Get documents about "PSAP Committee notes 12042003 - PSAP Consolidation and Minimum
Document Sample
PSAP Consolidation and Minimum Standards Advisory
Committee
Meeting Notes
Dec. 4, 2003
PSAP Committee members or alternates present: Tim Leslie, Jim Beutelspacher, Bill Mund, Dave
Thomalla, Michele Tuchner, John Tonding, Pete Eggiman, Pat Medure, Rick Juth, Heather Alex,
Norman Foster, Jay Henthorne, Nancy Pollock, and Pat Wallace.
Guests: Mike Stockstead, Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters; Anne Ness, Hennepin County
Sheriff’s office; Becky Holm, Swift County; Richard Neitz, Minnesota State Patrol – St. Cloud; Rollie
Helgesen, Wright County; Pat Eyestone and Scott Heide, Crow Wing County.
Update on MAD’s research and process
The Management Analysis Division (MAD) consultant, Charlie Petersen, updated the committee on
MAD efforts over the past month. He noted:
! Metro area interviews are almost completed and interviews have started in greater Minnesota.
! The PSAP survey has been sent out and a few are starting to trickle in.
! MAD consultants attended the Sheriffs’ Association Conference on December 2, 2003 and
were available to respond to conference attendees’ questions about the PSAP study. They felt it
was an open and honest discussion on the topic.
! MAD consultants have also been researching best practices on PSAP structure and operation in
other states. Included in this research are incentives and/or cost structures that other states,
counties, and cities use to assist in the creation and operation of PSAPs in their jurisdictions.
The incentive and cost structure information will be presented to the committee to assist them
in their creation of incentives to operation of PSAPs in Minnesota.
PSAP Committee Discussion on Standards
The committee reviewed, discussed and edited three of the six standards worksheets. The committee
will continue its work on standards at the December 11, 2003 meeting. Please see Appendix A at the
end of the notes for the three standards’ areas that were edited and the three areas the still need to be
reviewed.
911 November 2003 fund forecast
Norman Foster from the Department of Finance and Jim Beutelspacher, 911 Program Director
reviewed and discussed the November 2003 Fund Balance for the 911 Program in Minnesota. The
presentation identified a $9.7 million dollar deficit in fiscal year 2004 and a continued deficit of
roughly $6.5 million dollars through fiscal year 2007. It was noted that the deficits were a result of
prior year obligations mainly to telephone companies for installation and upgrading of 911 equipment.
It was mentioned that the issue was being discussed with the administration and a plan would be
developed to address the deficit.
1
Incentives for PSAP consolidation and standards
A MAD consultant, Tom Helgesen, presented information he had been collecting as part of a best
practices review of what other states, counties and cities use as incentives for consolidation or
operation of PSAPs. The committee reviewed the information and will continue its discussion on
incentives at the December 11, 2003 meeting. Please see Appendix B for Mr. Helgesen’s presentation.
Next Steps
The next PSAP Committee meeting will be in St. Paul at the Administration Building on December 11,
2003. At this meeting, the committee will complete their initial work on standards and start to work on
developing incentives for consolidation of PSAPs.
2
Appendix A: Standards Drafts (pages 3 through 8)
Area for PSAP Standards Development: PSAP Performance Standards
12/04/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standard in place?)
911 calls will be answered and emergency incidents will be dispatched to first responders
promptly.
Major Issue(s) (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What
are the consequences of these standards being implemented?)
Roadblocks – Subjective definition of “emergency” or “life threatening” call.
Requirements could be thought of as arbitrary.
PSAP must have a way to measure and report on call dispatch times.
Consequences – In PSAPs where the standard is not being met due to staffing shortages
or the performance of tasks unrelated to 911 call response, the standard would have cost
and / or operational implications.
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota
1. 911 call answering standard, measured in seconds.
[An example for drafting the standard would be: “X”% of all 911 calls will be answered
in “X” seconds or less during a defined time (the busy hour of the busy normal day).]
2. PSAPs should have written performance requirements and dispatch time standards for
dispatching both emergency and non-emergency calls for service.
Comment: No standard should be set for call processing time. This is largely dependent
on the nature of the call. Setting mandatory standards in this area could actually be
counterproductive. Additionally, measurement of call processing time in non-CAD
environments would be difficult at best.
Who should develop standards? (committee, entities, task force, etc.)
Broad based committee representing primary stakeholders.
Timeframe
Developed by:
Implemented by:
Who developed worksheet: John Tonding / Heather Alex/PSAP Committee
3
Area for PSAP Standards Development: Personnel Standards for
PSAPs
12/04/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standard in place?)
These standards will insure requirements for staffing levels; call handling and
training for dispatchers are uniform statewide for all PSAP’s.
Major Issue(s) (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What
are the consequences of these standards being implemented?)
Cost will be an issue for some PSAP’s to conform to these standards. Although most
are staffed and handle calls, the training piece may be an issue for some.
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota
1. Hiring Qualifications/Standards – Hiring qualification will be developed to
include: background investigations, psychological pre-employment screening, and
physical requirements.
2. Staffing Levels – Minimum staffing levels will be determined to meet
performance standards.
Who should develop standards? (committee, entities, task force, etc.)
A task force of individuals with PSAP experience or knowledge assisted by local
administrators to oversee funding constraints.
Timeframe
Developed by: December 31, 2004
Implemented by: January 1, 2005
Who developed worksheet: (Name and phone number)
David Thomalla - 651-249-2602/PSAP Committee
4
Area for PSAP Standards Development: Certification for PSAP Personnel
12/04/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standard in place?)
Provide a higher quality of 911 service by insuring 911 personnel have the fundamental knowledge
to perform required tasks with an increased level of competency and professionalism. Minimum
training standards will reduce liability exposure and insure a consistent level of training for all
PSAP communications personnel in Minnesota.
Major Issue(s) (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What are the
consequences of these standards being implemented?)
Cost required for training personnel.
Developing training courses to include individual agency training needs/differences.
Cost of developing a certification program.
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota
1. A standard shall be developed for all entry level 911 personnel to complete a basic
telecommunicator training course.
2. Minimum of “X” hours continuing education required annually.
Who should develop standards? (committee, entities, task force, etc.)
A training committee representing agencies throughout the State of MN
Timeframe
Developed by:
Implemented by:
Who developed worksheet: (Name and phone number)
Pat Wallace / Michele Tuchner / Rick Juth
5
Area for PSAP Standards Development: DRAFT Infrastructure of PSAP 12/03/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standards in place?): A
secure 911 network and PSAP environment with diverse and redundant equipment, power, and
facilities designed to minimize vulnerability to any single point of failure and able to support staff
operations for extended periods of time without requiring staff members to leave the immediate
emergency communications area.
Major Issues (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What are the
consequences of these standards being implemented?): Increased cost to implement and
maintain the 911 network and PSAP facilities for some agencies.
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota Mandatory
Or Best
Practice?
1. Limit access to the PSAP – secure from the public – limit emergency M
personnel access
2. Secure equipment to prevent unauthorized access M
3. Sufficient 911 facilities to provide P.01 grade of service M
4. Redundant power supplies with a 4 hr minimum battery life M
5. Diverse 911 location databases M
6. Redundant 911 answering equipment (minimum of 2 answering positions) M
7. Ability to transfer a 911 call to another PSAP, with location data - (Both M
PSAPs on the same 911 service provider network)
8. Ability to transfer a 911 call to another PSAP, with location data – (PSAPs BP
on different 911 service provider networks)
9. Diverse 911 facilities from all telecommunications service provider switches BP
or routers to the 911 service provider selective routers
10. Redundant and diverse 911 service provider selective routers for all PSAPs BP
11. PSAP facilities that meet NFPA Part 1221 specifications BP
Who should develop standards? PSAP, public safety, 911 service provider, telecommunications
service provider, and MN 911 Program representatives
Time frame?
6
Area for PSAP Standards Development: DRAFT Administration of
PSAP
12/03/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standards in place?)
To establish a consistent level of administrative oversight for Minnesota PSAPs. PSAPs
will have a framework for administrative policies and procedures that enhance public
safety communication service and manage liability.
Major Issue(s) (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What
are the consequences of these standards being implemented?)
• Cost to develop - staff time and other dedicated resources
• Scope/Depth - standards must be basic enough to be attainable statewide but still
maintain integrity
• Bureaucracy - variations in PSAP governance structure could delay implementation
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota Mandatory or
• Each PSAP must have and maintain: Best Practice
1. A Written Records Retention Schedule and Data Practices Policy M
2. A Written Personnel Policy, agency-wide or specific to PSAP M
3. A Written Policy for addressing MSAG/911 database discrepancies M
4. A Written Training Plan/Manual for calltaker/dispatcher/supervisor M
5. A Written Business Continuity Plan for 911/radio/telephone M
communications
6. A Written Policy and Procedure to ensure facility security M
7. A Written Interoperability Plan listing communications resources M/B
in common with co-located agencies and neighboring jurisdictions
8. An Automated record-keeping system that allows for retrieval of M/B
call/incident data for analysis/review
9. A Written Standard Operating Procedure for communications M
personnel
Who should develop standards? (committee, entities, task force, etc.)
A multi-disciplinary task force/committee representing NENA, APCO and PSAP
management statewide.
Timeframe
Developed by: 18 months from adoption (or, January, 2006)
Implemented by: 36 months from adoption (or, January 2007)
Who developed worksheet: (Name and phone number)
Heather Alex 952-924-2122
7
Area for PSAP Standards Development: DRAFT PSAP Governance
12/03/03
Intended Outcomes (What will be accomplished by having these standard in place?)
Clearly defined authority, obligations, representation and accountability for
agencies/organizations who are part of the public safety answering point jurisdiction.
Major Issue(s) (What are the major roadblocks in implementing these standards? What are the
consequences of these standards being implemented?)
Loss of control; concern over the equality of representation; the need for consensus; lack of
flexibility; concern over creating more bureaucracy.
Key Standards to be adopted in Minnesota Mandatory
or Best
Practice
1. There shall be a written document outlining the membership and composition M
of the governing board, which defines their scope of authority and responsibilities.
2. The membership of the governing board shall be representative of the area M
served and agencies involved.
3. There shall be a legal agreement of the parties, which delineates geographic M
boundaries, participation, financial support, obligations, organizational structure,
and levels of cooperation.
4. There shall be written policies defining policy development, operational M
standards, decision-making process, command protocols, service priorities and
dispute resolution determined by a collaborative process of the parties.
5. There shall be an audit and review process defined which deals with M
governance structure, policy, financial, methods and procedures, and service
priorities.
Who should develop standards? (committee, entities, task force, etc.)
Representative stakeholders of the jurisdiction.
Timeframe
Developed by:
Implemented by:
Who developed worksheet: (Name and phone number)
8
Appendix B: Incentives Handouts (pages 9 through 12)
Presentation on “Best Practice”
Incentives to Consolidate PSAPs
December 15, 2003
Disclaimer: This information is based on the states sampled. This is preliminary broad stroke
information and may be amended or changed as more information comes in.
Outline
A. Underlying dynamic driving consolidations
B. Roles of states in consolidation
C. Methods that may encourage or enable consolidation
D. Points about consolidation incentives
A. Underlying dynamic
There is one underlying financial factor driving consolidations throughout the country: tight budgets.
This is a force influencing local jurisdictions to look at consolidation even without external incentives.
It appears to be happening at a slow rate. Local jurisdictions feel they can’t afford upgrades to service
or equipment without consolidation.
While the motive is often saving money, the outcome is sometimes (perhaps often) improved service
but not savings. The flip side of saving money is avoiding costs. In other words, a consolidation may
not save jurisdictions money but may help them avoid the full costs of upgrading by themselves.
B. Roles of states in consolidation
States are not doing much in terms of consolidating at the state level. New Hampshire is one exception.
It has consolidated all call taking into one state PSAP with 103 local dispatching centers.
States’ roles in consolidation appear to be financial, i.e., providing funding for planning or
implementation of consolidation or giving local jurisdictions tools to raise revenue that can fund
consolidation.
Another potential state role is education. There are many issues and problems to address with
consolidation. Best practice research found that a lot of these issues can be solved in the planning by
consolidation structures, procedures and technology. These solutions are often not well understood and
need to be explained.
Speakers are available from police and fire department personnel or consolidation coordinators to talk
on these topics. They bring a real world perspective and can talk peer-to-peer on problems and
solutions. The state’s role would be to promote education and bring these speakers together with
corresponding local groups.
9
C. Methods that may encourage or enable consolidation
1. Mandate consolidation with a financial threat and carrot. (Oregon mandated funding for
only one PSAP per county. The state director described this method as a disaster.)
2. Give equipment away and agree to support ongoing maintenance out of a fund. (New
Hampshire, Washington County Oregon)
3. Fund consolidation studies and implementation. (Connecticut gives study and
implementation grants to groups of 3 or more jurisdictions that want to pursue
consolidation.)
4. Fund consolidations or service improvements with local revenue tools: optional local line
surcharges that may be permanent and/or temporary; levy/referendum. (Washington
County, Oregon, Iowa)
5. Take costs away from local jurisdictions; pay for consolidation equipment, staff, facilities
etc. from state funds. (New Hampshire, Connecticut)
6. Enable local PSAPs to save money or avoid costs through economies of scale. (Washington
County, Oregon)
7. Precede consolidation with enhanced interoperability by giving away equipment upgrades
(like CAD) that meet standards and are compatible with a larger system. This makes
consolidation more convenient and holds out more potential for saving money. It breaks
down barriers. (Washington County, Oregon).
D. Points about consolidation incentives
• Interviewees believe that without financial incentives, states can’t succeed in motivating local
or regional consolidations.
• Interviewees did not have a consensus on whether consolidations actually save money. It
depends on a variety of circumstances including where the consolidating entities start from.
• Many interviewees thought gradual consolidation was the best approach. Consolidations take a
long time. Some successful consolidations have evolved over three decades beginning with
mutual aid agreements and telecommunications cooperation.
• The Oregon director said a big factor is relationships; many consolidations took place when
someone retired.
• Most consolidation funding goes for one-time costs.
• Local options may allow ongoing operational funding if it comes from a repeating source such
as line surcharges.
• Consolidation can spread liability especially if it is under an independent entity.
10
Incentives for PSAP Consolidation
Connecticut
Connecticut has grants for consolidation study and transition. They are available to
groups of three or more jurisdictions that want to consolidate.
• What will the grants pay for?
o Funding for a study – $20,000 is the base amount; $5,000 is added for each
town over three (if not part of a regional center already)
o Implementing transition to a consolidated center
o Equipment and radio but not facilities
o Annual amount to support operations; amount is set by formula
• What conditions go with the grants?
o The grants are only for standalone PSAPs that wants to regionalize
o A minimum of 3 single standalone jurisdictions must apply
o Existing radio equipment must go to the regional center. A task force report
said it would bankrupt the state 911 fund if it funded new radio systems as
part of the consolidations.
Connecticut had 108 PSAPs in 1996 when the grant program started. Now there are 107.
Several consolidations are in process and nearing completion. The state director expects the
number of PSAPs may go down to 97 with formation of 2 new regional PSAPs of 5
jurisdictions each. Another larger consolidation is possible involving about 20 jurisdictions.
Notes:
o Connecticut has no county government – counties were eliminated in the early
1950s; they were “too corrupt” and the state is so small.
o Connecticut has 169 municipalities
o There are 8 regional PSAPs. The size ranges from 4 up to 19 towns – mostly small
ones that don’t have 24 hour coverage
o The 8 regional PSAPs cover 80 of the 169 towns
o Regional PSAPs are incorporated entities that have contracts with the towns.
Line Charges
o Connecticut charges $.20 per line. It’s capped at $.50 by law. It goes into a state 911
fund and the PSAPs get an annual amount from the state 911 fund
o The money will pay for network, new equipment, but also operational funds for
regional centers under a formula,
o Single PSAPs get only equipment and network costs
o Cities greater than 70,000 population get more funding
11
Oregon
In 2001 the legislature mandated one PSAP per county. PSAPs throughout the state “went
ballistic.” A lot of plans were written and three consolidations took place. The state director
thinks these three would have happened anyway. Some smaller PSAPs are contracting with
bigger ones.
Oregon communities had already done a lot of local consolidation without a mandate – when it
made sense. The early consolidations involved mutual aid and/or telecommunications centers, not
911 PSAPs. They were angry the state was now telling them what to do.
In 1981 Oregon had 274 dispatch points. (Some were the local motel.)
There were 65 in late 80s
There were 57 by 2000
There were 54 by 2003
There were countywide service districts that had a tax base for communications. The districts put
everyone together that had radio systems and other telecommunications equipment. This included
911 operations. The big issue here was that the state 911 program was able to provide money for
enhancing telephone systems, networks, and databases.
The state collects a $.75 line charge (device and access line). Of that $.50 sent to cities and
counties. They must send it on to PSAPs. PSAPs spend most of it on personnel.
The two largest metropolitan areas in the state have one PSAP each.
12
