Three Counties Address Sharing Emergency Services

POMEROY—Sharing emergency management services, as a cost-reduction measure, was the topic of discussion when the Columbia County Commissioners and Columbia County Emergency Management Director Lisa Caldwell met with commissioners from Garfield and Asotin counties, the Garfield County Emergency Management Director, two Greater Spokane Area emergency management deputy directors, as well as a representative from the Washington State Military Department, on June 13.

The major area of concern for Caldwell is that the Tri-County Hazard Mitigation Plan that had been in place between Asotin, Garfield, and Columbia Counties was allowed to expire in 2015 due to the lack of resources and other time commitments on her department. She said her department had been the lead agency for that effort.

Commissioner Mike Talbott said the BOCC had looked into sharing some emergency management services two years ago. He said he sees the need for an interlocal agreement in order to reinstate the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

“In all the committees we get along really well. Let’s get the job done, and save money,” said Talbott.

Commissioner Merle Jackson agreed. “We need to save money by working together to strengthen our position,” he said.

Caldwell said good working relationships have been established between the three counties, based on the 10-community partnership for support of fire suppression.

Garfield County Commissioner Justin Dixon and Asotin County Commissioner Chris Seubert agreed that current and future budget constraints are making the conversation more urgent.

“What you want out of it rules how much you can put into it,” said Dixon about the need to pool resources. “I’d be in favor of looking at it pretty hard.”

The state rule for Homeland Security requires all counties to have a system in place for emergency management, to manage funding and to create partnerships, said Charma Anderson, Emergency Management Grants Supervisor with the Washington State Military Department.

The Military Department Administration works to bring all managers for emergency management together. When resources are exhausted, the counties are encouraged to reach out – first to neighboring entities, and then to the state, with the goal of solving problems together, Anderson said.

“You need an accepted plan to receive funds for the project side of hazard, flood and pre-disaster mitigation,” she said.

Anderson said there is no reason the three counties can’t join together, despite there being no current existing model in the state.

In general, the recommendation from the Military Department Mitigation Strategist is for Garfield and Columbia County to each prepare and submit individual pre-applications. If a decision is made to move forward with a multi-jurisdictional agreement at a later time, the funding can be pooled.

Having an interlocal agreement in place would help with coverage for vacations, and times when the EM managers are unavailable, and could be of assistance in updating the Five-Year Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans as well, Caldwell said.

Commissioner Jackson said he thought it would be a good idea to look into additional ways of sharing emergency management resources.

Caldwell said she thought it would be good to include Whitman County in the discussion, since they are facing “some of the same issues.”

John Hirsch, the Garfield County Emergency Management Director, has sent his Hazard Mitigation Plan to the state for review, and it should be close to being finished, he said.

The participants tossed out the idea of using Garfield County’s document as a template for a joint Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Commissioner Seubert said he will talk to his board of commissioners, and “get the dialogue going.”

Seubert said he will bring Asotin County’s emergency management director up to date, and he will notify everyone at the meeting of Asotin county’s intentions sometime in August.

The parties agreed to meet again in September for further discussion.

All commissioners at the meeting expressed budget concerns for the current, and upcoming years, and discussed current processes they were undertaking to determine which services were essential services, and how best to fund them in their respective communities.