Elkins reviews E-911 plan
More than 100 streets pose addressing issuesBy CARRA HIGGINS, Staff Writer
By CARRA HIGGINS
Staff Writer
Elkins City Council on Tuesday received a list of more than 100 streets within the municipality's limits that present a problem with the county's E-911 mapping and addressing project currently under way. Now, council must decide as quickly as possible whether it will accept Landmark Forestry's plan for the city streets or go with their own.
Landmark Forestry, located in Upshur County, was contracted by the Randolph County Commission to address structures within the county to comply with state and federal regulations for emergency response. If council decides to allow Landmark Forestry to complete the addressing within Elkins' boundaries, the project will cost no money because the service has already been paid for with county funds, according to Office of Emergency Management Director Marvin Hill.
Elkins Operations Manager Bob Pingley noted to council that every structure within the city limits will have a new address if Landmark Forestry assigns the number.
Landmark Forestry representatives Jason Barnett and Tyler Wamsley told council that approximately 95 percent of structures within the city limits have already been assigned new address numbers. The structures that have not received a new number need a street name assigned to it, they explained.
Other than deciding whether to opt into the county's addressing program, council must also tackle street names. More than 100 streets and roads within the city limits conflict with names in Elkins, other county municipalities or elsewhere in the county. For example, Davis Avenue and Davis Street both exist within the city.
State E-911 mapping regulations say all roads and streets within the county should not have similar names, Barnett explained. For example, there is a Railroad Avenue in Elkins and Harman and a Railroad Street in Beverly, Mill Creek and near the southern part of the county, according to Landmark Forestry documents. Similar names could cause confusion for first responders to emergency situations, particularly if they are not familiar with the area, according to Barnett.
"As you can imagine it (re-naming) has stirred up some emotion with some landowners," Barnett said.
With the mapping and addressing, each structure is given a unique address that notes where it is located on a road. Barnett explained that, for example, buildings located along the second mile of the Parsons Road will be assigned an address in the 2000s, while those along the first mile will have an address in the 1000s.
While council was presented with the list of conflicting street names, Barnett said, "In order for us to proceed within the city we need to get these ironed out."
Councilwoman Hazel Burford, 2nd Ward, explained she does not see why there cannot be more than one municipality within the county with the same street name as another. If there is an emergency, the E-911 center should have enough information to let responders know which area of the county to respond.
"They (the state) don't want that," Barnett replied.
Some street names within the city limits may be easy to fix. Councilman Carmen Metheny, 3rd Ward, suggested combining North Randolph Avenue, Randolph Avenue and South Randolph Avenue into Randolph Avenue.
If streets within the city are re-named, Elkins will most likely have to pay for road signs, according to Hill.
Mayor Duke Talbott questioned Barnett as to whom would notify property owners that their address has been changed. Barnett said he presumes the U.S. Postal Service would inform them of the new address.
Landmark Forestry and Hill also presume council will be responsible for re-naming streets in the city limits.
Private roads within the city limits should be named by the residents on the road, they said.
As the discussion continued, Councilman Tom Hensil, 2nd Ward, told fellow members that they could continue the debate and "never get anything settled." Hensil suggested the issue be taken up by the Streets Committee which would later present its recommendation to council for action.
Chairman of the Streets Committee Councilman Danny Satterfield, 5th Ward, said he would schedule a meeting as soon as possible with other committee members. Representatives from Landmark Forestry and the city police and fire departments will also take part in the discussion.
Satterfield told The Inter-Mountain that he currently does not foresee any major problems with the mapping and addressing project. He reiterated the Street Committee will have to take on the issue.
Landmark Forestry plans to have the county's addressing finished by June 15 and needs an answer from the city prior to that date. The company began its mapping and addressing project in the county in December and has discussed its plans with all other municipalities in county, except Coalton, according to Barnett.
In other council business:
- Council members were not ready to act on the second reading of proposed ordinance 097, which establishes a rental registration program, or the authorization to execute a Marketing Agreement with Utility Service Partners Inc. Both items will be postponed until the next meeting.
- Council approved the levy for the 2009/2010 fiscal year. The levy rate for Class I property is 11.940; Class II property is 23.88; and Class IV 47.76.
- Council approved assigning the Davis Trust Co. branch bank to 1st Ward.
- Council approved assigning Colonial Estates Subdivision to 2nd Ward.
- Metheny will head an ad hoc committee to determine a name for the landfill access road.
- Council passed on first reading, proposed ordinance 098, which would add section 13-17.2, regarding people who fail to appear before municipal court, to Elkins City Code. The ordinance would assign a new number to the section, which is currently the same as another section.
|
robnj95
|
|
|---|---|
|
04-23-09 2:10 AM
|
What a difference a county line makes. Perhaps people in Elkins/Randolph County realize the importance and need of the addressing/mapping projects. Thankfully, I don't see the outrage like in Buckhannon. You think you don't need an address change until you one day may need to call 911 and the EMS/fire can't find you. To bring out an old cliche: "Better safe than sorry."
|
|
Bowden
|
|
|
04-22-09 4:14 PM
|
I live in a county where there are three Valley Drives and there have been many times when UPS ect... has had problems with deliveries. The most dangerous even took place when an ambulance was dispatched to my home on Valley Drive but went to Valley Place because they are right next to each other and Valley is clear on both signs but Place is just pl on one and Drive is just dr on another and they are in very small print. Imagine trying to find an address at 3am on a dark night. Even the mail has been delivered to the wrong address many times over the past twenty three years that I have lived here. Having clear street names and names that are not alike just might save a life or a home in case of a fire.
|