|
Present: P. Penniman, Chair; B. Blanchard; M. Robertson; G. Totman Excused: T. Todd Staff: S. Whicher, County Administrator; M. Shakarjian, Administration;
J. Wood, County Attorney, L.
Legislators: D. Kiefer Guests: P. Harris, Cingular Wireless Called to Order The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Additions/Deletions to the Agenda The following item(s) were withdrawn from the agenda: · DOT Relocation Project Status Report The following item(s) were added to the agenda: · Update on Team Structure Chair's Report Mr. Penniman spoke briefly regarding the E911 Committee which took place on August 18, 2004, during which the GIS Presentation was made, noting the Committee would see the presentation during today's meeting. In addition, he spoke of having viewed the City of Ithaca DOT property from the water. Mr. Penniman said he had not contacted municipalities regarding tower site issues at this time as he felt it would be more appropriate to have more detailed information on specific sites in hand prior to discussions. Mr. Whicher said the tower application made by Ithaca College has been approved in Town of Ithaca's Planning Committee and Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Blanchard said that the delay of discussions with municipalities seemed prudent and requested Mr. Farkas, Town of Lansing Supervisor, be informed of this decision. Minutes Consesus was reached to postpone approval of July 22nd minutes until the next meeting. Phase I Update Mr. Shurtleff stated that at this time the Ithaca Police Department (IPD) transition has begun to take place. The County assumed control of the IPD dispatch August 1st , cross-training is going well. In addition, the filling of vacancies is complete and Lynn Hurd has been chosen as the Dispatcher Communication Center Manager. It is hoped to open September 30, 2004. The 911 telephone trunks have begun to be installed which will be followed by the manual ALI trunks. Next week the digital landlines should be in place. AllMode Communications will be configuring the lines, to be followed by the installation of the phone system by Positron. During the third week of September Motorola will begin training and testing the devices. It is hoped to have the cutover of operations (complete operational functionality) by the 30th of September. Mr. Shurtleff reported that NYSPIN information (network database from Albany that provides incident warrants, stolen vehicles, Department of Motor Vehicle Information, etc.) shall be made available at each terminal; presently one terminal is required to be shared by all dispatchers. A brief discussion took place regarding the dedication of the building. It was thought to hold this event the end of September when the majority of work is done and the phone system is in place. The Committee discussed holding the next regular meeting at the new Emergency Response Center, noting it may be able to coincide with the dedication. RESOLUTION: . - NEW YORK STATE EXPEDITED WIRELESS 911 GRANT FUNDING - DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr. Shurtleff informed the committee that he had received notification that the County was awarded $318,336 from the expedited 911 funding from New York State. These funds are for reimbursement for the telephone switch and mapping upgrades to provide the wireless 911 capability (location of cellular telephone users during emergencies). It was MOVED by Ms. Blanchard, seconded by Mr. Totman, and unanimously approved by voice vote of members to present the following resolution to the full Legislature for grant approval: WHEREAS, Resolution No. 31 of 2004 authorized the Department of Emergency
Response to apply to the New York State 911 Board for funding to assist
the County in achieving “Phase 2” capability for the 911 emergency call
system, and
Department: Revenue 3410.43389 Other Public Safety $ 74,703
Capital: Revenue 3412.43389 Other Public Safety $ 243,633
Alarm System Mr. Shurtleff then spoke of being in the process of receiving equipment that will allow receipt of box alarms within the City of Ithaca as provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding. He noted that due to the price may need to go out to bid. He requested approval to seek the bid by the Committee. Mr. Shurtleff spoke of the alarm boxes being located throughout the City. Mr. Penniman inquired if the County would be collecting the fees associated with the box alarms. Mr. Shurtleff was not certain at this time and noted the City has a person who is responsible for installation and repairs on the circuitry for the system. He will look into the matter further. It was asked whether this work was required to be completed prior to cutover and where the $45,000 in funds would come from. Mr. Whicher said the funds will be taken from the capital account and that it is necessary to be completed prior to cutover to avoid staffing the present monitoring location. It was MOVED by Mr. Totman, seconded by Ms. Robertson and unanimously approved by voice vote of members present, to approve the seeking of bids for the City of Ithaca Box Alarm System and subsequent contract up to $45,000, pending notification to the members of the Committee. South Hill Ms. Shakarjian reported that SSI, Inc., is drafting a letter to Motorola informing them of the decision regarding the tower design and the development of bid specifications. It was noted that the bid will be for both a monopole and lattice tower as the difference in figures is needed for contractual purposes. Phase II Update Team Structure The Committee was provided with a handout outlining the membership, responsibilities, and chain of command for the Emergency Communications System Implementation Team - Phase II. This working team is headed by Mr. Shurtleff as Team Leader, with Mr. Whicher, Ms. Shakarjian, and Mr. Shuler, SSI, Inc., as regular members, with Mr. Potter and Mr. Wood attending as needed. The Team will meet on Fridays from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the Emergency Response Center. It was requested that any questions or comments be submitted to the Team for discussion at the Friday meeting. It was also noted that Mr. Shuler will serve as the sole contact on behalf of Tompkins County with Motorola for Phase II issues and while not always present at the meetings will be available during that time as needed. A letter will be sent to Motorola outlining the new communication policy. User Group The Committee was informed of the recent user/E911 group review and comment meeting that took place August 18th. Mr. Shurtleff reported that 20 - 25 individuals attended and reviewed several different scenarios for configuration of transmission sites that will eventually include coverage projections. He believed the meeting to be well received. He explained that at this time it appears that the 9-site plan provides adequate coverage, however the analysis is not yet complete. He spoke of the need to have further study with the user group regarding operational issues that may result due to the coverage such as the type of subscriber equipment required, as well as the use of data; however it was noted this work will be done at a later date when more refined information on the tower sites is available (a change in tower placement amends operational function to a degree). Mr. Shurtleff believes that a consensus was reached on portable and mobile coverage and appointed representatives will now meet with their local users to explain what occurred in the meeting and will bring back any concerns or questions their groups may have. They will also begin to focus on in-building coverage with Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shurtleff said he believes that the coverage projections by and large meet the needs of the users. It is hoped to have a resolution by the end of the month to determine what configuration will work best for all. Mr. Whicher stated he believes that the choice of SSI, Inc. was the proper choice and noted the user group worked well with Mr. Shuler. He noted Mr. Shuler stated that while questions such as in-building penetrability may occur it should not be discussed at this early stage. Ms. Robertson asked whether several tower scenarios were offered to the user group. Mr. Whicher stated that a working group met previous to the August 18th meeting and determined it would be best to bring one proposal forward and ask what concerns there may. He indicated that the review by this working group went between 8 to 12 towers to determine what seemed to be best, and it was determined to use the 9-tower configuration; the additional three towers hardly added any coverage area compared to the 9-tower plan. GIS Overview Mr. Horn, GIS Project Leader, provided a Powerpoint demonstration of the proposed 9-tower configuration of the PSCS Project. The presentation illustrated coverage projections for both mobile and portable radio units, using the County’s GIS data. He was also able to display coverage information if other towers were added, in order to illustrate the benefit of additional towers. Mr. Whicher stated the data being viewed were provided by SSI, Inc.. Motorola’s data were not able to be displayed by the GIS system with a known accuracy, however a visual comparison can be made. It was noted that with the exception of several populated areas, the 9-site design is anticipated to provide 95% in-the-road coverage throughout the County, in addition to some overlapping service area outside the County. In addition, the visual display indicates there was not a significant increase in coverage when adding additional towers. The following questions/concerns were noted during the presentation: · An area of coverage concern was a portion of New York State
Route 327 in Enfield as well as a small area in the Town of Ulysses; it
was thought a repeater or other solution may be found to provide adequate
coverage in these area.
In addition, the following information was provided: · Some of the existing towers will be maintained for paging and
Legacy systems, although they may not be included in this design.
Mr. Whicher informed the Committee that over the next two weeks Mr. Shuler will be working on coverage concerns and will be reviewing tower locations to optimize coverage areas. In approximately 2 1/2 weeks he will again meet with the user groups to review his work. Following resolutions of the priority issues at this time, the in-building coverage issues will be discussed. The Project Team will be meeting to discuss each issue and develop a time line. He indicated that any questions or concerns should be provided to him as quickly as possible to enable him to discuss project design with appropriate personnel and proceed with the Motorola negotiations. Mr. Whicher noted that it is important to remember that what has consistently been in the specifications is the 95% portable coverage in-the-road throughout the County and not specifications related to in-building coverage. A brief discussion took place related to in-building coverage and it was noted that it would be a very expensive task requiring detailed analysis of every building. A key part of this analysis is whether signal strength is measured by the cumulative strength of overlapping signals, or by measuring the one strongest signal. Motorola uses the former, while Mr. Shuler prefers to use the more conservative method of the single strongest signal. It was thought that the penetration level within buildings should be at a level that will provide comfort. The new operational functions (using tactical frequencies) will be provided to assist during incidents in buildings, where coverage on the trunked system may be of concern. It was noted that the City and Town of Ithaca, and the Village of Lansing will have very strong penetration levels and the majority of structures will be penetrable by the trunked system. Heavy construction in some university structures makes penetration difficult, which Cornell University is already aware of. Cornell University representatives indicated interest in commissioning a study of the 800-MHz frequency to determine if aids are available to increase penetration and if so, they may entertain working with the new system. It was noted that there is no way to guarantee any in-building coverage due to the uniqueness of construction in each. Mr. Shurtleff stated that a hand-held unit-to-unit, or tactical frequency, would be the primary communication device among personnel at a particular location; this is more acceptable to keep the trunked system available for overall communication needs throughout the County. Ms. Kiefer stated that she feels some tactical information is required prior to Motorola negotiations. Mr. Whicher said he believes that the County has a basic comfort level with the system proposal, and that the comfort level needs to be created with the user groups. It was noted that it is important to know what is desired prior to negotiations and not have too many undefined areas. The expectation is that the problem of interoperability will be solved with the new system, and the lack of it is a big cause of the existing problems. When discussing the possibility of utilizing towers between counties it was noted that there are restrictions regarding penetration of the frequencies directionally, such as the north (Canada). Mr. Whicher noted that while there may be potential coverage from an adjoining county tower it would require either direct line-of-sight to the microwave towers or an expensive landline. More importantly, since they have different systems than our, the only part of the system they might want to share is the tower itself and not the more expensive equipment on the tower. Mr. Shurtleff and Mr. Whicher stated that the GPS signal should work for the Sheriff's Department. However, the expected data speed will not allow fingerprint/photo information. It was reported that the members of the user groups w ill be relaying information from the user group meeting to their co-workers and will relay any concerns/questions to County staff. Subscriber Equipment It was reported by Mr. Shurtleff that he and Mr. Shuler are working on listing necessary on subscriber equipment. Although no definitive cost estimates are in, it is indicated that the overall expense may be less than originally anticipated due to technological advances. In order to provide a rough estimate for users a figure of $3,000 for mobile, $1,500 for portable units, and $300 for pagers should be sufficient. It was noted that for users the cost could increase if they desire additional features on their equipment; for example, having single vs. multi-zone channels affects the price. Mr. Shurtleff recommends coming up with a standard piece of equipment for use with the system. The number of pieces of equipment per agency deemed necessary is still being refined. DOJ and DHS Grants It was reported that the Department of Justice Grant was approved for $500,000 last fall. At this time the DOJ is requesting an itemized list of cost associated with all of the equipment, which we do not have at this time. Ms. Shakarjian has requested SSI, Inc., to develop a cost estimate list to submit. The New York State Homeland Security grant application has been sent in and there is no news to date. It was noted that these are Federal funds that are awarded by the State. Ms. Shakarjian does not know of any future grants available at this time. She will make every effort to provide the Committee with information prior to submission. A brief discussion occurred related to the member-filed item the County has requested. To date there is no word on whether any funds would be received. It was decided to send a letter to Senator Schumer and ask for a meeting as a follow-up request for $3.5 million, and to submit the application to Congressman Boehlert. With regard to co-location at the Sheriff's site, an updated RFP has been completed, reviewed by appropriate personnel, and is being finalized with the County Attorney's office. It is anticipated to take at least thirty days to allow vendors adequate time to visit the site and determine use. This RFP is designed in a manner to allow it to be a boilerplate for other tower locations. The minimum bid will be $2,000 per month. Mr. Penniman addressed the issue of grants, noting that in some instances
Public Safety may be the appropriate standing committee to review the information.
It was discussed that there is an overlap in many instances; this will
be taken into consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk.
|