Council takes limited look at readdressing issues

The Mountain Home City Council, following a joint meeting requested by the county commissioners, has agreed to take up a sharply limited, case by case, review of readdressing problems in the city.

During the last mayoral campaign, city-wide readdressing was a major issue, and Mayor Joe B. McNeal's opposition to any form of readdressing was, he believes, one of the key factors in his election.

McNeal, shortly after being elected, said he would never agree to readdressing and would not allow it to even be placed on the council agenda.

McNeal's control over the agenda has been a major point of dissension between the council and the mayor's office on a number of other issues in the past.

But the decision to address some issues raised by the county, during a joint meeting between the city and county April 11, was made while McNeal was hospitalized with a damaged disk in his back.

Council President Mark Russell said he had asked McNeal to place the issue on the March 27 council agenda, after a series of letters had been sent by the county requesting some minor changes to help emergency service personnel be able to better respond to 911 calls. "He refused," Russell said, "so I then scheduled a joint meeting with the county commissioners" last week after getting approval from a majority of the city council to do so.

Russell said the specific issue addressed at the joint meeting involved two addresses on 18th East Street, one on the north side and one on the south, "that were within 100 feet of each other and had the same house number. Essentially, they were across the street from each other." In addition, the street signage in the area was confusing, he said. The council agreed at that meeting with the county to make the necessary changes in address for the two properties and in the street signage.

But that wasn't the only issue concerning readdressing.

Russell said the county had made "numerous attempts" to get the city to take up some specific addressing problems "but the issue was never allowed to be taken up as an agenda item" by the mayor.

In January, county prosecuting attorney Kristina Schindele had written to city attorney Jay Friedly at the request of the county commissioners. In that letter she noted that "the board (of commissioners) is concerned about the lack of response from the Mountain Home mayor and/or city council members regarding a request by the Elmore County Public Safety Communications Board (Enhanced 911, also known as the E-911 board) to discuss conflicts in address numbering along Sunset Strip.

"The board has asked me to issue one final invitation to the mayor and council to meet and discuss the very real public safety issues posed by the nonconsecutive and duplicative addresses along Sunset Strip that creates confusion for emergency responders and a corresponding safety risk for all occupants along Sunset Strip."

She noted in the letter that there had been "numerous requests" for a work session to resolve the addressing matter, but the E-911 board had never received so much as a response. "The E-911 Board deemed the lack of response as a rejection of its request and forwarded this matter to the commissioners for further follow up."

The commissioners formally requested the meeting "to discuss the specific problems created by addressing along Sunset Strip, as well as other general concerns, including a process to resolve future disputes."

In the early 1990s, voters approved a $1 surcharge on their phone bill to pay for an Enhanced 911 system. As part of that program, a county-wide readdressing plan was developed to provide a consistent addressing system so emergency responders would quickly be able to find the right location where they were needed.

The rest of the county completed the readdressing project in a few years ago, but the city did not take part. Its system does not link into the county system.

Although local emergency service personnel had pointed out that the current addressing system in Mountain Home is confusing to many citizens, who often make mistakes in reporting the correct location of incidents during 911 calls as a result, a number of citizens in Mountain Home objected to the readdressing proposal.

Those who opposed the plan pointed to the cost of businesses to have to change their direct mailing and billing systems, the hassle of having to notify friends and companies sending bills of changes of address, and the confusion such a change would make for citizens who did understand the current addressing system.

McNeal had agreed with the opponents of the readdressing system and used it as a major campaign plank.

In responding on April 4 to the letter Schindele had written on behalf of the commissioners, McNeal said he had "no intention of responding to the (county) concerning the E-911 readdressing issues."

"As mayor, I have appeared before the Elmore County Commissioners with how the E-911 Board could put this so-called public safety issue to rest," he wrote. "But the county staff members and the E-911 board would have their way, or their way.

"As the mayor of the City of Mountain Home, I will not participate in the changing of street names or numerical addresses and will make every effort to see that does not happen."

He went on to say in the letter that "the E-911 board and commissioners are well aware the city council agreed to the readdressing but the citizens of Mountain Home overwhelmingly rejected the readddressing and the council changed its position on the readdressing issue."

Noting that the city was an independent government not subject to dictates from the county, McNeal closed his letter by saying "as far as the mayor's office is concerned, this is a closed matter."

Russell called McNeal's response to the county "a pretty close-minded position," and noting that the city "actually has been implementing the E-911 addressing system in the new subdivisions" being annexed. "so as the city grows, we're addressing with that standard."

Russell said the council did not intend to take up the issue of city-wide readdressing, but was only attempting to respond to the county's concerns over some specific "spot cases where there are specific conflicts that have a direct impact on safety and security."

He said he expected that most of those cases would be brought forward by the fire chief or police chief, but noted that "both of those individuals work for Joe, so there could be a problem there."

Because Russell said he anticipated McNeal would not allow any readdressing issue to be placed on the council agenda. So, he said, he has called for a special meeting of the council to specifically address that issue, a procedure that circumvents the agenda process. That special meeting will be held after the regular council meeting on April 24.

Russell added that he has requested a legal opinion to affirm that the April 11 meeting, and his call for the special meeting on April 24, are legal.

McNeal was unavailable for comment by press time Monday, while he continues his recovery at home. It's expected, however, but not certain, that he will be able to preside over the meeting on April 24.