tarrant county 9-1-1 district feasibility study regional...

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



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)



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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



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



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



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



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



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.


Board of Managers


Executive DirectorRadio Advisory Board

Tarrant County 9-1-1

District

Support Staff

CONCEPTUAL GOVERNANCE MODEL

Fiduciary Partner

Figure 3.2



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.


Board of Managers


Executive Director


Radio Advisory Board

Operations Working

GroupTechnical Work Group Finance Work Group


District

Support Staff


Administrative Partner

Service Providers

Figure 3.3



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.


Board of Managers


Executive DirectorRadio Advisory Board

Operations Working Group Technical Work Group Finance Work Group


District

Support Staff


Managing Partner

Service Providers

Engineering MaintenanceSubscriber

Programming


Regional Radio System Manager

Figure 3.4



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



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.



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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


Greg Minter Sergeant


Mike Leyman Chief of Police


C.J. Holt Radio Communications Coordinator


Fred Keithley Director of Communication Services

Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Greg Petrey Executive Director



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



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



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



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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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)



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

tarrant county 9-1-1 district feasibility study regional...

Documents