City Exploring Waterford Partnership In Emergency Communications
New London inclusion on Waterford dispatch system has been one suggestion for improving emergency communications in southern portion of city
The Public Safety Committee took a tentative step Monday toward exploring cooperation with Waterford to provide emergency communications in the southern portion of New London, an option that has been suggested by opponents of a proposed 140-foot cell tower at Ocean Beach Park.
The committee voted unanimously to send a memorandum of understanding between the two communities to Law Director Jeffrey Londregan to ensure that it is non-binding. Under the proposal, New London would be able to use two channels on Waterford’s new $6.5 million communications system.
Lt. Brett Mahoney of the Waterford Police Department was present at the meeting and said the system should be able to cover 95 percent of southern New London’s needs 95 percent of the time, an accepted radio standard. He said this would come at an estimated annual maintenance cost of $204,000, which the municipalities would split. Mahoney said the communities would have separate communications in the event of such a partnership, but that they could be merged in the event of major emergencies.
“We essentially need your blessing to go forward with this in any way,” said Mahoney.
Such a move has been proposed as an alternative to the construction of a cylindrical tower in the parking lot of Ocean Beach Park. Message Center Management of Hartford has suggested that the tower would improve emergency communications and cell phone coverage in the area while providing an estimated $1.2 million in revenue to go toward the maintenance of the park.
Several residents in the nearby area have routinely showed up at city meetings to express their concerns. These include arguments that the tower will lower property values and that the emergency communications would be knocked out if the tower could not withstand a hurricane.
“Sharing your resources is much cheaper, and I know the feds love that,” said Steve Alligood of Waterford, a member of Save Ocean Beach and opponent of the project.
Public Works Director Tim Hanser said one alternative under consideration is relocating the tower to the east of the GAM building, which would allow the tower’s height to be reduced by 10 feet and the necessary equipment to be located on the building’s roof. Councilor Anthony Nolan suggested that another option would be the establishment of emergency call boxes.
Nancy Baude, another member of Save Ocean Beach and a supporter of the project, said she hopes the city will make a decision before summer. She said improved cell phone coverage is important to facilitate emergency calls.
“It’s a public safety thing. It’s not a frivolous thing,” she said.
Richard Waselik, a New London dispatcher, said he did not think there was a catch-all solution to poor communications in the area of the beach. Waselik said he did not think the Waterford system would be as effective as has been claimed, and noted that he has been unable to get cell coverage from directly beneath a tower in Mystic. However, he criticized the city’s pace on the issue of emergency communications for southern New London.
“This is not a joke,” said Waselik. “This is not a matter of where we can save money. This is people’s lives.”
Also on Monday, the council voted to have the Education, Parks and Recreation Committee further discuss a proposal to install a cell tower at Bates Woods Park. According to a letter from Robert Nenna, co-chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, members heard a presentation from AT&T during their December meeting and recommended to the council that income generated by the tower be earmarked for a ranger, maintenance, and equipment for city parks.
Clarification: The story originally said the Waterford system would provide 95 percent coverage for southern New London. Lt. Brett Mahoney commented on this story on the Waterford Patch to say that the system will provide 95 percent coverage 95 percent of the time, which he described as an accepted radio standard.
In This article
-
-
Ocean Beach Park
98 Neptune Ave, New London, CT -
Bates Woods Park
Chester St & Michael Rd, New London, CT
Doc Halliday
7:10 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The city of New London and New London County might want to look at counties across the country that have combined their emergency communications into one unit and found it less expensive and better response time. Example: Buncombe County N.C. and the city of Asheville, among others.. For the AT&T tower in Bates Woods, probably a good source of funds to help the park.
Thomas Cornick
9:22 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Ocean Beach
So we PAY to use Waterfords comm tower so that our comm tower and support structure does not block the water views of a few Waterford residents with pull.
Instead of generating revenue from our own tower to add to our budget.
Yes this sounds like a New London idea. If we make a tower a few feet higher it could go in the Fort Trumball area which is not exactly a park.
Ken
11:41 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I am trying to understand this democracy thing.
Local residents are concerned about how a change to be made by the municipality would affect their property values.
When that situation is in East NL, the residents have to fight tooth and nail to get their way. A referendum is held and the results show that the further away you live from the situation, the less likely you were to side with the local residents.
But, another situation is located in South NL. Would the results of a referendum on their issue mirror those of the last referendum?
More importantly, what is NL's policy for resolving issues that impact local areas of NL more intensely than the rest of NL?
I ask because much has been made of the only 19-vote difference in the last referendum. But, little has been made of the fact that it was the third district which made the vote so close.
Terry Horton
11:44 am on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Does anyone know if there is a petition FOR the tower at Ocean Beach? If so I would LOVE to add my name. If not I am willing to start one. I live in that area and literally have to walk outside my home to use my cell phone. I also am all for improving emergency communication.
Thomas Cornick
1:35 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Terry
Come to a city council meeting sign the speakers sheet and address the council on this issue..
Dirk Langeveld
4:50 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I just posted a clarification from Lt. Mahoney per a comment he left at the Waterford Patch.
RED DOG
5:28 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Tower at Ocean Beach would provide New london with a win, win, win situation, We would have 100% emergency communications, and cel lphone communications.
The existing osprey tower would be relocated to the Beach boardwalk and used as a clock tower, a New Pole for the Osprey with existing nest moved to site closer to cove. This improves better access into the beach in fact safer traffic flow.The best thing of all it will cost the taxpayers $00000.00, in fact we will be making money over a Million that is designated to go into an account for maintenance at Ocean Beach. Only a few Neighbors have issue with this based on non factual information and personal preference. Also If you live in Waterford to bad you don't pay New London's Taxes for our taxpayers. Last of all if you trust Waterford, beware even if we join their emergency communications system it will cost us $100,000 a year, it does nothing for cellular communication. I dont want you to be surprised when this happens but Waterford has plans to place a tower in the near proximity in Waterford after New London declines having one. Waterford is looking out for Waterford as they always have. New London should proceed cautiously entering into any joint venture with them. How can our leadership even consider spending funds during our financial crisis especially when they can make a profit, enhance public safety and infrastructure at the Beach.
Mary
9:35 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012
So the city would rather give up $1.2 million a year in favor of paying for a system that only covers 95% of the south end, and on top of that, pay for call boxes to cover that other 5%? All because the same wealthy individuals show up at every meeting and complain about their property values. Well, I don't want to pay Waterford for a system that won't even cover the whole city. This seems like a no-brainer. The public safety committee needs to start doing their job - forget the wealthy whiners, stop taking dictation from Waterford and put a tower at Ocean Beach that will benefit ALL of New London - safety-wise and financially.
RED DOG
2:53 pm on Thursday, February 9, 2012
Mary, I totally agree with you and what makes it a South end Vs north end issue is that the City has no problem easily planning on putting a cell tower at Bates Woods Park, to make money. But it doesnt matter if anyone or two people object to it as being an eye sore, or devaluing our property in this area. What a double standard they are setting!. I say I will complain about a north end tower for the same reasons the south end people are complaining. I will then stop when the tower is under construction at Ocean Beach where it was decided to be placed and then the City can construct the one at Bates Woods Park or within that area.
Both are of the same design and emit the same RF into the environment. Both serve a Public safety necessity. Councilors need to treat everyone equal and each location in the City on an equal basis. The Mayor should do something right for once since he became mayor elected by more than just the taxpayers and voters in the south end of the City.
RED DOG
11:45 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Susan, you speak of what is in the future not what is practicle now, the system you speak of is not within everyones reach and wallet, it is also not capable of being hand held to be able to transpond a communication signal, they are base units for homes or vehicles. And there is a different standard set in New London between the South end and North end it is blatantly obvious
RED DOG
5:03 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Susan Walsh, I am a citizen taxpayer you must have missed that the bates woods tower was on the agenda for the counsel and is being pursued diligently, and off course Hanser would not mention it under Public Safety. It is the means by which people get matters put into motion behind the backs of taxpayers. Lack of transparency and information. Well thanks for the invite but I know who you are and I am not impressed.