Post on 22-Sep-2020
transcript
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
11044-1-15-08
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Feasibility Study
Regional Radio System
August 15, 2011
Buford Goff & Associates, Inc. 1331 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 200 Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803)-254-6302
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
11044-1-15-08
Acknowledgements Buford Goff & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District’s Radio Technical Operations Advisory Committee (TOAC) would like to thank the following organizations who contributed information, participated in interview sessions, and offered the operational insight reflected in this report.
City of Arlington, Texas
City of Azle, Texas
City of Bedford, Texas
City of Benbrook, Texas
City of Burleson, Texas
City of Crowley, Texas
City of Dallas, Texas
City of Fort Worth, Texas
City of Grand Prairie, Texas
City of Grapevine, Texas
City of Hurst, Texas
City of Irving, Texas
City of Mansfield, Texas
City of North Richland Hills, Texas
City of White Settlement, Texas
Dallas County, Texas
Denton County, Texas
Johnson County, Texas
Parker County, Texas
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
Mansfield Independent School District
Motorola Corporation
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Northeast Tarrant County Radio Consortium (NETCO)
Tarrant County, Texas
Tarrant County Fire Marshal
Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office The TOAC would also like to extend its appreciation to the owners and operators of the following regional systems for their insight and cooperation:
City of Austin, Texas, on behalf of the Austin/Travis County Regional System
City of Houston, Texas, on behalf of the Houston/Harris County Regional System
City of Phoenix, Arizona, on behalf of the Regional Wireless Cooperative (RWC)
State of Minnesota on behalf of the Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER)
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
11044-1-15-08
Finally, the TOAC would like to acknowledge the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District staff for their efforts in support of this study.
Table of Contents
1.0 Background Information ...................................................................... 1
1.1. Overview ............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Process Overview ............................................................................... 2
1.3. Preliminary Findings ........................................................................... 3
1.4. Additional Observations ...................................................................... 3
1.5. Potential Benefits of the Board’s Involvement ..................................... 4
2.0 Potential Roles for the Board .............................................................. 6
2.1. Fiduciary Partner Role ........................................................................ 6
2.2. Administrative Partner Role................................................................. 6
2.3. Managing Partner Role ....................................................................... 6
3.2. Fiduciary Partner Model .................................................................... 11
3.3. Administrative Partner Model ............................................................ 13
3.4. Managing Partner Model ................................................................... 14
4.0 Conceptual Architecture .................................................................... 15
4.1. Regional Radio System ..................................................................... 15
4.2. Surrounding Counties ....................................................................... 17
5.0 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................ 19
5.1. Systems Monitoring and Management .............................................. 19
5.2. Cyber Security .................................................................................. 19
5.3. Operations ........................................................................................ 20
5.4. Administrative Activities .................................................................... 20
6.0 Funding Scenarios ............................................................................ 21
7.0 Recommendations ............................................................................ 25
8.0 Timeline ............................................................................................ 26
Appendix A – Stakeholder Interview Register .................................................... 27
Appendix B – Summary of Regional Radio Systems Interviewed....................... 28
Appendix C – SAFECOM Interoperability Overview ........................................... 35
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
1
1.0 Background Information
1.1. Overview
In May 2011, Buford Goff & Associates, Inc. (BGA) was contracted by the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Board of Managers (Board) to determine the feasibility of the Board playing a role in the establishment of a regional radio system within the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District (District). BGA was asked by the Board to modify the Regional Radio System Master Plan for Tarrant County, which was developed by BGA for the City of Fort Worth and completed in January 2011, to include the City of Irving and DFW International Airport. BGA was also asked to identify potential roles the Board could have relative to funding, governance, and operations and maintenance of a regional radio system.
BGA’s scope of work also included providing the Board with information on the following topics:
Preliminary budget estimates based on projected costs and potential funding streams to include those “outside” of the District (user fees, grants, etc.)
Potential impact to the District operations, facilities, and staffing levels
Preliminary governance model(s) for the Board’s consideration
High level project schedule with major activities and milestones
Potential radio system assets available for use by the District
Special considerations for governance such as transfer of ownership, site usage, assumption of lease(s), etc.
High level operational requirements for coverage, capacity, and interoperability for the entire 9-1-1 District
On-going or planned radio system projects
Options for asset ownership to include at a minimum:
o Tarrant County 9-1-1 District owning all assets – to include technical recommendations/options for transfer of ownership and equity reimbursement for the jurisdictions affected
o Some jurisdictions retaining ownership of assets and how equity reimbursement could be implemented
Provide examples of at least three existing regional radio system governance and operations such as Minneapolis, Austin, etc., and facilitate conference calls between working group and system owners to gain information on process, challenges, and lessons learned.
BGA agreed to perform the work for the Board beginning on May 1, 2011, and complete the effort by August 15, 2011.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
2
1.2. Process Overview
During the course of this engagement, BGA worked under the direction of the Technical Operations Advisory Committee which was established by the Board for the purposes of overseeing this effort. The TOAC was chaired by Assistant Director Steve Streiffert from the City of Fort Worth. The remaining committee members were as follows:
Shane Burton, Assistant IT Director, City of Irving
Charles Cinquemani, Vice President Special Services, DFW Airport
Tom Cowan, Chief of Police, City of Burleson
Gerard Eads, Communications Services Administrator, City of Arlington
Gary Fowler, Chief of Police, City of Mansfield
Alan Girton, Senior IT Manager, City of Fort Worth
Gary Gregg, Technical Services Manager, City of Euless
Tonya Hunter, Emergency Management Coordinator, City of Grand Prairie
Steve Krause, Radio System Manager, City of Mansfield
Kyle Lanier, Patrol Division Commander, City of Mansfield
John Parrish, Assistant Vice President, DFW Airport
Bradley Perrier, Director of Strategic Services, City of Irving
Greg Petrey, Executive Director, Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Mike Taylor , Deputy Chief of Police, City of Grand Prairie
Daniel Webb, Radio System Coordinator, Tarrant County
Eric Wersal, Communications Manager, Tarrant County
BGA conducted the Project Kick-off Meeting on May 5, 2011, with members of the TOAC and the Executive Director of the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District. At that time BGA proposed a project schedule that contained specific activities and milestones for completion of the effort. A Stakeholder Register was also presented at that time to the TOAC for review and comment. The documents were approved as presented. The TOAC agreed to conduct weekly project status calls and to conduct work sessions on a bi-weekly basis for the duration of the effort.
During the months of May and June of 2011, BGA conducted 23 interviews with key stakeholders throughout the District and surrounding counties. A comprehensive list of the key stakeholders involved in this study is contained In Appendix A. BGA facilitated teleconference calls with the owners/operators of four established regional radio systems outside of the metroplex to gain additional information relative to governance, best practices, and lessons learned. Refer to Appendix B for a summary of the regional radio system discussions. BGA also conducted inspections of 13 PSAP locations and 8 tower sites throughout the District.
During this time, BGA facilitated a work session with the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Operations Manager and Kimball Associates, the consultant to the District on the build-out of the fiber network, to determine the feasibility of using the fiber network as
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
3
a potential path to backhaul voice traffic from radio tower sites around the District. Focused work sessions were also conducted with DFW Airport and the Cities of Irving, Arlington, and NETCO to ensure all relevant information was collected.
During July, 2011 BGA presented the TOAC with a series of presentations and documents deigned to build consensus regarding some of the concepts described in this report.
A partial draft of the Feasibility Study was presented to the TOAC for review and comment on July 20, 2011. An iterative process was then conducted to expand and revise the report to ensure accuracy and completeness. Presentation of the final report was made to the TOAC on August 4, 2011.
1.3. Preliminary Findings
As a result of the discovery activities conducted during the study, BGA determined the following:
There is widespread interest in and support for the Board’s involvement in the establishment of a regional radio system.
The owners and operators of existing radio systems in the District have radio communication assets such as frequencies, tower sites, and infrastructure electronics that they are willing to share to make the regional radio system a reality.
There is a desire to transform the existing radio systems in the District into one regional system instead of creating a “system of systems” or upgrading the existing systems individually in a “silo’d” fashion.
There is a willingness to support centralized functions for contract management, billing, system monitoring, and system maintenance.
Provisions should be made to allow the smaller communities and the unincorporated areas of the District to have representation at all levels of governance and to provide them with a baseline level of interoperability.
1.4. Additional Observations
As a result of the discovery activities conducted during the study, BGA makes the following observations:
The current situation in the District is one in which disparate radio systems that have limited interoperability exist side-by-side. These radio systems are relied upon by their respective municipalities for the delivery of critical public safety services (police, fire, and emergency services) and infrastructure support (public works, water systems, and transportation). Many of these systems have become outdated and are in need of replacement.
The need for additional operability/interoperability combined with increased competition for funding is requiring municipalities in the District to join together to leverage funding sources, share resources, and consolidate functions.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
4
In response to their radio communication challenges, municipalities in the District are in various stages of replacing their existing systems; White Settlement and Hurst have completed upgrades to their systems; Fort Worth has recently signed a contract for the upgrade of their system; the City of Irving is in the process of evaluating responses to an RFP; and other system owners such as NETCO, Arlington, Mansfield, and Grand Prairie are currently evaluating options and alternatives regarding system upgrades.
The benefits derived by each municipality from participation in a regional radio system will depend upon how the regional system addresses the combination of factors, such as operability, interoperability, availability of funds, type of funds available (capital or O&M), need for control, sense of urgency and vision for owning/operating a system versus communications as a service, that are relevant and unique to that municipality.
Maintaining flexibility in terms of governance structure, types of membership, technology vendors, use of funds, and asset ownership will be critical to forming and sustaining a regional radio system.
There is a correlation between the amount of interoperability desired and the governance structure required.
The challenge for the Board and its members is to identify and mitigate the risks associated with implementing a multi-jurisdiction, multi-discipline interoperable regional radio system.
1.5. Potential Benefits of the Board’s Involvement
Codification - The Board is a codified organization with the power to enter into binding agreements with other municipalities and service providers. It has potential sources of funding through fee increases and bond issuance and established procedures for voting. These factors are of significant benefit to the membership of a potential regional radio system.
Centralization of Key Functions – Involvement of the Board in the regional radio system will allow members to consolidate functions, such as GIS support, contract management, billing, system monitoring, etc., that are currently being duplicated in each agency.
Reduced Risk - The Board is a known entity to the municipalities in the District and is viewed by the stakeholders interviewed as effective in the administration of the 9-1-1 program. Therefore, the involvement of the Board in a regional radio system represents a component of a risk mitigation strategy for the members when considering participation.
Funding – The funding assistance and oversight that could be provided by the Board would facilitate operability/interoperability within the District and assist jurisdictions in establishing and adhering to project goals and implementation timeline.
Reduced Costs - Achieving the required level of operability/interoperability will be less expensive for member jurisdictions working collaboratively rather than individually. Cost reductions will be recognized from
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
5
centralization of key functions, reduction of overlapping coverage areas, and consolidation of system components.
Improved Interoperability - The SAFECOM (2008) Interoperability Continuum, which was developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and which has been referenced in TOAC meetings and is described in Appendix C, identifies the five critical elements for interoperability as: 1) Governance, 2) Standard Operating Procedures, 3) Technology, 4) Training and Exercises, and 5) Usage. Technology is the enabling component that makes interoperability possible, but it is Governance that forms the framework for completing the remaining critical elements. With proper oversight from the Board relative to all the critical elements of interoperability, municipalities in the District will be able to achieve a higher level of interoperability than would be possible working independently.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
6
2.0 Potential Roles for the Board
Through prior industry knowledge and activities conducted in support of this study, BGA is aware of several regional radio systems across the country. Each regional radio system has been developed to meet the specific needs of the participating municipalities. As such, each one is unique in terms of governance, funding, asset ownership, operations and maintenance, and plans for sustainability.
Municipalities in the District are similar to their counterparts across the country in that they acknowledge the benefits of a regional system in terms of interoperability and cost savings, but each municipality in the District has unique circumstances and requires a unique solution in terms of governance, funding, asset ownership, operations and maintenance, and sustainability to maximize the benefits of their participation in a regional radio system. Accordingly, potential roles contemplated by the Board relative to a regional radio system should provide adequate flexibility to allow municipalities in the District to participate in a manner that maximizes the benefit to each of them.
BGA has developed three primary types of roles for the Board’s consideration. These roles are documented here to facilitate discussions among Board members and the TOAC members that will eventually lead to agreement on the initial role(s), if any, that the Board will have in the establishment of a regional radio system.
2.1. Fiduciary Partner Role
The Fiduciary Partner role is one in which the Board functions primarily as a funding source to the membership providing financial assistance to municipalities within the District for the purposes of improving public safety radio communications. In this role, the Board would have minimal involvement in the planning and governance processes. Given that this role will involve the collection and disbursement of funds for the regional radio system, a framework, such as the SAFECOM Continuum, will have to be implemented for determining allowable expenditures. The Board should consider the establishment of an Advisory Board to work with the Executive Director on matters related to the regional radio system.
2.2. Administrative Partner Role
The Administrative Partner role extends the Fiduciary role discussed in Section 2.1 to include the administration of contracts and/or leases on behalf of the membership, collection of fees to offset expenditures, centralization of certain functions, and the implementation of working groups to support the Advisory Board.
2.3. Managing Partner Role
The Managing Partner role extends the Administrative Partner role discussed in Section 2.2 to include the ownership of assets, staff to directly oversee the governance structure, and direct responsibility for ensuring that components of the regional radio system are properly installed, maintained, and monitored.
Table 2.0 summarizes the proposed roles for the Board’s consideration.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
7
Table 2.0 Summary of Board Roles
Role of the Board
Fiduciary Partner Administrative Partner Managing Partner
Funding Board provides reimbursement for preapproved expenses using established guidelines
Develops and maintains a long-term plan for the regional radio system
Uses SAFECOM Continuum as framework for line item funding
Maintains equity of expenditures relative to allocation of service fees collected
Board agrees to fund certain types of expenditures on behalf of members on a recurring basis
Members agree to reimburse the Board through subscriber fees or special assessments as needed to offset system expenses in excess of available funding
Expands support staff to coordinate administrative activities
Board provides an increased level of funds for the regional radio system
Members agree to reimburse the Board through subscriber fees or special assessments as needed to offset system expenses in excess of available funding
Expands operations, technical, and administrative staff to oversee the regional radio system program
Procurement and System Implementation
Board has no procurement or system implementation responsibilities
Board is responsible for procurement of certain types of equipment and services on behalf of the members
Administers contracts or leases on behalf of members
Board is responsible for procurement and implementation of equipment and services on behalf of the membership per agreement
Asset Ownership
Board does not own any regional radio system assets
Board does not own any regional radio system assets
May leverage PSAP network
Board owns radio system assets per agreement with membership
Governance Structure
Limited participation in governance and planning
Establishes Advisory Board
Establishes ILAs or MOUs with members as necessary
Board establishes and oversees multi-level governance structure that is primarily led by member organizations
Expands ILAs or MOUs with the membership as necessary
Board establishes and oversees multi-level governance structure that is coordinated by Tarrant County 9-1-1 District staff and supported by the membership through participation in the Advisory Board and working groups
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Board has no responsibilities for O&M activities
Board has O&M responsibilities for system components per agreement with membership
Board is responsible for operations and maintenance components
Board is responsible for monitoring and administration of system
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
8
Role of the Board
Fiduciary Partner Administrative Partner Managing Partner
Centralized Functions
There are no centralized functions
Board centralizes agreed to functions such as contract administration, billing, administration of ILAs, etc.
O&M responsibilities for certain aspects of the system
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
9
3.0 Potential Roles for the Board The successful implementation of a regional radio system is largely dependent on the establishment of shared governance. Governance provides structure, i.e. organization, policies, process, and decision mechanism, that serves as the foundation for the vision, strategic initiatives, goals, and activities of the program. To the extent that the goals and objectives of a regional radio system are limited in scope, governance can be limited. Where the vision and initiatives associated with the regional radio system is broad, governance must be comprehensive.
From an industry perspective, and as validated by information collected from other owners/operators, governance of regional radio systems is usually composed of some combination of the following levels of oversight:
Executive Board - The highest level of oversight is usually an executive level “board” responsible for creating and/or managing a legal structure under which formal decisions are made. The Board has responsibilities for adopting legally binding documents such as Inter Local Agreements (ILAs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). The Board establishes the long-term objectives of the program and oversees the budget. Members of the Executive Board are usually senior public safety officials, agency directors, or elected officials.
Advisory Board - Another level of oversight commonly found in conjunction with governance of regional radio systems is the Advisory Board. This group is primarily responsible for advising the Executive Board relative to policy, planning, and fiscal matters. Individuals involved in an advisory capacity usually have a background in public safety, government administration, or information technology. They are highly experienced in their field, aware of industry best practices, and are willing to function as a non-voting participant in the governance process.
Working Groups – The third type of oversight group commonly associated with regional radio systems is the working group. This level of governance develops and administers aspects of the regional radio system such as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), contracts, billing statements, and training programs. Working groups perform the detailed work for the policy groups and act on behalf of all members of the regional radio system. Participants in the working groups are subject matter experts (SMEs) and are often familiar with operations from a PSAP, Radio Shop, or IT perspective. It is common to have multiple working groups associated with a regional radio system.
Sections 3.2 through 3.4 contain potential governance models for the Board’s consideration. These models correspond to the Fiduciary, Administrative, and Managing Partner roles discussed in Sections 2.1 through 2.3. The governance model most appropriate will depend upon the vision, and therefore the role, the Board chooses to have in public safety communications for the District. The various governance models discussed in the following sections share key concepts and components.
Board of Managers – The Board of Managers represents the top level of executive oversight for the regional radio system in each of the models presented. As such, the members of the regional radio system can leverage the existing
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
10
organizational structure, by-laws, policies, and procedures of the Board to the benefit of the regional radio system members.
Voting – Each level of governance in the models presented may develop its own internal mechanism for decision making, but the Board will be the only binding voting authority for the membership of the regional radio system. Voting by the Board will be done in the same manner as for the existing PSAP program.
Executive Director and 9-1-1 Support Organization - The organizational structure and governance model developed by the Board for the regional radio system will report to the Executive Director. Where possible, the existing 9-1-1 Support Organization will be leveraged to provide support for the regional radio system. Depending on the role the Board chooses to have in the regional radio system, additional staff may be necessary to support the Executive Director. Staffing requirements and impact to the existing 9-1-1 organization are discussed further in Section 5.4.
Advisory Board – The Advisory Board will provide oversight of the working groups and make recommendations to the Executive Director on matters pertaining to the operations, maintenance, and funding of the regional radio system. The Advisory Board will also be responsible for:
o Developing and maintaining a long-range strategic plan for the regional radio system
o Reviewing all recommendations to the Executive Director from all other committees regarding policies and procedures
o Developing and maintaining guidelines for membership and advising the Executive Director relative to membership matters
o Providing recommendations to the Executive Director on matters affecting technology, system planning, and development
o Advising the Executive Director on matters related to selection of service providers
o Developing and recommending administrative procedures for the Executive Director’s consideration
o Reviewing and approving an annual budget for regional radio system
o Other duties as defined by the Executive Director
Finance Working Group – The Finance Working Group is suggested for the Administrative and Managing Partner governance models. This group will be composed of representatives from member organizations and will be responsible for the following activities:
o Identification of grant opportunities and development of grant applications on behalf of the members
o Assisting the 9-1-1 staff in the preparation of the annual radio system budget
o Recommendations to the Advisory Board on matters relating to subscriber fees, special assessments, equity adjustments of assets, review of contracts and leases from a financial perspective
o Reviewing Participation Plans submitted by potential members for financial impact to the regional radio system
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
11
o Coordinating and supporting the Operations Working Group and Technical Working Group as necessary
Operations Working Group - The Operations Working Group is suggested for the Administrative and Managing Partner governance models. This group will be composed of representatives from member organizations and will be responsible for the following activities:
o Recommending to the Advisory Board policies and procedures required for consistent, reliable, and coordinated use of the regional radio system
o Recommending to the Advisory Board policies and procedures for the efficient and effective management of grants and funding to improve emergency preparedness and public safety throughout the District
o Development of recommendations to the Advisory Board regarding the planning of operational exercises and annual events utilizing the regional radio system
o Development of recommendations to the Advisory Board for the purchase and use of equipment relative to the regional radio system
o Review of Participation Plans submitted by potential members for operational impact to the regional radio system
o Coordinating and supporting the Financial Working Group and Technical Working Group as necessary
Technical Working Group - The Technical Working Group is suggested for the Administrative and Managing Partner governance models. This group will be composed of representatives from member organizations and will be responsible for the following activities:
o Evaluating and planning for new equipment or technologies
o Evaluating system performance and configuration with applicable recommendations for improvement
o Development and maintenance of standards, policies, and processes for equipment usage
o Reviewing reports for service providers regarding system performance
o Reviewing Participation Plans submitted by potential members for technical impact to the regional radio system
o Coordinating and supporting the Operations Working Group and Financial Working Group as necessary
Service Providers – Service providers are organizations that have contracts or MOUs/ILAs with the Board to perform services in support of the regional radio system. Service providers may be vendors or they may be members of the regional radio system providing services to the membership on behalf of the Board. Examples of services provided to the Board by service providers are subscriber programming, system monitoring, and tower site maintenance.
3.2. Fiduciary Partner Model
As a Fiduciary Partner, the primary responsibility of the Board will be to collect funds and reimburse members for pre-approved expenses in accordance with the mission and goals of the Tarrant County 9-1-1 Board of managers. Policies and procedures
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
12
for the collection and disbursement of funds associated with public safety radio communications will have to be developed and agreed upon. An Advisory Board should be formed to provide input to the Executive Director and the Board relative to radio system matters. Organizational impact to the 9-1-1 district staff would be minimal.
Figure 3.2 depicts an example of a governance model that would be appropriate for a role in which the Board functions primarily in a fiduciary capacity providing funding and minimal oversight and coordination.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Board of Managers
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Executive DirectorRadio Advisory Board
Tarrant County 9-1-1
District
Support Staff
CONCEPTUAL GOVERNANCE MODEL
Fiduciary Partner
Figure 3.2
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
13
3.3. Administrative Partner Model
As an Administrative Partner, the Board will be expanding its fiduciary responsibility to include the administration of contracts and leases on behalf of the membership. The Board may also be administering ILAs/MOUs with surrounding entities such as Johnson, Parker or Denton Counties on behalf of the members. As a result of this expansion of responsibility, the governance structure should be expanded to provide for the formation of working groups to advise and assist the District staff and the Advisory Board in matters relating to the financial, operational, and technical aspects of legal agreements pertaining to the regional radio system. To support the increased size of the governance model, the Board should consider expanding the staff to include a Radio Systems Coordinator.
Figure 3.3 depicts an example of a governance model that would be appropriate for a scenario in which the Board functions as an Administrative Partner for the regional radio system.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Board of Managers
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Executive Director
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Radio Advisory Board
Operations Working
GroupTechnical Work Group Finance Work Group
Tarrant County 9-1-1
District
Support Staff
CONCEPTUAL GOVERNANCE MODEL
Administrative Partner
Service Providers
Figure 3.3
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
14
3.4. Managing Partner Model
As the Managing Partner for the regional radio system, the Board will own, lease, or have ILAs in effect for all regional radio system infrastructure components. The Board would be responsible for ensuring that these agreements are kept current and that adequate funds are available to keep these agreements in effect. The Board will be responsible for the operations, maintenance, and monitoring of the radio system infrastructure. As a result of these additional responsibilities, the governance model has been modified to reflect the addition of a Regional Radio System Manager position. The Regional Radio System Manager will be responsible for overseeing the activities of the working groups and the service providers involved in supporting the system from an engineering, maintenance, and subscriber programming perspective.
Figure 3.4 depicts an example of a governance model that would be appropriate for a scenario in which the Board functions as a Managing Partner for the regional radio system.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Board of Managers
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Executive DirectorRadio Advisory Board
Operations Working Group Technical Work Group Finance Work Group
Tarrant County 9-1-1
District
Support Staff
CONCEPTUAL GOVERNANCE MODEL
Managing Partner
Service Providers
Engineering MaintenanceSubscriber
Programming
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Regional Radio System Manager
Figure 3.4
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
15
4.0 Conceptual Architecture
The conceptual architecture described in this section is based on preliminary information collected by BGA from the various organizations involved in the study. The final architecture of the regional radio system must be determined by the membership after the appropriate detailed design activities have been completed.
4.1. Regional Radio System
The P25 master switch that supports the Fort Worth P25 system is capable of functioning as the master switch for the regional radio system. Fort Worth has indicated a willingness to share the master site with the regional radio system, provided an agreeable ILA can be implemented. The following conceptual architecture contemplates repurposing the Fort Worth master switch to support the regional partners and directly connecting participating members to the switch creating one regional system for all participating municipalities. This architecture also leverages the fiber optic network currently being installed in the District to backhaul voice traffic.
Simulcast Cells – For discussion and planning purposes, BGA has divided the regional radio system into six simulcast cells. Each cell is directly connected to the regional master switch and all cells share the same system ID number. This configuration provides the highest degree of interoperability available to member jurisdictions. Final configuration of these simulcast cells in terms of tower sites and channels will depend on the detailed engineering studies that could potentially be conducted in 2012.
Simulcast Cells 1 & 2 – Fort Worth’s forty 800 MHz frequencies will be configured into two dual simulcast layers each containing 20 channels. These dual layers will provide the City of Fort Worth with needed additional capacity and redundancy. Each simulcast layer will utilize the same sites and therefore will have identical coverage footprints. The regional radio system will dynamically move subscribers between layers based on system loading factors. Note that Fort Worth’s 40 channel dual simulcast cells are already included within Fort Worth’s P25 contract.
Simulcast Cell 3 NETCO – Simulcast cell 3 will be a single layer cell and will service the northeast section of the District currently serviced by the NETCO system. Existing NETCO sites can be utilized for the regional radio system. Additional site(s) may be required to provide needed coverage for Keller and to improve in-building coverage where necessary. Due to the close proximity of City of Fort Worth tower sites and NETCO tower sites, the potential exists for consolidation of tower sites.
Simulcast Cell 4 - Arlington/Grand Prairie/Mansfield – Simulcast Cell 4 will be a single layer simulcast cell that will service the southeast section of the District that is currently serviced by the Arlington, Grand Prairie, and Mansfield systems. Cell 4 will leverage the existing tower sites and frequencies available from each of the three systems to form one large simulcast cell. Additional sites and in-building amplifiers will be added as
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
16
necessary to address in-building coverage issues for schools and commercial facilities.
Simulcast Cell 5 Burleson and Crowley – Simulcast Cell 5 will be a single layer cell and will provide coverage in the southwest portion of Tarrant District inclusive of Burleson and Crowley. The potential also exists to combine coverage for Burleson with the Johnson County system currently under construction and planned for connection to the Fort Worth master switch in 2013.
Simulcast Cell 6 Northwestern Tarrant County – Simulcast Cell 6 will be a single layer cell and will provide coverage to the northwest portion of the District. Special provisions will have to be made to interface this cell to VHF and UHF systems operating in the area.
Hurst and White Settlement – Hurst and White Settlement both have operational P25 systems that provide coverage to their respective areas. These systems can be interfaced to the regional master to increase coverage and interoperability for those municipalities.
Irving - The City of Irving is in the process of evaluating vendor responses to an
RFP that was issued earlier this year. Since the outcome of the evaluation is unknown at this point, this architecture assumes an Inter-RF Subsystem Interface (ISSI) gateway connection to Irving. The ISSI gateway is a non-proprietary gateway that enables radio systems built by the same or different manufacturers to be connected together into a wide area network. Upon final vendor selection for Irving, a detailed design review can be conducted to determine the most appropriate manner in which to interface the selected vendor’s system to the regional radio system.
Dallas and DFW Airport – The City of Dallas currently owns a P25 master switch that could be connected to the Tarrant County District regional radio system to provide interoperability between the cities. The Dallas switch also has an existing ISSI gateway connection to the DFW Airport Harris master switch. Configured properly, a connection from the regional radio system to the Dallas switch will provide interoperability to the DFW airport as well.
Planning and budgeting for each simulcast cell can occur as separate but coordinated activities. Build-outs and migrations for each cell can occur in parallel or in sequence as funding and/or other conditions dictate. This approach allows for a coordinated plan with maximum flexibility and interoperability for the members. Figure 4.1 illustrates the conceptual archictect including the simulcast cells and ISSI connections to Irving, Dallas, and DFW Airport.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
17
Dallas
DFW Airport
Simulcast Cells 1 & 2
Fort Worth and Affiliates
Simulcast Cell 6
White Settlement, Benbrook, Azle
Simulcast Cell 5
Burleson, Crowley
Simulcast Cell 3
Bedford, Grapevine, Euless,
Keller, Colleyville, Southlake
Simulcast 4
Arlington, Grand Prairie,
Mansfield
Irving System
Tarrant County Regional Radio System – Conceptual Architecture
P25 Master
P25 Master
Dispatch
Dispatch
Dispatch
DispatchDispatch
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
FIBER
Network
P25 Master
P25 Master
ISSI
ISSI
ISSI
ISSI
Figure 4.1 Conceptual Architecture
4.2. Surrounding Counties
Interviews with the surrounding counties of Dallas, Johnson, Parker, and Denton indicated that all four counties are interested in connecting to the regional radio system to improve interoperability with the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District. A brief statement on each county is as follows:
Dallas County has partnered with the City of Dallas, and both organizations are beginning the process of procuring a combined city/county P25 public safety radio system which is planned to be operational in 2017. The final design of the connection between the Dallas system and the Tarrant County system will depend on the manufacturer chosen to supply the Dallas system.
Johnson County has recently approved the procurement of a three site P25 radio system that will connect into the City of Fort Worth Master Switch for interoperability in 2013.
Parker County completed successful implementation of a P25 radio system in 2009 and is now interested in connecting to the District’s
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
18
regional radio system for improved interoperability and reduced operating costs.
Denton County has secured funding for the implementation of a new P25 public safety radio system and would like to connect to a regional master switch for improved interoperability and reduced operational costs.
Planning and budgeting for each county connection can occur as separate but coordinated activities. Build-outs and migrations for each county can occur in parallel or in sequence as funding and/or other conditions dictate. Refer to Figure 4.2 for a representation of the county connections to Dallas, Johnson, Parker, and Denton Counties.
City of Denton/
Denton County
Parker County
Tarrant County Regional Radio System
Conceptual Architecture - County Connections
District P25 Master
Johnson County
City of Dallas/
Dallas CountyISSI
Gateway
TBD
Network
Connection
Network
Connection
Figure 4.2 County Connections
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
19
5.0 Operations and Maintenance
A formal Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan should be developed to ensure that the various classes of system assets associated with the regional radio system such as tower sites and facilities, electronic infrastructure, dispatch consoles, subscriber units, and network backbone are properly monitored and maintained. The basis for the content of the plan will be the equipment and facilities specified in the detailed design of the system. To facilitate the O&M planning effort, the working groups within the governance structure should be tasked with collaborating with District staff to jointly develop the O&M Plan for the regional radio system.
Once the O&M Plan is developed, the provisioning of the required services can be performed by qualified member jurisdictions or by a qualified service provider as determined by the Board and the membership. In either case the Board, acting on behalf of the membership, could enter into the appropriate service level agreements (SLAs) and/or contracts to ensure that all services outlined in the plan are provided in a cost effective manner.
5.1. Systems Monitoring and Management
Effective monitoring and management of the regional radio system’s technical components will require a System Manager who has the authority to make decisions on issues related to the day-to-day operation of the system and any urgent or emergency system operational or repair decisions. System Manager responsibilities vary slightly depending on the exact configuration of the system and the needs of the contracting organization but usually include the following:
Proper monitoring of the master switch, zone controllers, site electronics
Monitoring the system and its components for normal operations
Dispatching appropriate repair services in the event of a system malfunction
Participating in the diagnosis of system performance problems and the development of corrective action recommendations
Producing performance management reports for review by the Technical Committee
Managing database elements such as Subscriber IDs, Talkgroup IDs, Profiles, and the various parameters that relate to their effective operation
As with the O&M activities, the provisioning of System Management Services can be performed by qualified member jurisdictions or by a qualified service provider as determined by the Board and the membership. The Technical Working Group is usually the group within the governance structure that provides the Advisory Board and the membership with recommendations relative to matters of system monitoring and management.
5.2. Cyber Security
The challenge of adopting a radio system to an Internet Protocol (IP) communications network is that it exposes the system to cyber security threats and therefore introduces the potential to compromise the system. Proper planning and implementation of security
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
20
updates is extremely critical to the health of the system and for the safety of first responders. Manufacturers may only certify certain security patches for specific versions of their system, making the provisioning of cyber security one of the most challenging aspects of operating and maintaining a regional radio system.
The Board should consider the use of an experienced qualified service provider or an experienced Information Technology (IT) organization from within the District for the provisioning of these services.
5.3. Operations
Policies and procedures relative to the use of the regional radio system are required to properly utilize the system’s features and functions and to provide the users with the highest level of interoperaibility. Operational considerations such as talk group organization, system administration, interoperability, and training all impact the effective use of the system during normal operations and in emergency situations.
The Operations Working Group should review all matter relative to radio usage and system planning in order to provide the Advisory Board and the membership with recommendations relative to these matters.
5.4. Administrative Activities
The Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Staff will have the responsibility to provide Administrative Support for the regional radio system regardless of how the technical and operational services are provisioned. These Administrative Support services include, but are not limited to, the following:
Maintenance and renewal of all contract documents, Interlocal Agreements, and Service Level Agreements between the District and its service providers
Maintenance of all system documentation including engineering drawings, user manuals, etc.
Creation and oversight of the regional radio system budget
Proper billing of the members and payment of related expenses as agreed
Coordination and support of the governance working groups as required
Communication to the membership regarding the planning and operation of the regional radio system
Supplying GIS and other technical support services as required
Depending on the extent of the District’s involvement in the regional radio system and the required Administrative Support services, the District staff may have to be expanded by up to two FTEs. The Board, therefore, will have to provide for the related expenses to cover salaries, benefits, training, travel, and office expenses.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
21
6.0 Funding Scenarios
The funding scenarios shown in Figures 6.1 and 6.2 have been developed for the Board’s consideration. The projections contained in these scenarios are estimates developed by BGA based on information provided by the participating organizations, industry knowledge, and engineering best practices.
The projected cost to construct the regional radio system, provide ongoing monitoring and maintenance services, and provide for system expansion and refresh for the 10 year period from FY13 thru FY22 is $97M. This projection does not include estimates for site leases or land acquisition for new tower site locations. The cost projection also does not include those costs which are traditionally the responsibility of the individual member organizations such as dispatch consoles and subscriber radios.
BGA recognizes that the Board has multiple funding options at its disposal, such as a potential increase of service fees, a potential bond issuance, and the potential use of the reserve fund. BGA also recognizes that funding from other sources such as grants and subscriber fees are also available.
For illustration purposes only, BGA has provided the Board two funding scenarios, one based on a 2% increase in landline service fees and the other based on a 4% increase in landline service fees. These scenarios represent an average annual contribution from the Board of $2.7M and $5.2M respectively. Table 6.0 provides a brief description of the funding sources, cost categories, and assumptions made for each.
Table 6.0 – Funding Sources and Cost Categories
Category Assumptions
Total Funding Available from District Calculated based on projected service fees less 10% for program management costs including salaries, training, travel, etc.
Grants $1M in grant funds from various sources
Interoperability Partners Interoperability partners from Johnson County, Denton County, Parker County, MedStar, etc. will join the system over time and compensate the District for certain infrastructure services
Infrastructure Costs The additional P25 digital infrastructure throughout the District to provide replacement coverage for the existing analog systems. Contains estimates for installation services, civil engineering, project management and quality assurance services. Contains provisions for reimbursement to municipalities within the District already under contract for system replacement for similar expenses
System Monitoring and Maintenance BGA estimate based on reported costs for similar systems
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
22
Category Assumptions
Network Backhaul BGA estimate to upgrade the PSAP fiber ring to accommodate voice traffic from the regional system
Expansion/Refresh Set aside for system expansion and refresh
Funding Gap The difference between total funding and total projected expenses
Average Monthly Subscriber Fee Monthly subscriber fee calculated by dividing the funding gap by the projected number of subscribers in the District which is estimated to be 15,000
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
23
Figure 6.1 – Funding Scenario Based on 2% Rate Increase
Yearly
Average
Total FY13 -
FY22 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
$2,742,126 $27,421,262 $2,217,123 $3,122,603 $3,032,774 $2,947,063 $2,865,374 $2,787,616 $2,713,707 $2,643,567 $2,577,124 $2,514,311
$1,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$377,500 $3,775,000 $75,000 $125,000 $225,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
$4,119,626 $41,196,262 $3,292,123 $4,247,603 $4,257,774 $4,297,063 $4,365,374 $4,287,616 $4,213,707 $4,143,567 $4,077,124 $4,014,311
$56,000,000 $6,020,208 $60,202,084 $1,846,000 $5,032,652 $8,219,304 $6,864,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304
$1,950,000 $19,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
$212,500 $2,125,000 $0 $125,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
$1,500,000 $15,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
$9,682,708 $96,827,084 $3,346,000 $6,657,652 $9,969,304 $10,114,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304
($5,563,082) -$55,630,822 -$53,877 -$2,410,049 -$5,711,530 -$5,817,241 -$6,757,930 -$6,835,688 -$6,909,597 -$6,979,737 -$7,046,180 -$7,108,993
15,000 ($31) $13 $32 $32 $38 $38 $38 $39 $39 $39
Note 2 - Potential tiered subscriber fees for 1)
Entities that own/maintain tower sites 2) System
users internal to the District 3) System users
external to the District
Expansion/Refresh (Note 1)
Total Projected Expenses
Average Monthly Subscriber Fee Needed
to Offset Funding Gap (Note 2)
The District is responsible for 1) Leasing and installing
electronic infastructure for members 2) Reimbursing CFW
for the same 3) Maintaining ILA for the Master Switch 4)
System-wide maintenance agreement on all electronics
Members are responsible for 1) Upgrading and
maintaing tower sites and facilities 2) Console
upgrades and maintenance 3) Subscriber
purchases and programming 4) Paying monthly
subscriber fees 5) Inbuilding coverage issues
Note 1 - Purchase/Reimbursement costs for the
infrastructure will end in 2024 allowing the
accumulation of $32M in years FY25-FY30 for
system refresh. This amount will be
approximately 42% of the $75M projected costs
Funding Gap
Total Funding Available for Radio System
System Monitoring & Maintenance (Est.)
Network Backhaul (Est.)
Grants
Infrastructure Costs (Site Electronics,
Engineering., Master Switch), District
Project Management, QA, Marketing (Est.)
Category
Total Funding Available from District
Interoperability Partners
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
24
Figure 6.2 – Funding Scenario Based on 4% Rate Increase
Yearly
Average
Total FY13 -
FY22 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
$5,209,966 $52,099,663 $4,216,176 $6,016,232 $5,825,127 $5,641,683 $5,465,682 $5,296,914 $5,135,179 $4,980,288 $4,832,059 $4,690,323
$1,000,000 $10,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
$377,500 $3,775,000 $75,000 $125,000 $225,000 $350,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
$6,587,466 $65,874,663 $5,291,176 $7,141,232 $7,050,127 $6,991,683 $6,965,682 $6,796,914 $6,635,179 $6,480,288 $6,332,059 $6,190,323
$56,000,000 $6,020,208 $60,202,084 $1,846,000 $5,032,652 $8,219,304 $6,864,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304 $6,373,304
$1,950,000 $19,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000
$212,500 $2,125,000 $0 $125,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
$1,500,000 $15,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
$9,682,708 $96,827,084 $3,346,000 $6,657,652 $9,969,304 $10,114,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304 $11,123,304
($3,095,242) -$30,952,421 $1,945,176 $483,580 -$2,919,177 -$3,122,621 -$4,157,622 -$4,326,390 -$4,488,125 -$4,643,016 -$4,791,245 -$4,932,981
15,000 ($17) $3 $16 $17 $23 $24 $25 $26 $27 $27
Category
Total Funding Available for Radio System
Infrastructure Costs (Site Electronics,
Engineering., Master Switch), District
Project Management, QA, Marketing (Est.)
Network Backhaul (Est.)
Expansion/Refresh (Note 1)
System Monitoring & Maintenance (Est.)
Total Funding Available from District
Grants
Interoperability Partners
Note 1 - Purchase/Reimbursement costs for the
infrastructure will end in 2024 allowing the
accumulation of $32M in years FY25-FY30 for
system refresh. This amount will be
approximately 42% of the $75M projected costs
Note 2 - Potential tiered subscriber fees for 1)
Entities that own/maintain tower sites 2) System
users internal to the District 3) System users
external to the District
Total Projected Expenses
Funding Gap
Average Monthly Subscriber Fee Needed
to Offset Funding Gap (Note 2)
The District is responsible for 1) Leasing and installing
electronic infastructure for members 2) Reimbursing CFW
for the same 3) Maintaining ILA for the Master Switch 4)
System-wide maintenance agreement on all electronics
Members are responsible for 1) Upgrading and
maintaing tower sites and facilities 2) Console
upgrades and maintenance 3) Subscriber
purchases and programming 4) Paying monthly
subscriber fees 5) Inbuilding coverage issues
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
25
7.0 Recommendations
Based on the activities conducted, information collected, and concepts discussed in this report, BGA makes the following recommendations for the Board’s consideration:
Establish a Mission and Vision - BGA recommends the Board consider developing a Mission and Vision relative to the regional radio system. This process will assist the Board in clearly and concisely conveying the direction of the organization relative to the regional radio system. It will also allow potential member organizations to understand the Board’s intentions relative to a common vision of the future.
Framework - BGA recommends the Board adopt the SAFECOMM Interoperability Continuum as a framework in which to set goals and objectives for the accomplishment of the organization’s Mission. Adoption of this framework will allow the Board to align its goals and objectives for the regional radio system with those contained in the Texas Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP). Adoption of this framework will also allow the Board to implement metrics by which the progress toward the established goals and objectives can be measured and evaluated.
Adopt Non-Binding Council Resolutions – BGA recommends the Board collaborate with municipalities in the District in drafting and adopting non-binding resolutions. Adoption of these resolutions will serve as a vehicle for the municipalities to work with the Board to further develop the concepts discussed in this report and to allow personnel to participate in the planning and governance processes.
Establish a Governance Structure – BGA recommends the Board establish a governance structure commensurate with its Mission for the regional radio system and in accordance with the concepts discussed in this document. BGA recommends that the Board task the working groups with further development of these concepts and report back to the Board in 90 days as to status.
Develop 2013 Budget – BGA recommends that the Board task the Executive Director with developing a preliminary budget for the regional radio system for the Board’s consideration and present it to the Board in conjunction with the 2013 budget process.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
26
8.0 Timeline It will be necessary for the Board to adopt a timeline for implementation of the regional radio system. The vision for statewide interoperability, according to the Texas SCIP, is that all public safety and critical infrastructure responders at all levels of government, including local, county, special districts, tribal, state, and federal, will have the highest level of real-time direct interoperable P25 standards based voice communications available for operational use by January 2016. Figure 8.1 shows the major activities that should be completed and the key milestones that should be met by the Board and the members of the regional radio system to achieve the statewide interoperability goal at the District level.
An average public safety radio system upgrade or replacement project takes approximately 30 months to complete from contract signing. Accordingly, jurisdictions in the District should be under contract with a radio system supplier by June 2013 to meet the objective. Figure 8.1 shows the high level activities that must be accomplished prior to contract signing to keep the project on schedule.
Figure 8.1 – Project Timeline
FY11
Legend: Tarrant County 9-1-1 Responsibilities Member Responsibilities
Establish Governance:
Establish Advisory Board
Develop Policies and Procedures
Form Working Groups
Develop and Sign ILAs/MOUs
Request for Fee Increase
October 1, 2012
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Feasibility Study
Establish Governance
Develop Radio System Budget
Regional radio System Program Administration
Develop Participation Plans
Participation Plans:
Infrastructure and Tower Site Planning
PSAP Console and Site Connectivity
Plan for Portable and Mobile Devices
Interoperability Planning
Cutover Plan
Project Timeline
Funding Request to Tarrant County 9-1-1
Develop ILA/MOUs
System Build-out
Participation Plan Approval
March 31, 2013
System Cutover
CFW Contract Discounts End
December 31, 2014
Texas Statewide Compliance
December 31, 2015
CFW Contract Special Incentives End
May 31, 2012
Milestone
Preliminary Design
Procurement
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
27
Appendix A – Stakeholder Interview Register
Organization Name Title
City of Arlington Gerard Eads Communications Services Administrator
City of Azle Ryan Hill Utility maintenance Supervisor
City of Azle Will Scott Fire Chief
City of Burleson Tom Cowan Chief of Police
City of Dallas Isaac Cooper Radio System Manager
City of Euless Gary Gregg Technical Services Manager
City of Fort Worth Alan Girton Senior IT Manager
City of Fort Worth Mike Baldwin Police captain
City of Fort Worth Sam Greif Battalion Chief
City of Fort Worth Steve Streiffert Assistant Director
City of Grand Prairie Mike Taylor Deputy Chief
City of Grand Prairie Tonya Hunter Emergency Management Coordinator
City of Grand Prairie/DFW Communications
Bryan Rankin System Manager
City of Hurst Richard Winstanley Assistant Chief of Police
City of Irving Bradley Perrier
Director of Strategic Services
City of Irving Daryl Rublein Communications Manager
City of Irving Shane Burton Assistant IT Director-Infrastructure
City of Mansfield Gary Fowler Chief of Police
City of White Settlement Lt. J.P. Bevering Police Officer
County of Dallas Mark Weathersby Radio Communications Manager
County of Denton Jerry Garret Fire Marshal
County of Johnson Jimmy Johnson Deputy Chief
County of Parker Shawn Scott Fire Marshal
County of Tarrant Daniel Webb Radio Systems Coordinator
County of Tarrant Eric Wersal Communications Manager
County of Tarrant Randy Renios Fire Marshal
DFW Airport Bill Bowens Projects Manager
DFW Airport John Parrish Assistant Vice President
DFW Airport Michael Wahl Operations Manager
Mansfield Independent School District
Greg Minter Sergeant
Mansfield Independent School District
Mike Leyman Chief of Police
North Central Texas Council of Governments
C.J. Holt Radio Communications Coordinator
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Fred Keithley Director of Communication Services
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Greg Petrey Executive Director
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
28
Appendix B – Summary of Regional Radio Systems Interviewed
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION
P25 digital system using
700/800 MHz frequencies
4 zones, 7 simulcast cells
and 10 IR sites
Dual overlay configuration
(Simulcast A and B) for
Phoenix.
Separate cells for
southwest, west valley,
Tempe, Scottsdale, and
Buckeye and Goodyear
ISR Site at Sky Harbor
Airport just for them
Each City responsible for
BDA’s in their jurisdiction
(generally cities fund
BDA’s for city facilities
only; private facilities
funded by owner)
Originally
funded/constructed as an
interoperable overlay for the
valley
Part of a $123M family
of projects that
included radio system
and combined dispatch
P25 digital system,
trunked, combined
700/800 MHz
Designed to 95% POS
coverage
In-building solutions
are the responsibility of
the municipalities
10 site public safety
layer with 24 channels
8 site simulcast layer
for public works with
20 channels
7 IR sites
14,000 radios
80 agencies
ISSI connection to
Houston, El Paso
Interoperability with
surrounding counties
Motorola 7.X System,
5 channels, 328 sites,
6 zones, 70%
implemented (16 out
of 87 counties on the
system, 55 counties in
process of transition
to system)
Current coverage
target is 95% POH on
a county by county
basis
Functions as a state
supplied backbone for
basic communication
needs and
interoperability
Local Radio Boards
(7) manage local
zones for operability
Project phases (6)
originally designed
around State Patrol
Districts; phases 4, 5
& 6 were all funded in
2007 and are being
implemented as one
project
System is under
construction. Not yet
operational
Will be configured as
zones 3 & 4 of the Harris
County system
Currently 50% complete
with implementation
Motorola P25 7.x System
Dual layer simulcast
configuration – 7 site
public works, 48 site
public safety
Planning for a total of
25,000 radios – 16,000
for the City and 9,000 for
partners
Consultant hired in 2001,
RFP issued in 2007, PW
layer to be operational in
October 2011
Other major stakeholders
involved are Harris
County and Montgomery
County
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
29
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
ASSET
OWNERSHIP
In general, members own an
undivided interest (Austin
model?) of infrastructure.
Percentage determined by
investment. However,
Members may also retain
ownership of assets, until
assets are replaced as part of
an RWC upgrade/change
Real estate is always owned
by the member
Frequencies are kept by
licensee, but managed by
RWC
Members pay all costs
required to join the system;
upgrades generally funded
by RWC as a whole, but
specific upgrades, such as
coverage improvements, are
funded by those Members
affected by same
Undivided interest pro-
rated among seven
parties:
1. City of Austin –
55.7%
2. Travis County –
27.0%
3. Austin Schools –
7.5%
4. Capital Metro –
5.5%
5. Univ. of Texas –
3.6%
6. Texas Legislature
– 0.4%
7. TX House of Rep.
– 0.3%
Tower sites are a mix –
leased/owned by the
city
Subscriber units and
consoles owned by
users
No one gave up any
assets to be on the
system
Legacy equipment is
being repurposed
MnDOT owns and
operates the backbone
Zone assets above and
beyond the ARMER
backbone are owned
by the locals
Enhancements to the
zones such as
additional towers,
BDAs, and consoles
are also owned by the
locals
Locals also own local
microwave links (back
to the backbone)
Entirely owned by the
City of Houston
ILA in place with local
9-1-1 Board and Harris
County for build-out of
the microwave backbone
One additional site
connected to the system
owned by the City of
Pasadena
Locals will own their
consoles and subscribers
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
30
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
OPERTIONS
AND
MAINTENANCE
Phoenix as Administrative
and Maintenance Managing
Member maintains the
system infrastructure for
members and recovers cost
through a chargeback
program
Each member is responsible
for maintaining and
programming their own
radios. Several members
also offer this service to
other Members and
chargeback for same
RWC does have blanket
control for infrastructure
maintenance and purchases
(GSA like). RWC also has
subscriber contracts in place
which all members may use
City Program Manager
maintains the system
under an annual budget
Tower maintenance
shared by users (Built
into subscriber fee?)
$2.5M service
agreement for
infrastructure. Provides
for software upgrades,
subject matter experts,
and covers consoles
$3.5M covers
maintenance services
(towers?), city staff
City maintains code
plug and shares it with
local 3rd
party
approved radio shops.
City activates the code
plug after installation
MnDOT now buys
parts from Motorola
and performs their
own build-out and
maintenance activities
Each county has a
participation plan that
addresses their
connection to
ARMER, tower sites,
consoles, etc.
State and locals tied
together for operations
and maintenance
Carrying a software
subscription service to
ensure all components
stay on the same
revision level
MnDOT monitors the
system. Uses
Motorola as tier 2
support
Currently planning to
share shop facilities with
Harris County. Will use
same maintenance
tracking system
Pasadena site will be
maintained by the City of
Pasadena
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
31
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
GOVERNANCE
Original project steering
committee evolved into the
RWC Board
1 vote per member
independent of size
RWC Chair and Vice Chair
elected by membership
Operations work group
addresses technical,
operational, and procedural
issues and makes
recommendations to the
Executive Committee
(Police/Fire/ITS/Muni/&
Network Managing
Member)
By-laws provide for a
weighted voted if necessary
Used two ILAs – one
for building the system
and one for operating
the system
6 partners during the
build phase now
reduced to 4 partners
Executive Board is
comprised of the
remaining 4 partners
Operations Board
(management and
supervisory personnel)
advises Exec Board
Operating Board has
14 members (Austin 6,
Travis Co. 4, and
others 1, except one is
shared by 6 & 7)
The City of Austin
appoints a Program
Manager who is
responsible for all
operations
Capacity is shared on
pro-rated basis
Advisory Team – open
to all response groups.
Provides input to the
Operations Board
Governance is by
Statewide Radio
Board (SWRB) with
21 members, 7 state
members, 7 local
rural, 7 local metro.
Police, fire, and EMS
all represented
SWRB not a legal
entity. All contracting
done by MnDOT
Technical and
operational policies
and standards in place
for locals.
Steering Committee –
Strategic in nature
Interoperability
Committee –
Operational
requirements
7 Regional Radio
Boards provide
regional talkgroups
and standards for
operability.
Governance Committee
chaired by mayor. Has
Director level members.
Using UASI structure
Steering Committee is
composed of Deputy
Directors from police,
fire, public works,
General Services, EOC,
IT, and Aviation
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
32
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
MEMBERSHIP
TYPES
Member: Full participation
and voting rights
Associate Participant: Non-
voting participation for use
by entities under contract to
one or more members, e.g.
members contract
ambulance service
Interoperability Participant:
non-voting, non-paying
users who are only given
access to the system to
interoperate with the
member.
Conditional Participant:
Given temporary access for
special events or emergency
circumstances
Customer: Contemplating a
―Pay as you go‖ plan to
basically ―lease‖ airtime to
small users needing direct
operational use of the
system
The following are special
functions/duties performed
by an assigned Member:
Administrative Managing
Member (Phoenix) -
handles contract
administration, billing, etc.
Maintenance Managing
Member - maintains
infrastructure subsystem
components; currently
Phoenix and Scottsdale
Network Managing
Member – manages the
network configuration,
programming, talkgroups
and radio ID’s, etc;
currently Phoenix
TBD
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
33
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
FUNDING
Complicated (per Phoenix)
Initial funding provided by
bonds and contributions
from all members; no grants
used for the initial funding.
Subsequent improvements
funded by members, grants
as available, with matching
funds from members
RWC Budget – 8M per
year. Funded via monthly
subscriber fees
(~$40/radio/mo). Billed
quarterly
Program Manager
maintains the system
under an annual
budget. PM can
request a special
budget for capital
improvements or
upgrades
Capital costs are
handled by original
partners
O&M is 100% funded
by partners
No subscriber fees for
partners or
Interoperability users.
Associates do pay a
monthly fee of $25
Original funding was
from 9-1-1 bond
issuance and 9-1-1
service fee collections
Substantial HSC funds
have been used to
assist locals in
connecting to
ARMER
2005-$45M in 9-1-1
Revenue Bonds for
Phase 3
2007-$186 M in 911
Revenue Bonds for
Phases 4, 5 &6
Locals are not charged
for use of the
backbone
Operational and
maintenance cost are
paid out of the 9-1-1
fund
Base contract price was
$111M plus options took
the price to $132M
Grant funding totaled
80M, City contributed
50M, public utilities
10M, airport 3M.
UASI funding accounted
for most of the grant
dollars. PSIC was about
$10M
LESSONS
LEARNED
Address governance first
Ensure funding is identified
and in place
If purchasing system and
subscribers separately,
make sure the infrastructure
vendor, or an integrator, is
responsible to integrate the
two; system configuration
affects radios and vice-
versa
Provide for capital
replacement for
subscriber units as
well as system
components
Template planning
needs to be uniform
across all radios. Get
an Ops Group now!
Be sure to capture
funds for future build-
out
Identify how
operating costs will be
paid up front
Identify a workable
governance structure
and make sure entities
with no financial stake
(owners of
infrastructure) cannot
impose changes on
those with a financial
stake
Maintain a competitive
environment as long as
possible during the
procurement phase
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
34
Source
Characteristic
City of Phoenix
Regional Wireless
Cooperative
(RWC)
Travis County,
TX (Austin)
State of
Minnesota
Harris County, TX
(Houston)
COMMENTS
Natural resistance to
change noted for
consolidated dispatch.
Seeing a network
convergence between
9-1-1 network and
their radio network.
Using leased lines and
microwave for path
diversity.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
35
Appendix C – SAFECOM Interoperability Overview
Emergency responders—emergency medical services (EMS), fire-rescue personnel, and law enforcement
officers—need to share vital data or voice information across disciplines and jurisdictions to successfully respond
to day-to-day incidents and large-scale emergencies. Many people assume that emergency response agencies across
the Nation are already interoperable. In actuality, emergency responders often cannot talk to some parts of their
own agencies—let alone communicate with agencies in neighboring cities, counties, or states.
Developed with practitioner input by the Department of Homeland Security’s SAFECOM program, the
Interoperability Continuum is designed to assist emergency response agencies and policy makers to plan and
implement interoperability solutions for data and voice communications. This tool identifies five critical success
elements that must be addressed to achieve a sophisticated interoperability solution: governance, standard operating
procedures (SOPs), technology, training and exercises, and usage of interoperable communications. Jurisdictions
across the Nation can use the Interoperability Continuum to track progress in strengthening interoperable
communications.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
36
To drive progress along the five elements of the Continuum and improve interoperability, emergency
responders should observe the following principles: Gain leadership commitment from all disciplines (e.g., EMS, fire-rescue response, and law enforcement).
Foster collaboration across disciplines through leadership support.
Interface with policy makers to gain leadership commitment and resource support.
Use interoperability solutions regularly.
Plan and budget for ongoing updates to systems, procedures, and documentation.
Ensure collaboration and coordination across all Interoperability Continuum elements.
Interoperability Continuum Elements Interoperability is a multi-dimensional challenge. To gain a true picture of a region’s interoperability, progress in
each of the five interdependent elements must be considered. For example, when a region procures new equipment,
that region should plan and conduct training and exercises to make the best use of that equipment.
Optimal interoperability is contingent on an agency’s and jurisdiction’s needs. The Continuum is designed as a
guide for jurisdictions that are pursuing a new interoperability solution, based on changing needs or additional
resources.
Governance Establishing a common governing structure for solving interoperability issues will improve the policies, processes,
and procedures of any major project by enhancing communication, coordination, and cooperation; establishing
guidelines and principles; and reducing any internal jurisdictional conflicts. Governance structures provide the
framework in which stakeholders can collaborate and make decisions that represent a common objective. It has
become increasingly clear to the emergency response community that communications interoperability cannot be
solved by any one entity; achieving interoperability requires a partnership among emergency response
organizations across all levels of government. As such, a governing body should consist of local, tribal, state, and
Federal entities as well as representatives from all pertinent emergency response disciplines within an identified
region.
Individual Agencies Working Independently—A lack of coordination among responding organizations.
Informal Coordination Between Agencies—Loose line level or agency level agreements that provide minimal
incident interoperability.
Key Multi-Discipline Staff Collaboration on a Regular Basis—A number of agencies and disciplines working together
in a local area to promote interoperability.
Regional Committee Working within a Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan Framework—Multi-
disciplinary jurisdictions working together across a region pursuant to formal written agreements as defined within
the larger scope of a state plan—promoting optimal interoperability.
Standard Operating Procedures Standard operating procedures—formal written guidelines
or instructions for incident response—typically have both operational and technical components. Established SOPs
enable emergency responders to successfully coordinate an incident response across disciplines and jurisdictions.
Clear and effective SOPs are essential in the development and deployment of any interoperable communications
solution.
Individual Agency SOPs—SOPs exist only within individual agencies and are not shared, resulting in uncoordinated
procedures and/or incompatible data systems among agencies that can hinder effective multi-agency/multi-
discipline response.
Joint SOPs for Planned Events—The development of SOPs for planned events—this typically represents the first
phase as agencies begin to work together to develop interoperability.
Joint SOPs for Emergencies—SOPs for emergency level response that are developed as agencies continue to
promote interoperability.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
37
Regional Set of Communications SOPs—Region-wide communications SOPs for multi-agency/multi-
discipline/multi-hazard responses serve as an integral step towards optimal interoperability.
National Incident Management System Integrated SOPs—Regional SOPs are molded to conform to the elements of
the National Incident Management System.
Technology Technology is a critical tool for improving interoperability, but it is not the sole driver of an optimal solution.
Successful implementation of data and voice communications technology is supported by strong governance and is
highly dependent on effective collaboration and training among participating agencies and jurisdictions.
Technologies should meet the needs of practitioners on the frontlines and should address regional needs, existing
infrastructure, cost vs. benefit, and sustainability. The technologies described within the Continuum must be
scalable in order to effectively support day-to-day incidents as well as large-scale disasters. Many times, a
combination of technologies is necessary to provide effective communications among emergency responders.
Security and authentication challenges are present in each technology and must be considered in all implementation
decisions.
Data Elements Swap Files—Swapping files involves the exchange of stand-alone data/application files or documents through
physical or electronic media (e.g., universal serial bus devices, network drives, emails, faxes). This process
effectively creates a static ―snapshot‖ of information in a given time period. Though swapping files requires
minimal planning and training, it can become difficult to manage beyond one-to-one sharing. With data frequently
changing, there may be issues concerning the age and synchronization of information, timing of exchanges, and
version control of documents. Each of these issues can hinder real-time collaborative efforts. In addition, the
method of sharing files across unprotected networks raises security concerns.
Common Applications—The use of common proprietary applications requires agencies to purchase and use the same
or compatible applications and a common vocabulary (e.g., time stamps) to share data. Common proprietary
applications can increase access to information, improve user functionality, and permit real-time information
sharing between agencies. However, the use of common proprietary applications requires strong governance to
coordinate operations and maintenance among multiple independent agencies and users; these coordinated efforts
are further compounded as the region expands and additional agencies use applications. Common proprietary
applications also limit functionality choices as all participating agencies must use compatible applications.
Custom-Interfaced Applications—Custom-interfaced applications allow multiple agencies to link disparate
proprietary applications using single, custom ―one-off‖ links or a proprietary middleware application. As with
common applications, this system can increase access to information, improve user functionality, and permit real-
time information sharing among agencies. Improving upon common applications, this system allows agencies to
choose their own application and control the functionality choices. However, if using one-to-one interfaces, the use
of multiple applications requires custom-interfaces for each linked system. As the region grows and additional
agencies participate, the required number of one-to-one links will grow significantly. Proprietary middleware
applications allow for a more simplified regional expansion; however, all participants must invest in a single ―one-
off‖ link to the middleware, including any state or Federal partners. Additionally, custom-interfaced applications
typically require more expensive maintenance and upgrade costs. Changes to the functionality of linked systems
often require changes to the interfaces as well.
One-Way Standards-Based Sharing—One-way standards-based sharing enables applications to ―broadcast/push‖ or
―receive/pull‖ information from disparate applications and data sources. This system enhances the real-time
common operating picture and is established without direct access to the source data; this system can also support
one-to-many relationships through standards-based middleware. However, because one-way standards-based shar-
ing is not interactive, it does not support real-time collaboration between agencies.
Two-Way Standards-Based Sharing—Two-way standards-based sharing is the ideal solution for data
interoperability. Using standards, this approach permits applications to share information from disparate
applications and data sources and to process the information seamlessly. As with other solutions, a two-way
approach can increase access to information, improve user functionality, and permit real-time collaborative
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
38
information sharing between agencies. This form of sharing allows participating agencies to choose their own
applications. Two-way standards-based sharing does not face the same problems as other solutions because it can
support many-to-many relationships through standards-based middleware. Building on the attributes of other
solutions, this system is most effective in establishing interoperability.
Voice Elements Swap Radios—Swapping radios, or maintaining a cache of standby radios, is an age-old solution that is time-
consuming, management-intensive, and likely to provide limited results due to channel availability.
Gateway—Gateways retransmit across multiple frequency bands, providing an interim interoperability solution as
agencies move toward shared systems. However, gateways are inefficient in that they require twice as much
spectrum because each participating agency must use at least one channel in each band per common talk path and
because they are tailored for communications within the geographic coverage area common to all participating
systems.
Shared Channels—Interoperability is promoted when agencies share a common frequency band or air interface
(analog or digital), and are able to agree on common channels. However, the general frequency congestion that
exists nationwide can place severe restrictions on the number of independent interoperability talk paths available in
some bands.
Proprietary Shared Systems and Standards-Based Shared Systems—Regional shared systems are the optimal
solution for interoperability. While proprietary systems limit the user’s choice of product with regard to
manufacturer and competitive procurement, standards-based shared systems promote competitive procurement and
a wide selection of products to meet specific user needs. With proper planning of the talk group architecture, in-
teroperability is provided as a byproduct of system design thereby creating an optimal technology solution.
Training & Exercises Implementing effective training and exercise programs to practice communications interoperability is essential for
ensuring that the technology works and responders are able to effectively communicate during emergencies.
General Orientation on Equipment and Applications—Agencies provide initial orientation to their users with regard
to their particular equipment and applications. Multi-agency/multi-jurisdictional operations are often an
afterthought to this training, if provided at all.
Single Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff—Structured tabletop exercises promote planning
and identify response gaps. However, single agency activities do not promote interoperability across disciplines
and jurisdictions. Additionally, management and supervisory training is critical to promoting routine use of
interoperability mechanisms.
Multi-Agency Tabletop Exercises for Key Field and Support Staff—As agencies and disciplines begin working
together to develop exercises and provide field training, workable interoperability solutions emerge. Tabletops
should address data and/or voice communications interoperability and focus on effective information flow.
Multi-Agency Full Functional Exercises Involving All Staff—Once multi-agency/multi-discipline plans are developed
and practiced at the management and supervisory level, it is critical that all staff who would be involved in actual
implementation receive training and participate in exercises.
Regular Comprehensive Regionwide Training and Exercises—Optimal interoperability involves equipment
familiarization and an introduction to regional/state interoperability at time of hire (or in an academy setting).
Success will be assured by regular, comprehensive, and realistic exercises that address potential problems in the
region and involve the participation of all personnel.
Despite the best planning and technology preparations, there is always the risk of the unexpected—those critical
and unprecedented incidents that require an expert at the helm who can immediately adapt to the situation. Within
the Incident Command System, these specialists are called Communications Unit Leaders. The role of the
Communications Unit Leader is a critical function that requires adequate training and cannot be delegated to an
individual simply because that person ―knows about communications systems.‖ Rather, the proper training of these
individuals is of significant importance to a region’s ability to respond to unexpected events, and it should prepare
them to manage the communications component of larger interoperability incidents by applying the available
technical solutions to the specific operational environment of the event.
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
39
Usage-Usage refers to how often interoperable communications technologies are used. Success in this element
is contingent upon progress and interplay among the other four elements on the Interoperability Continuum.
Planned Events—Events for which the date and time are known (e.g., athletic events and large
conferences/conventions that involve multiple responding agencies).
Localized Emergency Incidents—Emergency events that involve multiple intra-jurisdictional responding agencies
(e.g., a vehicle collision on an interstate highway).
Regional Incident Management—Routine coordination of responses across a region that include automatic aid fire
response as well as response to natural and man-made disasters.
Daily Use Throughout Region—Interoperability systems are used every day for managing routine as well as
emergency incidents. In this optimal solution, users are familiar with the operation of the system(s) and routinely
work in concert with one another.
Leadership, Planning, and Collaboration In addition to progression along the five elements of the Interoperability Continuum, regions should focus on
planning, conducting education and outreach programs, and maintaining an awareness of the specific issues and
barriers that affect a particular region’s movement towards increased interoperability. For example, many regions
face difficulties related to political issues and the relationships within and across emergency response disciplines
(e.g., EMS, fire-rescue response, and law enforcement) and jurisdictions. Leaders of all agencies and political sub-
divisions should help to work through these challenging internal and jurisdictional conflicts as well as set the stage
for a region’s commitment to the interoperability effort. Additionally, leaders must be willing to commit the time
and resources necessary to ensure the sustained success of any interoperability effort. For example, ongoing main-
tenance and support of the system must be planned and incorporated into the budget.
In addition, collaboration should involve other agencies and organizations that may be critical in supporting the
mission of emergency responders. Examples include emergency management agencies, the National Guard, public
works, educational institutions/schools, transportation, medical facilities, and large private facilities.
Sustainability Communications interoperability is an ongoing process, not a one-time investment. Once a governing body is set
up, it must be prepared to meet on a regular basis, drawing on operational and technical expertise to plan and
budget for continual updates to systems, procedures, and training and exercise programs. If regions expect
emergency responders to use interoperable equipment on a daily basis, supporting documentation and the installed
technology must be well-maintained with a long-term commitment to upgrades and the eventual replacement of
equipment.
Lastly, an interoperability program should include both short- and long-term solutions. Early successes can help
motivate regions to tackle more time-consuming and difficult challenges. It is critical, however, that short-term
solutions do not inappropriately drive the planning process, but function in support of a long-term plan.
National Frameworks As an evolving tool, the Interoperability Continuum supports the National Preparedness Strategy and aligns with
national frameworks including, but not limited to, the National Response Framework, the National Incident
Management System, the National Emergency Communications Plan, and the National Communications Baseline
Assessment. To maximize the Interoperability Continuum’s value to the emergency response community,
SAFECOM will regularly update the tool through a consensus process involving practitioners, technical experts,
and representatives from local, tribal, state, and Federal agencies.
SAFECOM is a communications program of the Department of Homeland Security. SAFECOM provides research,
development, testing and evaluation, guidance, tools, and templates on interoperable communications-related issues
to local, tribal, state, and Federal emergency response agencies. The Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)
Tarrant County 9-1-1 District
Feasibility Study – Regional Radio System
40
supports SAFECOM’s development of grant guidance, policy, tools, and templates, and provides direct assistance
to local, tribal, state, and Federal practitioners. The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) supports
SAFECOM’s research, development, testing and evaluation, standards, and tools such as reports and guidelines.
OEC is an office within the Directorate for National Protection and Programs. OIC is an office within the Science
and Technology Directorate.
Visit www.safecomprogram.gov or call 1-866-969-SAFE