Present:  B. Blanchard, Chair; M. Robertson; G. Totman; D. Booth, P. Penniman

Staff:      J. Wood, County Attorney; S. Whicher, County Administrator; L. Shurtleff, Emergency 
Response Director; W. Skinner, Public Information; M. Shakarjian, Capital Projects  Coordinator; E. Marx, Planning Commissioner, A. LeMaro, Facilities; G. Potter, Information Technology Services; P. Meskill, Sheriff

Legislature: D. Kiefer

Guests:  B. Steinkamp

Called to Order

 The meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m.

Changes to Agenda

 There were no changes to the agenda.

Chair's Report

 Ms. Blanchard indicated she did not have any formal report, however she shared with the Committee information from the New York State Association of Counties Fall Conference.  She reported that when inquiries were made to other Counties regarding information on the State-Wide Network that like Tompkins County, no information has been received regarding the status of this proposed project.  A brief discussion occurred and it was noted that unless a decision was made by October 2003 the State would have to re-start the bid process in its entirety.

Withdrawal of Minutes

 By consensus, the minutes of August 27, 2003, were tabled until the next meeting of the Committee.
 
Emergency Response Center Building Project

  Mr. LeMaro provided Committee members with a spreadsheet outlining the change-orders related to the building construction.  A brief discussion occurred, noting while there had been concern that the reserve was set at only five percent it appears the amount was more than adequate.  At this time there have been change orders totaling $14,621 with an anticipation of $10,000 - $15,000 additional, leaving approximately $80,000 in the contingency fund for the project.  The largest change order has been to install appropriate seals around doors for proper containment of a fire suppression system within the building.  

At this time the majority of the work on the building has been completed, including the HVAC and plumbing, with the drywall receiving the second coat of spackle and in some areas being primed.  Work on the ceiling grids and the installation of the front doors will take place within a week.  When asked if the schedule is being adhered to, Mr. LeMaro responded that it is estimated that the building will be completed around October 1, with all interior work completed by mid-October.  

The Committee then inquired about the construction of the monopole and was informed it is on order and once received will be installed within several days.  It is anticipated the pole will be erected within the next few weeks, although work on the foundation for it will occur prior to the arrival of the structure.

Phase II Capital Project Approval

 Mr. Whicher explained that while the County would like to proceed with the full 800 mHz system that would be incorporated with the State-Wide Network, no positive feedback has occurred from the State to indicate they are moving ahead with the project at the present time.  At this time, the County has to review which project to undertake, noting that if the SWN partnership was possible the choice would be easier to make as it would make the cost of the full PSCS project equal or less than the cost of the Phase II project.  Mr. Whicher said that if the State moves ahead we would certainly desire becoming a partner, however, due to the immediate needs of the County to improve the infrastructure of the communications system the County must determine which of the two proposed projects it should undertake.

 The Committee received two Project Approval Request forms, one entitled Phase II (also known as the "B" project) that would include the upgrade to digital microwave, Paging, and Mobile Data System, and one entitled PSCS (Public Safety Communications System) that would provide for a fully integrated voice and data system as well as the items outlined in Phase II.  Ms. Shakarjian reported that the financial commitment for 2004 would be the same for either project as the start-up of the project would be the same structural changes to the microwave.  In 2005, the financial aspect of the project changes; with Phase II undertaking the roll-out of the Mobile Data System, while the PSCS project would be coming online with the new voice/data system.  They then had a discussion regarding changes to existing infrastructure (towers/shelters, etc.) that would reinforce, replace, or new site location of towers as necessary depending upon the project chosen, noting that until the project is implemented it is difficult to fully know the exact quantity and placement of towers required for the systems until engineering is done based on the particular application.  

 Committee members inquired what the financial impact would be if Phase II were done first and the additional work noted in the PSCS project done at a later date.  Ms. Shakarjian provided information on the areas impacted by this decision, noting the Legacy equipment presently used would no longer be viable if the PSCS project was undertaken as the PSCS project includes digital voice/data components. 

 At this time the Committee members discussed the mobile data systems presently in use and what the new system would offer.  The present system does not function to its fullest capacity due to the age and operating platforms it presently is on.  Sheriff Meskill spoke of a survey taken of his employees this past week inquiring what problems they have had with the current system.  It was reported that the system often does not allow officers to sign-on from the remote location, when signed-on will "kick-off" the user, does not have an appropriate mapping function, and often does not provide the much-needed Department of Motor Vehicle information to ensure safety.  In addition, as the systems are extremely outdated, they have caused electrical malfunctions in patrol cars and have also drawn all the energy out of the batteries for the vehicles.  With regard to the field reporting capability, the system has not provided reliable GPS functions, nor is it capable to consistently provide the location of vehicles in the field.  Mr. Shurtleff indicated that along with problems in some areas of the County that do not pick up signals, the system is run on a 286 platform and upgrades slow down processing.  In addition, the transition of the information from a digital signal to analog quite often loses information in the translation. 

 Mr. Potter and Mr. Shurtleff addressed the aspect of field reporting, explaining the progressive procedure and how when fully operational it will save duplication of efforts.  Mr. Potter explained that a fully-operational field reporting system would allow officers to complete a good deal of the report from the unit within the vehicle and then transfer the information by either remote or disk, rather than having to wait until they were back at the office and retype it.  Mr. Shurtleff explained when a call is received it is brought into the 911 center and the dispatcher creates a "ticket" on the call, and the first set of fields are completed through the 911 system.  The dispatcher gets the specific information (caller, event, additional information) and transmits it by voice and electronically to the vehicle.  When the information is received at the vehicle as a dispatch ticket the deputy proceeds to the scene and once the event is completed, types in the appropriate code and completes details of the call.  Ideally, these reports could be easily downloaded to the main system and work its way through the criminal justice system.   They then explained there are several operational systems available for this type of application.  Mr. Potter explained for the field reporting to work properly there has to be a  flow between the three systems:  the point of initiation at dispatch, through the CAD, to the officer in the field, and to the data management system.  It was noted that the proposal includes funding to upgrade the Sheriff's Department but does not include funding to fully integrate all municipalities in the County.  Mr. Potter explained to fully integrate all municipalities to the HTE system it would involve the installation of networking equipment and the operational cost of leasing Verizon lines to every village and the City of Ithaca in order to run the CRIMES application from the Emergency Response Center.  If the field reporting system was designed to work with SJS, the Criminal Justice Service program, the cost would be hiring an individual to write the interface between the field reporting system and SJS, and SJS and the CAD application.  At this time a review is taking place to determine which way is best to use.  Mr. Potter explained to provide the system for municipalities as well as the County would involve developing a standard for all records management and a level of additional operational support from the County that is not presently afforded.  He explained that the individual records management design for municipalities could vary but that the portion to integrate to the shared systems would have to be standardized.   

 Members of the Committee then reviewed the PSCS project and the cost variables between the projects.  Ms. Shakarjian explained that during the change-over of systems there is an additional cost of temporarily running both systems.  She then spoke of the integrated data/voice system, noting it is trunked using same frequencies and is not a separate system.  This would operate the voice and mobile data information in comparison to the phased approach that would have the mobile data system as a separate entity.  

When members of the Committee inquired about a possible Phase III it was noted that the primary differences between Phase II and the PSCS is that Phase II would not provide interoperability, and would not substantially improve coverage, though it may improve somewhat due to the new microwave system; however it would not be a high quality digital voice system.  Phase II would not provide additional frequencies, limiting the ability to communicate with other emergency responders.  Phase II would also not provide any more reliability than provided by the microwave, it does not improve the base stations or vehicular radio equipment.  Mr. Shurtleff believes that within three to five years all voice  equipment will require replacement. He said voice systems normally will last for fifteen years, and the present equipment is reaching the end of its estimated life-span.

When asked, Mr. Whicher said that he does not believe that at this time the County could afford to proceed with the PSCS project and hoped that SWN would come on board to make it feasible.  It was also noted that within the next several weeks there is the possibility of a grant that has been requested from Senator Schumer.  If these funds are received it may make the larger project possible.  Mr. Whicher explained that the purpose of this meeting is to clarify the differences in the two projects and that more information will be forthcoming regarding finances.   Mr. Wood said it is certainly clear that the PSCS project would be better, however the finances need to be reviewed to determine if it is possible to proceed with it.  The Committee agreed more information and further discussion needed to take place regarding the project's direction and set up a meeting for October 7, 2003 at 9:00 a.m.

Adjournment

 The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Karen Fuller, Deputy Clerk