E911 discusses tornado siren narrow-banding upgrades

The Washington County E911 Board met Monday night and discussed updating the tornado sirens in the county. The Washington County Communications Center must upgrade all the sirens in the county so they comply with the narrow-banding requirement from the federal government.

The federal government is requiring narrow banding because it will allow more radio frequencies on the radio spectrum. Local law enforcement have reported receiving radio calls from neighboring cities that were using the same frequency, which is a problem narrow banding seeks to solve.

Communications Supervisor Cara Sorrells said that upgrading to narrow banding is akin to turning a two-lane highway into a four-lane interstate.    

The federal government requires all radio equipment to be narrow banded by January 2013. Local emergency personnel have been converting their radio equipment to narrow banding for several years in preparation for the change in the law. During the first phase, all the radio equipment that EMS and the first responders used was converted. Then the mobiles and portables that law enforcement use were converted. The sirens are among the last pieces of equipment that have not yet been updated.

Many towns in the county have modern siren equipment which requires only a slight modification to make it narrow-bandable. The cost to narrow-band those sirens is about $500 apiece. However, some towns have old sirens which need new radios. Brighton needs a new radio in its siren which is expected to cost about $2,800. Washington?s five sirens need new equipment in them, too, and those upgrades are expected to cost nearly $5,000.

Sorrells said the estimated cost of updating all the sirens in the county is $10,600. That figure does not include updates to Crawfordsville, for which there is not yet any information, nor Kalona, which operates its tornado sirens independently of the communications center.

The federal government is not done issuing equipment mandates to local governments. The federal government wants the number of available radio frequencies to increase again by 2025.

?They want to turn the four-lane highway into an eight-lane highway,? Sorrells said.

The next phase of radio equipment is ?Project 25? or ?P25.? Most of the emergency response equipment in the county is not P25-compatible. Sorrells said that the radios and other equipment will need to be replaced by 2025, anyway, so the federal government?s mandate is not too onerous.

The board also talked about replacing the county road signs along Highway 218. A contractor, Collins and Hermann of St. Louis, replaced the state road signs along Highway 218. The county road signs were on the same posts as the state road signs, in accordance with an agreement between the county and the state DOT. However, when Collins and Hermann replaced the state road signs, they tossed the county signs in the ditch. Some of those county signs were damaged and others were stolen.

Washington County Attorney Larry Brock said he is drafting a letter to Collins and Hermann in an effort to get the company to pay for some of the replacement costs. Sorrells said that had the company simply coordinated with the county, the county signs could have been preserved.

The Washington County Communications Commission once again tabled a motion to approve a bill to the security firm, All-Secure. All-Secure has asked the commission for $35 to pay for a tape that goes in a special receiver at the dispatch center that is used to record alarms and where they come from. The receiver is connected to alarms at schools, banks, private residences and other buildings throughout the county. The company has told Sorrells that the receiver needs to be replaced because it is too old. Sorrells got a quote on a new receiver, which was about $2,400.

The $35 bill has been on the commission?s agenda for the past three months but the commission has repeatedly tabled it because it wants to talk with All-Secure about purchasing a new receiver. The commissioners said at their May meeting that they didn?t understand why they should have to pay for equipment that only benefits one company.