The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-15-2006 COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA May 15, 2006 The Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana met in regular session in the Multi-Purpose Meeting Room in the City-County Building, Jeffersonville, Indiana, at 7:30 P.M. on Monday May 15, 20062 Mayor Rob Waiz, with Clerk Treasurer Peggy Wilder at the desk, called the meeting to order. Also present were City Attorney Les Merkley and Deputy Clerk Barbara Hollis. Mayor Waiz welcomed all in attendance, asking all those present to stand as Street Commissioner Ron Ellis gave the invocation. Mayor Waiz then asked all those present to join him in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The roll was called and those present were; Councilpersons John Perkins, Ed Zastawny, Keith Fetz, Connie Sellers, Barbara Wilson, Phil McCauley, and Ron Grooms. Absent: None. Following discussion, Councilperson Grooms made the motion to add as agenda item 9A, James Ward regarding police radios, 15A, Ordinance No. 2006-OR-5, 15B, Resolution To Advertise For An Additional Appropriation, and 15C, Ordinance regarding a lease, second by Councilperson Fetz passing on a vote of 7-0. Mayor Waiz presented the minutes for consideration by the Council. Councilperson McCauley asked that the April 17 workshop minutes be tabled, as he would like to check some dates and numbers. Council President Wilson made the motion to approve the April 17, 2006 (7:30 P.M.) minutes as presented, second by Councilperson McCauley, passing on a vote of 7-0. Clerk Treasurer Wilder presented the claim list for consideration by the Council explaining four additional TIF claims .and one vehicle maintenance claim. Following discussion, Councilperson Perkins made the motion to approve the claims with the additional claims, deleting the claim to the Sewer Department for River Falls Motel, second by Councilperson McCauley, passing on a vote of 7-0. May15,2006 2 PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. Derek Spence appeared before the Council to express his concern for a recent newspaper article regarding the Mayor's proposed use of EDIT Funds. Mr. Spence also finds the proposed trash Ordinance confusing regarding cans. Mr. James Ward of RCS Communications appeared before the Council with information and equipment details and pricing to convert the police radios to Project Hoosier Safe-T. The pricing is a Stat~ Bid price. The current system is 800 MHZ and has many "dead" areas. It would cost less to install this system before the ceiling is installed in the new City Hall. Councilperson Sellers noted this should have been considered in the bond. Following discussion, Councilperson Fetz made the motion to authorize the Mayor to enter into a contract for the new radio system with the Council agreeing to use EDIT funds to pay for the system, second by Councilperson Sellers. Councilperson Zastawny is concerned for the last minute decision, as this should have been planned. Councilperson Fetz is confident with this being a State Bid and feels radio communication is more important than laptop computers. Councilperson Grooms asked if financing is available. Mr. Ward answered no. The motion was approved on a vote of 7-0. AGENDA ITEMS: Fire Chief Clark Miles appeared before the Council to say he has purchased two vehicles at the State Bid price. Coun~ilperson Fetz asked if the Fire Department would be on the new radio system. Chief Miles said they would not. Councilperson Grooms asked if this was financed. Chief Miles said it would be a purchase in the amount of $42,485.38. Following all discussion,I Councilperson Sellers made the motion to pay for the vehicles with EDIT funds, second by Councilperson Perkins, passing on a vote of 7-0. City Attorney Les Merkley asked that Ordinance No. 2006-OR-26, An Ordinance Regulating Street Lighting be tabled. Councilperson Zastawny made the motion to table Ordinance No. 2006-OR-25, second by Councilperson Sellers, passing on a vote of 7-0. Clerk Treasurer Peggy Wilder explained the need for passage of Ordinance No. 2006-OR-27, (General Fund, Department of Finance, Aquatic Center Bond). Councilperson Perkins made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-27 on the second and third readings, second by Councilperson Sellers, passing on a vote of 7-0. May 15, 2006 3 Clerk Treasurer Peggy Wilder asked that the Capital Asset Ordinance be removed from the agenda. Councilperson Fetz made the motion to. remove Capital Asset Ordinance from the agenda, second by Councilperson Sellers, passing on a vote of 7-0. Street Commissioner Ron Elli~ appeared before the Council explaining the need for passage of Ordinance No. 2006-OR-26, An Ordinance Of Additional Appropriation (Local Roads and Street, Street SweePers). Commissioner Ellis explained the need for street sweepers now and in the future.' Following all discussion, Councilperson Perkins made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-26 on the second and third reading, second by Council President Wilson, passing on a vote of 7-0. Councilperson Grooms present:ed and explained Ordinance No. 2006-OR-28, An Ordinance Regarding Refuse/Garbage Collection. Councilperson Grooms said this is a result of three months of meetings with Commissioner Ellis, Mayor Waiz, City Attorney Merkley, and employees. A review of the current Ordinance was included in the study. An explanation of the cans to be used was given. Commissioner Ellis explained the problems with plastic and cardboard containers. Councilperson Grooms explained it would take time to have all homes in compliance. The use of the cans does speed up collection. The cost to customers arid the means to pay for the cans was discussed. Councilperson Fetz questioned apartment compliance. Commissioner Ellis said that should be discussed at a workshop. Commissioner Ellis said this Ordinance would give guidance. Councilperson Grooms made the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-28 on the first reading, second by Council President Wilson. Councilperson Fetz would like to discuss this further at a workshop. The motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-28 on the first reading passed on a vote of 7-0. Councilperson Perkins explained the need to work on Ordinance No. 2006-OR-5, An Ordinance Establishing A Purchase Order System For Funds Originating From The City General Fund, making the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-5 on the second reading, second by Councilperson Grooms, passing on a vote of 7-0. City Attorney Les Merkley presented Ordinance No. 2006-OR-29, An Ordinance Regarding Approval Of A Lease BetWeen The City Of Jeffersonville, Indiana And The Jeffersonville Building Corporation, eXplained the need to have a public hearing on June May15,2006 4 5, 2006. Councilperson Grooms made' the motion to pass Ordinance No. 2006-OR-29 on the first reading, second by Councilperson Sellers, passing on a vote of 7-0. CLERK TREASURER COMMENTS: Clerk Treasurer Wilder presented and explained the estimate of funds to be received from the major moves program. Councilperson Zastawny asked if the distribution is based on road miles and whether the City road miles have been corrected. Clerk Treasurer Wilder explained the roads are a part of the capital asset contract. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Clerk Treasurer Perkins reviewed a recent meeting with Umbaugh and department heads regarding the proposed annexation. He explained the road addition would be substantial. The committee is moving at a deliberately slow pace. Councilperson Fetz announced the Ethics Committee would meet Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 6:00 P.M. in the Mayor's Conference Room. COUNCIL AND MAYOR COMMENTS: Councilperson McCauley thanked City Attorney Les Merkley for providing an Ordinance for a Park Department Fund. Councilperson Grooms reviewed a thank you letter from Mr. Ed Carly of the Boys and Girls Club. Councilperson Grooms thanked Police Officer Claris Martin for his attendance tonight. Councilperson Grooms also thanked Mayor Waiz and the Street Department for current paving projects. Councilperson Perkins said the Animal Control Ordinance has been signed. City Attorney Les Merkley will advertise the Ordinance. Councilperson Perkins will be conducting a meeting to get signatures to place River Boat Gaming on the ballot this fall. He has approximately half the required signatures and has received no serious opposition. Councilperson Zastawny received a call regarding a resident housing 8-10 adults. He feels this needs to be addressed and would like to have this as a workshop topic. Councilperson Fetz thanked the Council for the Police radio approval. Councilperson Fetz called attention ~to a Boy Scout in the audience. Mr. Michael Tennyson explained he is working on a Scout badge. Councilperson Sellers was in the Clerk Treasurer's Office when a gentleman came to ask for a copy of the new animal ordinance prior to obtaining a dog. May 15, 2006 5 Councilperson Sellers informed the Council The Plan Commission has asked Attorney Jack Vissing to write an Ordinance dealing with builders that do not follow conditions. Councilperson Sellers is concerned forl the City Hal bond issue. She believes that with no more change orders the project will be $250,000 over. Councilperson Perkins believes the furniture cost will be about $100,000, with $200,000 in the budget. An EDIT report is requested for the next meeting. Councilperson McCauley explained the operating expenses would be paid from the rent line. Council President Wilson reported the dance floor at Warder Park has been completed. The Concerts In The Park will start this Friday. JeffFest and the garden tour are being planned. A workshop will be held Monday June 5, 2006, at 5:30 P.M. Topics for discussion are: Trash pickup, Police radios, EDIT Funds, and Purchase Order Ordinance. Councilperson Grooms said the remainder of the $350,000 building rent would be used for utilities in the new building. Mayor Waiz thanked all for attending and w~~d//evening. As there was no further business to com~'l before/ff~/Igouncil,// the meeting was adjourned 8:55 P.M. (~ / ROBERT L. WAIZ, 5MAYOR PEGGY WILDER, CLERK AND TREASURER County 1. ADAMS 2, ALLEN 3. BARTHOLOMEW 4. BENTON 5. BLACKFORD 6. BOONE 7. BROWN 8. CARROLL Major Moves Proceeds Annual County, City and Town Distributions for 2006 and 2007 City/Town Annual Two-Year Total 455,672.29 911,344.58 BERNE 28,600.00 57,199.99 DECATUR 65,662.83 131,325.67 GENEVA 9,427.66 18,855.32 MONROE 5,058.41 10,116.82 FORT WAYNE GRABILL HUNTERTOWN LEO CEDARVILLE MONROEVILLE NEW HAVEN WOODBURN 1,540,029.50 3,080,059.00 1,519,493.65 3,038,987.29 7,670.31 15,340.62 15,719.66 31,439.32 19,172.33 38,344.67 8,517.97 17,035.95 85,496.76 170,993.52 10,881.78 21,763.56 566,746.33 1,133,492.65 CLIFFORD 2,005.45 4,010.89 COLUMBUS 269,177.65 538,355.29 ELIZABETHTOWN 2,694.60 5,389.20 HARTSV[LLE 2,591.23 5,182.46 HOPE 14,747.95 29,495.90 JONESVlLLE 1,516.14 3,032.29 AMBIA BOSWELL EARL PARK FOWLER OTTERBEIN * OXFORD 389,957.48 779,914.95 1,357.64 2,715.28 5,699.32 11,398.65 3,342.41 6,684.82 16,643.13 33,286.26 9,041.73 18,083.47 8,759.18 17,518.36 228,123.13 456,246.25 HARTFORD CITY 47,744.76 95,489.53 MONTPELIER 13,293.83 26,587.66 SHAMROCK LAKES 1,157.78 2,315.57 ADVANCE JAMESTOWN* LEBANON THORNTOWN ULEN WHITESTOWN ZIONSVlLLE 569,410.87 1,138,821.74 3,873.06 7,746.12 6,105.93 12,211.85 98,011.84 196,023.68 10,764.62 21,529.25 847.66 1,695.33 3,245.93 6,491.85 60,473.48 120,946.97 NASHVILLE 274,209.98 548,419.96 5,685.54 11,371.08 BURLINGTON CAMDEN 473,581.30 947,162.60 3,149.45 6,298.89 4,010.89 8,021.78 3/21/2006 NOTE: Distributions based on current MVH formula 1 County 9. CASS 10. CLARK 11. CLAY 12. CLINTON 13. CRAWFORD 14. DAVIESS Major Moves Proceeds Annual County, City and Town Distributions for 2006 and 2007 City/Town Annual Two-Year Total DELPHI 20,778.07 41,556.14 FLORA 15,347.52 30,695.03 YEOMAN 661.59 1,323.18 570,284.73 1,140,569.46 GALVESTON 10,557.88 21,115.76 LOGANSPORT 135,653.57 271,307.14 ONWARD 558.22 1,116.43 ROYAL CENTER 5,733.78 11,467.56 WALTON 7,367.08 14,734.17 531,147.81 1,062,295.61 CHARLESTOWN 41,301.15 82,602.30 CLARKSVlLLE 147,479.50 294,958.99 JEFFERSONVILLE 188,567.01 377,134.01 NEW PROVIDENCE 5,637.30 11,274.60 SELLERSBURG 41,838.69 83,677.38 UTICA 4,072.92 8,145.83 BRAZIL CARBON CENTER POINT CLAY CiTY HARMONY KNIGHTSVILLE STAUNTON 435,287.30 870,574.61 56,428.14 112,856.27 2,301.78 4,603.57 2,012.34 4,024.67 7,022.50 14,045.01 4,245.20 8,490.41 4,300.34 8,600.67 3,790.36 7,580.72 505,536.64 1,011,073.27 COLFAX 5,292.72 10,585.44 FRANKFORT 114,827.26 229,654.52 KIRKLIN 5,278.94 10,557.88 MICHIGANTOWN 2,797.98 5,595.95 MULBERRY 9,558.60 19,117.20 ROSSVILLE 10,426.94 20,853.88 288,661.56 577,323.12 ALTON 365.25 730.51 ENGLISH 4,638.02 9,276.05 LEAVENWORTH 2,432.72 4,865.45 MARENGO 5,713.11 11,426.22 MILLTOWN* 6,422.94 12,845.88 502,151.33 1,004,302.65 ALFORDSVILLE 771.86 1,543.71 CANNELBURG 964.82 1,929.64 ELNORA 4,968.82 9,937.64 MONTGOMERY 2,536.10 5,072.19 ODON 9,482.79 18,965.59 PLAINVlLLE 3,535.37 7,070.75 WASHINGTON 78,426.01 156,852.02 3/21/2006 NOTE: D stributio~s based on current MVH formula 2 0 SAFE-T for.., media elected officials first responders public kids When Hoosier families are in danger because of n~tural disaster, crime or medical emergencies, response time is measured in lives, not seconds. And when a firefighter is trapped in a burning building or a police officer needs ibackup, the ability to get immediate help can mean the difference between life and death. Most Hoosier citizens believe our public safety officers have the ability to to interoperate, that is, communicate with each other, within towns, cities, counties and even across the state. Sadly, this is not true in most cases. The reality is that most police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel and other public safety officials, even within a town, use separate communications networks. This duplication is not only expensive, it puts the public and safety personnel at risk. That's where Project Hoosier SAFE-T (Safety Acting for Everyone I Together) comes in. More tnformatio_n NEWS 20,000 USEI~ As of 10:00 art There are now in the SAFE-T .~ responders in ( agencies and 3 now have inter communication SAFE-T Recei' Award The Tnternatior Chiefs of Police Indiana's Proje as the recipienl 2006 Excellet Award. R~ad~r extremely pres Rebanding U~ IPSC has hired Consulting, to I massive 800MF Hurricane Kat again, that int¢ communication successful disa: recovery. C_ lick articles and wa N ee_cLT_r aj_n_.ln~ ........................................................................................................ C_U r re_q_t~M_a p_ ¢ SAFE-T in the _N_(~_Archive_ p_S_A Todav _L~_w _& Order_a._r Key Points _S+A~EE-~T_ _by th, Radio communications interoperability is the ability for fire, police, emergency medical service and other public safety professionals to talk and/or exchange data with each other on demand, when needed. [nteroperability is a challenge because public safety agencies, emergency medical service and other public safety professionals often use stand-alone radios that equipment incompatibilities and cost are the main barriers to interoperability. · Achieving interoperability means that agencies must develop shared procedures and agreements. Even some types of incompatible equipment can be configured to provide limited intercommunication, but shared resources save public money. Project Hoosier SAFE-T Implementation Map LEGEND t Completed Sites Updated $,4.06 Skip Ender Navigation accessIndiana A~gencg_Ljsting INSha~pe Indiana Policies Contact Webmaster Help Go · SAFE-T for... · media · elected officials · first responders · public · kids SAFE-T Advantages SAFE-T will help agencies save lives and save money. The SAFF-T network provides public safety agencies with a cost-efficient alternative to upgrade communications. Agencies can eliminate system infrastructure costs because the IPSC funds the backbone and maintenance costs of the SAFE-T network. Currently, taxpayers may be paying for as many as 3-5 separate radio networks in a jurisdiction that may not allow first responders to communicate with each other. SAFE-T will allow local jurisdictions to operate under a single unified network that saves taxpayer dollars. Other network advantages include: · User equipment prices won't change for 7 years, with discounts of 20-25 percent available when purchased through IPSC; · Volume discount on maintenance; · Advanced state-of-the-art technology to replace outmoded, disparate communication systems that may be up to 40 years old; and · Support from the IPSC and project vendor Motorola. Project Hoosier Safe-T Integrated Public Safety Commission lO0 North Senate Avenue, Room N340 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Chang_e_ Text Only Setting~ Graphic version of this pac~ Skip Ender Navigation accesslndiana A~ency Listing INShape Indiana Policies Contact Webmaster Help G~o · SAFE-T for... · media · elected officials · first responders · public · kids SAFE-T Cost Advantages Today, most public safety agencies OPerate stand-alone radio systems. Only officers who use compatible equipment can communicate with each other. However, costs associated with any system infrastructure - towers, equipment and system maintenance - are expensive. In fact, radio towers and system maintenance can comprise as much as 60 percent of the total network cost. Project Hoosier SAFE-T saves money for local jurisdictions by eliminating user agencies' system infrastructure costs. The TPSC is committed to providing an effective, reliable statewide network for public safety agencies. Local officials can invest dollars in other crime fighting activities. SAFE-T Eliminates Local Infrastructure Costs The SAFE-T network can generate significant savings for participating agencies. Installation and maintenance of system infrastructure is the most expensive portion of any communication network. Expenses for building a single communication site can be as much as $500,000, plus periodic maintenance costs. Agencies who join the SAFE-T network don't have to worry about investing in infrastructure costs. IPSC provides the system infrastructure, which can generate significant savings for local agencies and jurisdictions, The IPSC has committed to providing the statewide network infrastructure with no monthly or annual fees, so agencies only need to provide less expensive user equipment for dispatchers and front-line users. The SAFE-T network will save lives and save on the bottom line! SAFE-T Permits Agencies to Manage System Resources Even though IPSC is building a netw'ork that reaches all of Indiana, it does not mean that agencies lose system control. The SAFE-T network provides talkgroups - user lists that allow each agency to decide who will communicate on the network and which discussions can be heard by persons outside the agency. For instance, agencies can establish a talkgroup specifically for commanders, so critical strategic information can be discussed without being broadcast to a wider audience. Also, they can establish talkgroups that allow officers to communicate with each other, or to call a neighboring jurisdiction for assistance. Either way, the SAFE-T network allows agencies to manage their own system resources. Project Hoosier SafeIT Integrated Public Safety Commission 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N340 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Change Text Only Settings_ Graphic version of this pacjL~ Skip Ender Navigation accessIndiana Agency Listi.n_g INShape Indiana Policies Contact Webmaster Help Go · SAFE-T for... · media · elected officials · first responders · public · kids Endorsements "Whenever a public safety emergency strikes, such as a devastating fire, flooding, tornadoes, and in the day-to-day interaction among public safety professionals, there is no real integrated communications system statewide. Throughout our state, fire, law enforcement, and medical professionals cannot talk to each other effectively. The recent tragedies at public schools across the country have demonstrated in terrible detail the overwhelming need for public safety response officials to be able to communicate efficiently and productively. By working as a team, Project Hoosier SAFE-T will make a difference for local communities." - M. Tracy Boatwright, Indiana State Fire Marshal, September 13, 1999 "Now that we have the SAFE-T system on line, we are very happy with'~t. It has been a huge asset for our officers on the street. We are looking forward to having Montgomery County officers come on the system, so that we can take advantage of SAFE-T's interoperability." - Dave Johnson, Chief of Police, City of Crawfordsville, Zndiana, January 22, 2003 "As the former Executive Director of Indiana's State Emergency Management Agency and the former CommisSioner of the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management for the City of New York, I have significant experience with integrated communications systems in disaster response situations. ! am writing in support of your efforts to develop Project Hoosier SAFE-T. Following the September 11th terrorist attack, communications interoperability is vital for effective and safe operations." - Jerome Hauer, Kroll, October 17, 2001 "Project Hoosier has several positive aspects as follows: A reduction in searching for data resulting in better information to make critical decisions. Federal, state, and local agencies can partner to use limited resources in a more effective manner. Systems will be compatible and agencies will be able to exchange critical information in 'real time'. Cost savings due to partnerships in technology. A more effective and efficient multi-agency response to major events occurring in the state. · Airplane/train accidents · Criminal activity · Terrorism · Natural disasters Project Hoosier SAFE-T is innovative, and it will enable public safety agencies to provide more effective and efficient services to the citizens of the state. Citizens expect and deserve the best public safety services and these services cannot be the best without an integrated communication system." - George $. Ake, Project Coordinator, Capital Wireless Integrated Network, October 15, 2001 "As a local elected official involved in the search and rescue efforts of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, T am writing in support of your efforts to develop Project Hoosier SAFE-T, a statewide voice and data communications system that will enable local, state and federal public safetyLagencies to communicate with each other during disasters, emergency ~t~uations and in daily operations. During search and rescue efforts at the Oklahoma City bombing, our public safety personnel had limited capability to communicate with the many agencies that responded. For example, fire fighters, law enforcement officers and emergency medical personnel were not on the same radio systems. Furthermore, federal, state and local agencies were also operating on separate radio systems. While the hard work of our first responders saved many lives, the ability to communicate on one radio system would have significantly increased the safety of rescuers and those individuals they served. Your efforts with Project Hoosier SAFE-T will address many of the same issues we faced in Oklahoma City and that Indiana's public safety agencies face today - outdated radio communications equipment and lack of interoperability. :[ commend the teamwork and commitment demonstrated by Indiana to develop an integrated radio communications system that will enable local, state and federal public safety agencies to respond more safely and effectively to incidents like ours." - Ann Simank Councilwoman, Ward 6, The City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, October 17, 2001 "I know that a great deal of planning and effort has been put forth by the state and I am particularly impressed by the Hoosier Safe-T project. That is an excellent use of the money as it benefits all local governments in the state." - Sonya L. Margerum, Mayor, City of West Lafayette, Indiana, April 25, 2003 "As a recent attendee of the National Interoperability forum in Washington, DC, I am writing in support of your efforts to develop Project Hoosier SAFE-T, a statewide voice and data communication system that will enable local, state, and federal public safety agencies to communicate with each other during disasters, emergency situations, and in daily operations. Your efforts with Project Hoosier SAFE-T will address many of the same issues we faced in Beaverton and Washington County and that Indiana's public safety agencies face today - outdated radio communication equipment and lack of interoperability." - Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, Oregon, October 16, 2001 "On December 6, 2001, a gunman entered a factory in Goshen, Indiana, and started shoOting employees of the factory. Numerous agencies responded to the scene and initiated action t0 resolve the situation. Our department was one of those agencies. As it turned out, the gunman took his own life after fatally wounding one person and injuring six others. Cooperation between all agencies was excellent. However, as is common in Indiana, any time agencies try to work together, radio communication is poor at best. Police agencies typically cannot communicate with each other, nor with emergency medical people, nor fire support personnel. Goshen was not an exception to this. Routinely, information had to be passed from one agency to another before the people that needed the information could get it. This created some confusion and obviously delayed reactions in this situation. Project Hoosier SAFE-T would have had a very positive impact on the communications at this incident and hopefully getting SAFE-T in full operation could alleviate or reduce potential problems in the future. As T stated earlier, this is not uncommon. ! have been on numerous details where T had three different radios. This was necessary so T could communicate with other agencies. Tt is not only inefficient, it is impractical and not very safe in emergency situations. Hopefully this situation can be remedied in the not too distant future." - Larry R. Rollins, Captain, Zndiana State Police, North Field Operations, December 27, 2001 "T am writing you to reinforce our commitment to a better communications system for emergency workers such as police, fire, and EMS. As Sheriff of Elkhart County T recently had to deal with an 'active shooter' situation at Nu- Wood Tndustries, a business here in Elkhart County. As the situation unfolded and eventually was concluded, there were a number of jurisdictions on scene willing to assist in whatever way was necessary. Assisting agencies came from as far away and Tndianapolis, and included the FBT, ATF, Tndiana State Police, along with local fire, EMS, police departments, and Goshen College. There were a number of logistical problems that had to be dealt with. The next problem was not being able to communicate with various agencies at the scene. T believe you are aware Of that problem, and are working to remedy it through the Project Hoosier SAFE-T. T would encourage you to continue to work on that agenda item, finding full State funding in order to provide the necessary communications service to officers and agencies providing public service and protection to the citizens of Tndiana." - Thomas G. Snider, Sheriff, Elkhart County, Zndiana, December 27, 2001 "As a member of the Tntegrated Public Safety Commission, T am proud that the City of Greenwood was the first municipality to join the Project Hoosier SAFE-T Network. The network has been deployed for a year, and it has been a significant asset for our public safety officers. The SAFE-T network played a pivotal role in helping our public safety officers respond quickly and efficiently after the September 20th tornado that damaged dozens of homes and businesses throughout our city. T look forward to Project Hoosier SAFE-T's full statewide implementation. Based on its performance in the City of Greenwood, 1[ believe the SAFE-T network will be a huge success for public safety agencies and for the c t zens of Tndiana." - Charles E. Henderson, Mayor, City of Greenwood, Indiana, January 7, 2003 Project Hoosier Safe-T Tntegrated Public Safety Commission 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N340 1[ndianapolis, :Indiana 46204 Change Text Only Settings Graphic version of this pa~g~ LA%' ana ORDER Print Email Indiana's safe-T Interoperable Communications By 3ames Careless In the world of interoperable rst responder communications, the Hoosier state of Indiana is no Johnny-come-lately. In fact, the Indiana officials recognized the need for interoperable communica- tions as far back as 1990. Unfortunately, a lack of political interest kept funds tight. Only after 9/11 was the state legislature willing to provide funds for a new statewide radio system. Today, what is now called project Hoosier SAFE-T (Safety Acting for Everyone-Together) is well on its way to completion. Funded through the Bureau of Motor Vehicle Fees through 2019, Project Hoosier SAFE-T promises to connect local, state, and federal first responders/public officials "throughout 95% of Indiana with 95% reliability," David Smith said. Smith is Project Hoosier S^FI~-T's director of implementation, acting on behalf of the Integrated Public Safety Commission (IPSC). Established by the state legislature in 1999, the I'PSC is made up of government, first responder, and private sector members. Architecture Project Hoosier SAFE*T is being built upon a I~otorola 4.1 Astro Smartzone OmniLink 800 IVIHz trunked voice and data system. It will be distributed statewide through 126 transmission sites in Indiana, providing direct wireless connections for both analog and digital 800 MHz radios. However, agencies using either VHF or UHF radios won't have to replace their technology because all participating dispatch centers will be connected to the SAFE-T network by landline or control stations. The idea is to migrate all IncJiana public safety users to the 800 IVlHz band so that they can direct-connect to the SAFE-T network. To motivate them, agencies will get 20-25% off Motorola's list prices plus volume maintenance discounts. Project 25 Phase One radios made by other manufacturers wi~l'talk to the SAFE-T network as Once an agency is connected to the SAFE-T network, communicating with other agencies will be as easy as tuning their radio to a local talk group. "Project Hoosier iSAFE-T has provisioned interoperable talk groups on the network," Smith explained. "These are available for fast activation and access, making inter-agency communications a snap." To date, 56 SAFE-T transmissions sites are on-air, geographically covering about 50% of ]Indiana. The whole network is scheduled to be finished by the end of 2006. Cost Mindful of the cost pressures facing local agencies, Project Hoosier SAFE-T will cost around $78 million to build. Despite DHS grant increases, equipment is still very expensive. The important message is that indiana is building a system for much less money than other states and with less financial pressure on local first responders. Member agencies do not have to pay any user fees because the bill is being footed by the state. Better yet, the iPSC will take care of constructing and maintaining the network's 129 transmission sites. All that the member agencies will have to pay for is user and dispatch center equipment, much of which is eligible for government grants. The local agencies save in at least three ways. First, they don"c have to pay for infrastructure construction and maintenance. Second, they dont pay user fees, which is unique to indiana. And finally, they get a price break on Motorola equipment through the negotiated QPA. Performance Under Fire Even though Project Hoosier SAFE-T has yet to be completed, the partially finished network has already proved its worth in Johnson Cognty, IN. In 1996, a Force I tornado with winds up to ~.12 mph ripped through this part of south central indiana. Due to the existence of 18 incompatible radio systems in the county, first responders could not talk to each other. As a report on the National institute of Justice's website comments, "Communications chaos reigned." l[ronically, over 30 of the first responders on the scene were able to access a common channel. However, they were se busy talking all over each other that this channel was basically useless. As a result, "control and calm was not restored for 96 hours," the ND report read. Six years later, a Force 3 tornado with winds up to 206 mph came through Johnson County. it took a parallel course just 1,000 feet to the east of the 1996 twister. This time, the damage was greater, with total costs estimated at $7 million. However, thanks to the implementation of the Project Hoosier SAFE-T network within the county, the 13 responding agencies were able to talk to each other seamIessly, even though the system carried 4,000 interoperable transmissions during the first two hours of use. All told, the SAFE-T network carried 12,995 transmissions during the seven hours it took to restore control and calm to Johnson County. "The nearly unanimous reports from various local government and public safety offcials was that the new communications system performed extremely well," concludes the NIJ report. Certainly the fact that it only required seven hours to restore control and calm in 2002 versus 96 hours--four days--in 1996 says it all. The Bottom Line For states looking to tackle interoperability head-on, Project Hoosier SAFE-T presents a model worth studying. Besides choosing a technological selution that minimized equipment purchases by local agendes, the IPSC's derision to bear the brunt of the cost made the system even more attractive to them. Of course, this decision came with consequences. Among them, the commission had to endure numerous defeats--including a failed attempt to win a share of riverboat gambling revenues--before 9/11 convinced state legislators to provide access to funding. Still, the IPSC's consideration of local agencies and their needs helped build Iooal support for its plans, which put pressure on state politidans to get onside. "During hearings on the bill that created the iPSC, representatives of the public safety and government assodations testified in a historic demonstration of unity," says the ND report. "When the testimony was complete, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee asked committee members if there was anyone who dared to vote against the bill." Implications for Interoperability The fact that it took 9/11 to make the IPSC and Project Hoosier SAFE-T a reality in no way lessens Indiana's interoperability achievements. 'If anything, it was the unshakable commitment of the state's interoperability advocates--including first responders, government, and industry members--that made it possible for such a solution to be at hand when state politicians finally got onside. Once deployed, the value of a statewide radio network was made dear dudng the 2002 Johnson County tornado. Despite the fact that the twister was more devastating than the one that occurred six years eadier, the existence of interoperable communications resulted in a far quicker restoration of public safety and order. Add the fact that Project Hoosier SAFE-T doesn't expect cash-poor local agencies to pay a heity share of its costs, and one can see why this model is a viable interoperability solution. Granted, it is not the only way to confront the interoperability challenge, as has been shown by other approaches covered by LAW and ORDER. For instance, some jurisdictions may not like the fact that Project Hoosier SAFE-T relies on a proprietary technology (Motorola), or that it is founded on a statewide radio system. However, it is difficult to refute the success of Project Hoosier SAFE-T as exemplified by the 2002 3ohnson County response. One word of advice: if you are considering replicating the Project Hoosier SAFE-T model in your jurisdiction, be sure to find someone in goverhment to champion the proposal, and have some firm, practical sources of funding available. Now that the horrors of 9/11 have faded somewhat from legislators' minds-despite what they may say--this kind of project will need solid political support and ready money to become a reality in this day and age. Get this kind of support, and you too may realize the kind of interoperability that Indiana is about to achieve. 3 ames Careless is a freelance wdter who specializes in first responder communications issues. He may be reached at info@tjtdesign.com. Hendon Publishinq Homepaqe