipment will expire in 2020. Miller said the representatives agreed that the dispatchers should move into a different building in the next five to eight years, before that equipment expires.

Shepherd, one of the two representatives of the city of Washington, said the city supports the idea of remodeling the dispatch center to a satisfactory condition. Shepherd said the city would like a lease between the commission and the county. He said he preferred a lease of 20 years but said 12 years may be more realistic.

Mangold, who represents the board of supervisors on the commission along with Rich, said there is no reason to have a lease for a county-owned building.

Rich said, ?The feeling on the board is that it should be a county-owned facility and we shouldn?t have to pay rent for it.?

Mangold said he doesn?t understand the renewed interest in remodeling the dispatch center. He said he thought there was a consensus that the building was no good.

?I sat through a year and a half of meetings where we had the county sheriff, chief of police and the director of communications telling us that the facility there is bad, it has radon, it has water in the basement and it has low insulation value,? he said. ?I?m not opposed to staying where they are. What I do have a concern about is spending a lot of money where they are. If we?re talking $50,000 to stay there five years, I?m not in favor of that at all. If we?re talking about $15,000, that would be more palatable. We?ve heard from all these people involved that this is a terrible place to be and that we need to get out of there.?

Miller said he, too, thought the building was in bad shape. He said it was not until hearing from Sorrells and her staff that the mayoral representatives came to the conclusion that the building was good for a few more years.

Washington Mayor Sandra Johnson then addressed the commissioners.

?As one of the two signatories to the 28E agreement, I respectfully request an amendment to the motion to include some lease with an end date so that every community served has the guarantee of uninterrupted service,? she said.

West Chester Mayor Brenda Carey said, ?I think that what Bob is really getting at is that two boards ago or one board ago, the supervisors told communications they had to relocate. When the new board came in, all that changed. What Bob is looking for is some agreement that communications can stay where it is until the new building is ready to move into. We want to solidify that location until the new location is ready to go.?

?With all due respect to this commission, Washington is the single largest funding stream,? Johnson said. ?Please respect our wish to incorporate a timeline in this motion to spend money.?

?I don?t think the county would kick them out until they have somewhere else to send them,? Miller said.

?If this commission can disregard other articles, like rent and providing a janitor, who?s to say that this commission won?t arbitrarily choose to honor the articles that are existing?? Johnson asked. ?I would like to see some assurance, for the citizens of Washington.?

?The sheriff took care of the whole building when he was there,? Rich said. ?I think you?re really straining when you talk about janitors and paying utilities.?

Washington City Attorney Craig Arbuckle then jumped in.

?Do I understand that you are considering a motion that authorizes you to spend the money you have in your reserve fund to improve a county building without any right of occupancy?? he asked.

?I don?t think we?re saying that,? Rich said. ?Attorney Arbuckle, my concerns are exactly yours. The supervisors need to look at it first before we authorize spending our money on that building.?

Arbuckle said that the city could not support a motion that does not include a lease.

?I think you have it,? Mangold said. ?If you read the bylaws from 1976.?

?They?re not in effect any longer,? Johnson said.

Shepherd then asked Washington County Attorney Larry Brock if the county would be more comfortable with a formal agreement concerning the future of the dispatch center. Brock said the county has an obligation to provide a place for communications.

?What Adam is saying is that the county is not going to kick them out on the street without some place to go,? Brock said. ?We?re coming to an understanding that it is the county?s role and duty to provide that place.?

?I?ll give you another example of why we have a concern,? Arbuckle said. ?I?ll refer you to the minutes of your meeting on Monday March 28, 2011. There was discussion about whether the county needed to furnish a building, and according to the minutes, the county does not have to furnish a building. That?s your own minutes of your meeting.?

?I think furnish from that standpoint meant free of charge,? Miller said.

?You?re assuring us that you?re not going to make the center move, but you won?t guarantee it for some reason,? Arbuckle said. ?What is the reason that you won?t guarantee it??

?Because we already have,? Rich said.

Mangold said, ?There was a motion a few months ago that we voted on 5-0 that the board of supervisors had no intention of using the facility. It?s been public knowledge for a long time that the county is not going to use that building for any other reason.?

?The other members of this commission cannot enforce what it says in the minutes of one of your meetings,? Arbuckle responded. ?That?s not an enforceable, binding agreement.?

Washington County Ambulance Director Richard Young then said, ?That?s another reason this commission needs to be disbanded. For 11 years, I?ve been coming to these meetings and it has been the same thing ? a pissing match. Don?t tell me it hasn?t been because it has been. It?s time that these two communities, the city of Washington and the supervisors, do what?s best for this community, and that?s not being done. It is ridiculous. We need to work together. We?re here for one reason, and that?s the people in this community. Why are we having this discussion?

?I will take responsibility for this unneeded, as somebody states, year and a half,? Shepherd said. ?You want to know why? It was out of a want to be fair. We were told we had a short period of time we had to leave. Rather than put new equipment in a building that was going to be leveled, we wanted to find the best thing. That?s why we got a consultant and an architect. Every time we were about to decide, another idea came up. Out of fairness, we agreed to look at other options. We looked at option after option, all of them beyond our ability to pay for. This is something we can do.?