 Good afternoon everyone, for everybody online, we're just getting all set up here in the room, working on sharing the agenda on the screen so that everybody has visibility to that. Give us just one moment. All right, can I get confirmation from somebody online that they can indeed see the agenda that is being shared? Yeah, this is Mike. I've been reading, I see it. Perfect, thank you. Let's go ahead and get started with roll call. I will start down on the left side of the room here. Brenda Brunner, president, representing Africa. Jody Pat, president, representing California Police Chiefs Association. Alicia Fuller, president, representing the California Highway Patrol. Jeff Logan, representing California Fire Chiefs Association. He's a young president, representing Kalnina. And anybody online from the board or from the LRPC? Sorry. And Riley, representing Cal State Sheriff's Association. Thanks Erin. All right, we'll go ahead and proceed to the next item, which is the approval of the previous minutes. But does anybody have any questions regarding those minutes? Hearing nothing. We'll motion to approve. Can I get a motion, please? Brenda Brunner, motion to approve. I can second that, Jody Pat. Excellent. Minutes approved as they stand. All right, moving right along to California 911 Branch Strategic Updates. I'll turn it over to Ryan and Andrew to bring us to our first topic. All right, so Ryan and I were talking about some of the initiatives we're working on right now. So we'll get into a few of those, the ones that don't already have an agenda topic assigned. So right now we have started in earnest on our pre-migration testing program. So we went through, as you all know, we did the Tiger Team testing back in June to October of last year. We were successful in getting call handling pretty well set up in order to start the migration process. But what we needed to do is we needed to finish Autos' portion of failover testing. We had to do transfer testing, a couple of other things. We're calling it pre-migration testing, that's an Autos term. This is sort of their testing that we're running through. So we've started that process. We got the testing protocols and workbooks ready to go. We got a schedule put together, a quarter one schedule. We haven't gone out past that just yet. We're getting a quarter two put together right now. We got everything lined up and we began that process last week. So what we're doing is we are testing at right now two PSAPs per day, four days a week, just for the first two weeks. So last week and this week, doing a little kind of like we did with Tiger Team where we came in and did some, I wouldn't call it testing, but just lighter load so we can see how everything looks, see how the testing performs. We'll finish that up this week and starting next week, we're going to be testing at four PSAPs per day. So one per region per day. So not an intense schedule like the Tiger Team was where we were doing upwards of 10 or 11 per day. We're only doing four per day. So that'll be Monday through Thursday. And right now we're just getting a feel for how the testing is going to go. It's been going pretty well so far. We are running into some standard issues that we knew we would see in the field, CPE stuff. We've had a few transfer issues, but we're working through it. Nothing unusual at this point. We have hired and awarded contract to a project management firm, an IT project management firm to come and help us. So this project, while we have the staff to generally to conduct and carry it out, especially with the help of the next-gen vendors, this is going to take us through the entire year. So four PSAPs per day, four days a week sounds like a lot, but when you extrapolate that out to the whole state, it's 10 months worth of work. So my team, my next-gen project managers have other assignments, other things that they have to worry about. So we brought on some extra bodies to help us with this process to do a lot of the scheduling, the outreach, really a lot of the legwork that is necessary to make a project successful like this. We're not going to frankly have the time to do for an entire year. We need to have my project managers working with the next-gen vendors to track down issues to make sure that we're getting reschedules done to make sure that we're having success. So that contract was awarded last week. On Thursday we closed out, we had gone out to RFP and we awarded contract to Promethean One and they're working with some of the folks from 911 Authority. They're coming on, we're having an onboarding meeting with them this week and they're going to hit the ground running. So they're going to be doing a lot of the outreach for us, helping us contact PSAPs and help us with a lot of the messaging, some of the stuff that we need additional bodies for. So very much looking forward to that. They've got a great team. For those of you know, that's a really good firm. Promethean One does really good work. 911 Authority is well known in the industry. They do really good work, so we're very excited. So that is ongoing now with the intention of carrying that out through the year. That'll be our process through the year is pre-migration testing. Upon successful testing, the goal will be to schedule carrier migration at each site that we have a full transfer cluster ready to go. So any place that we get a transfer cluster identified and ready, the goal will be to go ahead and migrate traffic within a month from successful pre-migration testing date. So that's our big push right now. That's our really our number one initiative right now on the project management side, on the network side. For call handling, we continue to work through our process of getting vendors certified and we'll have a thorough update for everybody tomorrow with the advisory board for call handling for the vendors that have been certified through the lab. Brian, anything to add? I'm trying to think. I think you covered that is the process. I think one of the parts that go maybe not according to the plan that we've already established is what we do, what we do encounter those issues and how we get that roll back in to the process, right? Obviously like the 10 month plan that Andrew just laid out was based on success, right? If we do the four piece out per day, four days a week, that equates to 10 months. And obviously the IT contractor coming on board is to support that, but what happens when we run into issues and we need that feedback to get those issues resolved, we schedule, when we already have a 10 month deployment provided those all go successful, then yeah of course we have a pretty straightforward plan that in the event that we start to run into issues, it's how do we accommodate those while knowing that we can't stop moving forward on those already pre-planned sites? Keep the momentum up, Brian. So I do have one question. With the IT management firm, are they going to be subcontracting with any additional vendors beyond the 911 authority and will there be visits to each individual PSAP? Good questions. They have outlined the personnel that they are providing for the project and there are no other companies involved, right? And frankly it's just Promethean one, right? They're partnering with staff from 911 authority, but they're going to be reporting up through Promethean one, so it's not like a traditional subcontractor type role. It's one team for us. As far as I know, that's it. That's what they bid. And then no, the plan is not to have them physically go out to PSAPs. This is going to be helping us remotely, helping us with work that can be done at the office level, yeah. So there won't be any interface between them and the PSAPs? We shouldn't be expecting emails or correspondence from them, emails that we might delete if we have no idea that that's a company that's working for you all or how's that going to be pushed out to all the PSAPs so we know. Yeah, so great question, Judi. So we are aware that, I'll just be honest, even our emails go to the rectangular file every now and then. So knowing that a vendor is not going to have that name recognition and that onsite recognition from a PSAP. One of the plans we have, and we were talking about possibly getting them OES email addresses as contractors, we can do that for temporary access so they can at least have an OES email, right? So it's a little more recognizable. They won't be interfacing, I'll clarify, face to face with PSAPs. They won't be going out onsite. They will be interfacing, you know, phone teams email, that sort of thing. They will have direct contact with you a little bit. They're supposed to be helping us with the schedule building, the notification, that sort of thing. And so we're hoping that if we can get them OES email addresses, that'll help with that portion of it. If we can't, we're going to have to rethink that strategy a little bit and probably have our team be a little more engaged maybe than we had hoped to physically be the one to send that email or make that phone call, right? For that familiarity for the PSAP. And then in terms of testing, is this testing going to be done in the background or is there going to be expectation that us at the PSAP level are going to be interacting with them back and forth to do this testing? There is some interaction. Yeah, so we do need a call taker who can who can answer some calls, transfer some calls. Yes. Similar to the Tiger team. Thanks for that information, that update. A lot of good information there. A couple of questions and this being my first meeting here, if this is not really the scope here, feel free to tell me so my feelings won't be hurt. But from a region perspective or maybe even the groups that we represent here, is there anything we can do to assist with your guys' team as you're taking on this, whether it be messaging, be happy to take that on and help out. And then the second question is you talked about after the pre-migration being done and then eventual migration to the next gen system, if we will. We had talked at some of the regional task force and then again at the OES call, is there a consideration or a plan to possibly roll that out county by county kind of like we did text to 911? So I'll take your first question, which was, you said, how can you, how can you guys help? The big thing for us as always is time is working against us, right? We have a schedule that we're trying to meet in four a day. It's a lot. So our ask would be that if you're able to talk to your organizations, talk to your neighboring PSAPs, any help that we can get to keep the schedule as close to original as possible is a big, big deal for us. Every PSAP that has to move because of vacations or something that maybe we could work around is a problem for us. It's no balls, right? And it creates delays. We're already going to have enough of that with PSAPs that don't pass testing that will really want to save all of our time on the back end for those. And so any help that you can provide in just making sure that the PSAPs are aware that this is happening. Awareness is always a problem for us, for a state this big with this many PSAPs. So awareness and just accommodation. So that communication out from you guys is very helpful for us so that we can get the PSAPs to understand that please be accommodating. Let us test on the day that we're trying to test, which leads into the second question. If we can't, if we can't keep the schedule as is, we've designed it to try and hit transfer clusters. Now, not necessarily county by county, you think of like Orange County, you know, you're transferring LA all the time, you're transferring to San Diego all the time. So we definitely are looking at regions and we're looking at how many PSAPs do you transfer to? How many do you accept from? So rather than a county by county rollout, we're looking, it equates mostly to region by region, but it's even pockets within that, but it doesn't always align to the county borders. That makes sense. Thank you. Going back to what Ryan you had said about dealing with issues that are identified, you've acknowledged that there would be. Does OES have a plan for dealing with those issues, identifying them, tracking them, determining how they're going to affect clusters and the ability to go live? So what we're doing is we are, we've got a kind of a universal resource, it's a teams group, where we've put punch lists essentially, right? So for each PSAP that they go to, we do our testing, Autos does their testing. We're a little more hands-off this time, right? As with Tiger Team, our OES personnel were actually the ones conducting the testing and doing the notation. So now Autos is doing their own testing, so we're a little bit more hands-off, but we go through, we conduct Autos' testing and we notate the passes and the fails and anything that fails goes on a punch list for that specific PSAP and it gets uploaded to the teams group. So everyone has access to it and everyone on the project or the next-gen vendors and the CPE vendors all have access to it so that there is essentially a list for each PSAP of work that needs to be done. The expectation is that those vendors are logging in and looking at those lists and actively working those lists with my team where needed, right? The project managers were needed with Ryan's team where needed for the engineering side, but the expectation is on them to keep that effort moving in parallel to additional testing, right? I was on the phone with AT&T just prior to coming in here and we're finalizing details on how that's going to work now. AT&T obviously is the lion's share of call handling in the state, so in a lot of ways once we've secured AT&T's help with call handling or services with call handling then that takes care of a large chunk of the state. So we are working with them right now to secure technician availability to get help on those punch lists to make sure that anything that is CPE related gets handled by AT&T and so forth and obviously we're having those conversations with the other CPE vendors as well just on a smaller scale. Did that answer your question, Melissa? Yes, mostly how are the PSAPs being kept in the loop as to that process? How do they know that they're on the no-go list and how do they know when they come back off of it? Will they just be rolled back into a new pre-migration date? Most of them aren't asking, most of them conduct the testing and okay, see you later. We'll see when you see it. I know CHP is a lot more involved and you guys are definitely like to be a lot more involved in the testing and the notification, but for most PSAPs we're going through, we're conducting testing and there's no formal notification to the PSAP or formal sign off to the PSAP saying okay, you're ready. What we will do is once we have a cluster identified that we're going to go live at, then you're going to get notifications in. It's going to be, hey, we're going to be going live. There's going to be things that we're going to have to do to get you live, but for the testing portion of it, let's say a PSAP fails. We're really just working with a call taker or dispatcher kind of in the moment on the floor. It's not generally a whole thing with the PSAP, so if testing fails, we wrap, we conduct as much as we can, and if there's issues, we notate and we go back. If we pass, we wrap, and then they go on the pass list. We actually built a dashboard for this as well, so we're going to show that tomorrow at the advisory board as well. So we'll have a dashboard that'll be publicly available, so we want to include that as part of our messaging into your point, Jeff. If there's a way you can help us with that too, this dashboard will be searchable. It'll be toggleable by region, county, or PSAP, so you can go in and look and see when your schedule date is and see how your results look worked out. So we think that'll help quite a bit with PSAP awareness. For those that want to be aware, they will have that tool, right? And for those that don't care, for lack of a better word, those that aren't as involved, we will put them back on the schedule and notify them as appropriate. Either way, for retesting or for go live, they'll be notified. So the dashboard is going to track pre-migration and migration, and that'll be sent out via a... It'll be on the OES website. Sorry, Casey. So just one slight go back. When you talk about the pre-migration testing process that started this week, are there some PSAPs who, in their Tiger team rollout, already had pre-migration, and there's this difference? Because I know some of them, they did like I-3 test calls and stuff, but this is more different than that. This is above and beyond. This is above and beyond, yeah. Just going to piggyback off of Jess's ask and wonder, when can we expect messaging to come from Cal OES about Perrithian 1 and a plan moving forward so that we can send the messaging out from the county coordinators, expected to be other PSAPs? So we'll be messaging it. Well, we'll be messaging it tomorrow at the advisory board, of course. If you're looking for something more formal, we're having our kickoff meeting with them next week or this week, me. And we're building that documentation right now. I don't have a date for you. Our kickoff is Thursday. So come Thursday, we'll have a plan identified that we can start to put that material together and get it out. Expect it quickly or not. We don't have time to sit for weeks and weeks. So we'll get the kickoff going. We'll get the material prepared and have it out probably next week. Is it going to be my guess? Thank you. Two things. PSAP testing. For those PSAPs that are conducting their own test plan between pre-migration and migration, when should that happen? And how do they work with, what do they work with on your team or the vendor project team to make sure that they can do testing? Like test numbers are alive and not broken for any PSAP that is doing their own post pre-migration test. But pre-migration test, that makes any sense at all. Well, I guess I would suggest, I don't know if it's possible, but I would suggest doing any testing that you want to conduct a PSAP prior to pre-migration testing would probably be better because then you'll have resources on hand during, we call it PMT, pre-migration testing. During PMT, you'll have resources on hand to address those issues that you found in your testing. I would actually suggest doing it prior if that's possible. When will scheduling come out so that the PSAPs know when their pre-migration is going to be conducted? We have a schedule now. I've got a schedule, a master schedule for Q1. We're developing Q2 right now. So if a PSAP is interested, obviously we'll hand that out. We'll get you a schedule. Most PSAPs, they just want lead time. They don't want to know the whole schedule. They just want to know when theirs is and they want enough time to plan for it. So right now we're giving two weeks notice prior to showing up to individual PSAPs. If you need more than that, just reach out to me individually and I'll get that for you. And then the other question along with that then is, do we have like, and I know it's going to be different for every PSAP, but an estimated time commitment for the PSAPs when they have someone on board there? That's a tough one. I think we, well, we're scheduling all day. We're scheduling nine to two just to be safe. That alone is helpful. Yeah, we're scheduling all day. Right now we're seeing the shorter ones are a couple of hours, two hours I think, but the longer ones where we do run into issues where we're seeing they're lasting the full stretch. So I'm trying to, we're formulating very specific questions right now, but I'm trying to look ahead to the fact that you want to get to migration, right? And there's all these tiny little pieces that have to fall into place in order for that to happen, including PSAP knowing that they've been pre-migrated, right? And knowing that migration is happening so that they can look at their telltales differently, for example, and understand that they're on an entirely different network. So how is that being globally communicated so that if you hit issues, the PSAP knows what to do. And if you don't hit issues, everybody is ready to go, so to speak, if that makes sense for an actual migration. Because again, there's a lot of little things that are happening in the background that the PSAP doesn't necessarily know about or need to know about unless they become more intimately involved in the process. But when it comes time to migrate and their data looks different, for example, you need to know that they're on board essentially. So how is that being developed and how do we help that process so that we can get to the end of the year and next year in a way that's together and realistic? I would say that process has been ongoing for some time. I mean, we've been messaging this for a long time trying to get people to understand the changes that are coming more specifically now that we've seen the telltales and we've seen the differences on screen. I mean, we did the town halls, what was that, two weeks ago, right? We had 450 total participants across four of those. So that's a good outreach. And we did talk quite a bit about that topic on those. Over the over forever, I mean, I guess since we've been in existence, we try to message as best we can through the channels that we have. Kalnina, Apco, these boards, town hall meetings, task forces, we have these tried and true methods that we messaged through. But to my earlier point, Alicia, some PSAPs aren't engaged and we will never get to them until you go knock on their door. And even then, who are you? So we've been working through this for some time and we've been building up to this for some time messaging. Whether or not we've hit everyone, I would guarantee probably not because that's the nature of the beast. But we certainly try. And then we've adapted branch memos. We've put stuff on the website. I mean, we're trying to get the messaging out there. But that is, you said it, that is where your participation is crucial because if you're going back to your various professional groups and messaging this force and amplifying our message, that's only going to help. For our groups, I think what is helpful is a bit of a bigger picture. Like having the schedule, the individual PSAPs may not want or need invisibility to that. But to be able to get the entire CHP, the entire Sheriff's Association on board and have an understanding at that higher level, it would be helpful to be able to provide kind of a package to them that says, this is what we've done so far. We can all speak to that on our own. But to be able to say, you're scheduled for Q1, you're scheduled for Q2. And it doesn't have to be PSAP by PSAP, but it needs to speak to the story that we're trying to tell and to enable the project moving forward. Absolutely. I mean, I'll get you any material you need. And if you guys are using that for that purpose, to help us message on a larger scale, absolutely. I'll get you whatever you need. Are you also touched on call handling? I don't believe that's a separate topic. Correct? No. Are there any questions about call handling? I think we've covered next in pretty well. Can you share who's in labs and who's on the street coming out soon? Yeah, sure. So who's in labs is carbine and trotto and motor roller? Those are the ones actively working to get past phase two so that you can get to that certification to sell. The three that have already been in past since quite some time is NGA, Lumen, or micro-automation, and Autos. Yeah. So the three that are getting close, the intent there is they're all actively working right now. They've been actively working with the hopes that they can get to Kalanina as part of that phase two completed just like Autos, NGA, and micro-automation. That's their goal and we're working towards that. How many PSAPs have you have signed with a new vendor? And how many? Okay. I think we're above 30 now. Yeah. How many deploying? Still just desert hot springs. Yeah. I think right now it's been the same story for a while. Connectivity has been an issue behind the scenes, not to the PSAP. Connectivity is all established to the PSAP, but behind the scenes, core to cloud connectivity has taken more time than we've been comfortable with or happy with. It just is what it is. I'm not 100% sure what the delays are caused by from our next-gen vendors, but they've certainly been delayed in getting those circuits in. My understanding is most of them are in now, but we're configuring them, which is additionally taking too much time. So the circuits are our main hold up for getting new deployments. Desert Hot Springs was a, I don't know, I won't call it an emergency deployment, but it was one where we had other considerations at stake. So we had to do kind of a work around behind the scenes for the network. So the rest are in process, but it's taking time. But we've signed off on, yeah, I think over 30 now. Janice, teamhouse. Is there a discussion on that? Do we have to go down to rabbit hole? Anything else on item three before we move on to item number four? All right. Let's move on to recruiting and retention and that contract that was set in place. How's that going? So we got, what was it, 571 responses or 407 responses from dispatch from line level for the study. I was just looking at the number and now I'm blanking on it, but it was a good number. The last time we spoke, we had 25 manager surveys returned and 50 in progress, which was not great. So we left that one open for a while. We left that survey open and we reengaged one-on-one with all of those that were still open and we're now, we flip-flopped on those numbers. Now we have 50 complete, 25 that were still in progress. So good progress there. We got a lot more responses from the management level. I know that that was an intense survey. It's quite long, right? With numbers that needed to be pulled and a lot of stuff that was not convenient and we recognize that, but we appreciate the engagement and those who did complete it. So the survey is, I think, will be closing up pretty soon here. I'll have to apologize. Paul is the one who really runs point on this one and Don, I get most of my information second hand, but we did get a good reversal on those numbers and we got some good engagement. So that'll be closing up soon. I got the timelines here. Give me a second to see what's next. This is why you bring your computer, Ryan. All right. Let me get to it for you. So let's see. March. So right around the corner, what are we, 10 days from March? We'll be closing that data collection and we'll be starting our analysis of that work with 911 Authority and by May we'll have the first draft out of the staffing, training, and retention plan. So I'm very excited for that. So that'll be about the next time we meet here. That first draft should be out. So hopefully it's out with enough time for you guys to review it before we come here. So you can have some feedback on it. It would be ideal. So I think we'll, I'll take a note of that and make sure that we, we have that planned for the beginning of May. To take that first go through on that and then dedicating some time in that meeting for feedback would be fabulous. And I mean, if that doesn't line up, then we'll do the next. I think it may have been intentional because the final draft is due in August, which is the next round of this. So it must have been, somebody must have been thinking ahead. So yeah, we'll put that on there for early May. If you could let us know if that's not going to line up because then we could potentially look at a special session if we need to just to discuss that topic so that we don't have to wait until the fall or the summer. Well, yeah, and that's when the final draft is due anyways, the vendor is going to be, you know, they're going to be running out of time at that point. So just want to make sure that you close it up. Well, and if there's, because I know we used to do quarterly plus two for the long range planning committee, and I know that that is recently we took, we went back to quarterly. So I don't know what the process is for adding a plus back on. And I don't know, you know, obviously if that's, if that's possible or not, but I would suggest if unavoidable, perhaps there's a way we can get the information to you. You guys can review it without having to do a, you know, all of this, but we'll shoot for early May. That way we can meet and talk. Hi, policy-based routing. What do you got for us? So I think it's important we start talking about it so that we're not blindsided by it. In all seriousness, yeah, I think that this board, I think that we need to request, you know, I guess ideas, action plans, and or thoughts and suggestions from this board as to what we, what we the state should be planning for. Because we know what the system is supposed to do, right? Policy-based routing is very different from alternative answer, which is what we're all used to today. There are a lot of PSAPs that that you aren't familiar with it or are scared of it or don't want it to change for reasons good and bad. So we, I think that we would like to ask the RPC with maybe helping us draft a plan or message something that we can bring to the PSAPs that isn't so scary, right? Because, you know, policy-based routing is new. It's different. We just want to make sure that we are fully utilizing the system and not, and not getting, I don't want to say stuck, it's not the right word, but just not staying with something that we know because it's all we know. So if there's, I don't know how we want to approach this, how the, how the advisory board or the LRPC wants to tackle this, but I think this is something that we would be excited to get some feedback on. Because technology is there. The technology isn't the problem, right? It's the, it's the messaging, it's the training, it's the education. So I think what's important and most important for many PSAPs is the ability to have the routing in a neighboring agency function as well as somewhere beyond. Let's say there's a critical incident that's in your region and just having the ability to have your calls answered somewhere else and how they would look to be processed and how that information would feed back to the originating PSAP that may be a part of the critical incident. And I think those are some of the concerns that are kind of on the horizon. Like if we send our calls, we're in Northern California, we send our calls to Southern California. What is that going to look like statistically for our PSAP in terms of funding, in terms of call volume, et cetera, et cetera? And what type of agreement are we entering into with the agency that's far away? No, I get it, Brenda. And I think that that is, we talk a lot about sending calls wherever, right? Send them LA to Redding to San Diego. I know it sounds great, but is it reality to do something like that? Probably not, right? You're probably going to keep things regional in the case of the Bay Area, right? If you have a gigantic earthquake, you got to go out of region, but how far, right? Ideally, it'd be somebody who could still potentially respond. Hopefully, maybe. So probably not Los Angeles, right? But it's a fun thing to message as a feature. But I think that the reality is that the MOUs have to be in place. Interoperable CAD, radio, that stuff is a very, very important piece of the picture. We're just one piece of this pie. So if we can send your calls to neighboring agencies, we're happy to do so. But I think it's important that we don't lose sight of the fact that the PSAPs have a responsibility in this, too, to form those MOUs with the partnering agencies now. In the case of a massive earthquake, when it's all bets are off, we can route calls where we need to route them. For funding, we can deal with that. That's all policy. That's just in-house. And we have in the past, we've dealt with PSAPs who have had specialty funding cases for a number of reasons. I was an advisor for many, many years and I personally dealt with several cases where we had oddball funding issues. So that I'm not worried about. We can work with you on that. But it's the interoperability thing that is, I think, the bigger question here and the bigger task. And that's one of the reasons that we were talking about getting into the CAD RFP that we've been mentioning over the last few months, potentially Login Recorder RFP, that sort of thing. That's the reason really why we push those or why we were pushing those is to help promote that interoperability that we think is not lacking but certainly stronger in some areas than others, right? So I think that that's something that we will have to continue to work on and we'll have to make sure that the PSAPs are engaged. Thanks, Ryan. Am I answering your question? Is that, I mean, is that a big one? In the nutshell, yes. We do have interoperability with the radios currently. And just where and how would policy-based routing look in comparison to that? I understand the MOUs and talking with other agencies to say, okay, we've had this major earthquake in Alameda County. Well, now it reaches beyond Alameda County because there may be some residuals in the neighboring counties. So it would have to go a little further, perhaps. And how would that look? Perhaps all the way to Sacramento, right? Possibly. So I think I'm probably stepping on Ryan's toes. You could speak to policy-based routing much better than I can. He was nodding his head. Yeah, he can. And I'll pass it over to you, the baton here. But I would say that your PSAPs will want plans A, B, C, D, E, and F. A is calls ringing past 30 seconds. We want them to go here. Those people don't do that. B is Gas League. C is Crater. D is Regionwide Earthquake that takes out everybody. Something like that would probably be what you would want to equip. And then when the time comes, when that event happens, you know, you did initiate Plan E, and then that center calls to Sacramento or something like that. Ryan, did I get it? Yeah, I think so. I think what you, Rhonda and Alicia, are trying to get at is really that menu for the PSAPs to be able to really decide. I think step one is just to set up what that MOU is for just your normal alt-answer PSAP. Right? Not when the earthquake comes and you got to go completely ad hoc and come up with an idea right there on the fly. I mean, I want to know just from the very basics and the instances that we're working right with CHP, right? Their first question is we got alt-answer to whatever, you know, their agency that they choose. And we need to make sure that that policy is in place. And when do you enact that policy? Is it, you know, calling the knock? Is it auto policy where you just abandon your PSAP by logging out of your Vesta and that happens? You know, I think we're at that point of really trying to establish what that looks like at a very fundamental level. And then you got the more, you know, exotic techs, you know, use cases where you got to go to Southern California or something. You know, to me, we haven't even really established what we have for the very basic policy. Proof of concept almost, right, Ryan? Like showing that it actually works. And the call handling that we use today while tried and true for alternative answer doesn't have a large range of capabilities for policy-based routing. How many policies are there, Ryan? There's only a couple. Yeah, there's only a few. But we still need to define what that looks like, get that in front of the PSAP so they can set those MLUs across what you already have in place on the legacy side, but also to initiate that in the next-gen core services. We need to know what that is so that they can pre-program those in the event that you need to use them. I know that's some of the concern that you have as we start to talk about the OSP migrations once we get past this pre-migration phase. What does that look like? Because then we're carrying live traffic. And the event that CHP needs to go into all answer, do we have those policies already put in place to respond to those instances? I think that's what we, you know, to me what the LRPC can help for the greater community out there, what this menu looks like so that when Alicia and her CHP centers are going through establishing what the policies look like for just the basic stuff, everyone else can leverage that work that she's been doing. That's my opinion on what we could be doing at the LRPC, but I don't know, we could open up to you guys to see what you guys, I mean, if it's more just information-based and we need to start talking about what policy even looks like, maybe that's step one. And then we start to go into the menu, but, you know, we'll open it up to you guys and see what you guys think as far as how best to approach this as we start to move to that next phase of carrying actual live traffic where the policies actually mean something rather than the textbook theory where we were over the last five years, say. Yeah, I do like and appreciate the whole menu option of sorts, however, defining at the forefront is important before we start slicing and dicing it down. Thank you. I think, you know, in the past, it is scary when we start talking about policy, right? Because in the past, just I just flipped my switch and I know that my agency partners with St. Alicia and we always have this agreement to just flip the switch and you get my calls or vice versa. But I think the story we often hear is like if the earthquake comes and all of Northern California is completely, you know, destroyed, we need to send it to Southern California, starts to bring in those questions of, well, what are you going to do with my call? You don't have the same CAD, how are you going to get back to me? And then even to the 800 miles away. Yeah, what are you going to do? I mean, it's scary. But yet, we're at that point of actually carrying traffic soon as we start to go through these next 10 months, there's going to be PSAPs carrying live traffic that are going to be faced with questions that Alicia has already brought to us. Well, if I go into all of the answer, I need to know how to enact policy for just the simple flip the switch equivalent. So to me, it should be important for us to at least define what that looks like. Again, I know I've been saying that, you know, that's my theme, but I think it's important that we they nail that down. So what about, and I know it's tough for us to work together without breaking rules, right? For us to communicate as a committee in a public fashion, but we do, we kind of need to work together to create a list of what we want and what we need, right? We need the equivalent of alternate answer. I want to be able to draw a circle around SoFi stadium when there's an event there and have call takers handle out of it without disrupting the rest of the comm center, for example. So we need to draft something that is kind of those wants and those needs so that we can all take a sit down and take a look at it and say, OK, these are reasonable needs and these are reasonable wants and some of these are just pie in the sky scenarios that aren't realistic for where we are today, maybe in the future. And then I think there's also a conversation about how can OES help? Can we have sample MOUs where somebody's got a great MOU? Let's put it up on a website somewhere if possible, right? Or a shared file or, you know, funding from a say I need to program call handling in a certain way to make policy occur effectively. Is there funding available for that? So some of those FAQ type items that, you know, we can help develop through, you know, putting some of these agreements in place and you can help post and get information out there. But we need an effective way of starting that list, essentially creating a menu of what we want to see. Yeah, and I believe that this group, the LRPC was created for that express purpose. You can get the work done because you don't have the same limitations that the advisory board does where you get more than three people in a room and you got to do the Bagley-Keene thing and all that. We don't have that here. So I mean, if there's work to be done, I think this is a group to do it. Yeah, I think we do have some of those MOUs just as a subcommittee of the advisory board. So we shouldn't set ourselves in a room together that's not public. But, you know, somebody creating a list and then tossing it at somebody else and then tossing it to the next person. Yeah, a working draft, yeah. Something to OES before our next meeting that can then go to the task forces perhaps for therapy. For PSAP bidding, yeah. 100%. Would it be possible for us if there was interest in working on this project of establishing an ad hoc of this, including some subject matter experts from the technical side to look at all the options, make sure we're not missing anything. But that might be an option. But the other thing I'll say about this is that as we look at this as a large project, it's one of those things that is like one of those monster projects. It can be very overwhelming to look at it from the back and you start thinking about CADs and how are we going to get calls and geographically diverse, all of those things. And I think that it's almost impossible to tackle like that. We have to break it down to the basics of what you stated at the beginning there. And make sure just on a basic level, let the PSAPs worry about some of those larger issues that come with how am I going to get the calls from one place to another? How's my CAD going to interact? We need to be able to be focused on this just call delivery portion of it and how are we going to handle that? And how is the PSAPs going to look at that menu and decide to utilize the technology to the best of its ability, not dumb it down to what we've been doing for the past 50 years. And the citizens deserve that. The public deserves that. And so that's really where we have to put our focus on. And it is going to be hard. There's going to be PSAPs that don't want to change our use of things, but we're not doing anyone any favors if we're not leading to the technology and finding the best way to serve the public. Agreed. Well said. And I'm going to open up to everybody. Would it be best for us to throw ideas on a piece of paper and throw it at the task forces or the reverse of that? Have the task force members? Option A, yeah. Yeah, we've worked on, I guess I'll call them working meetings like document working meetings of the task forces in the past. It's a narrow scope where that really works. We can make it work, but in general, it's better if we're able to get a document and do like a live review and get feedback on the spot. That's surely more helpful, more productive. Can you guys provide us with what's possible technology-wise? That way, as we're trying to work on this stuff, we know this is a no-go or these are the various options like what can, can't we do? Yeah, we could do that. Yeah, I think that's Yeah, we could do that. I mean, but that is kind of the template, right? That we're trying to come up with, right? If we come up with all- Well, she's, she's making sure they don't go, you know, to pie in the sky, right? Like, we got to make sure we establish some ground rules for when they, you know, sure. That's what the technology can support and then beyond just that we have the best and vibrant support, right? Right. That's kind of where I wanted to hear your guys' feedback to see what you guys would even want to do as a PSAP and then see if we can align that to a technology or capability within there that, that would be able to support it rather than just saying, here's all you're gonna, you can get this. You know what I'm saying? There's like both sides to this story because I know in the past we've come up with that, but it scares a lot of people because if you start saying, yeah, you could start routing your calls to Southern, Southern California, they're like, well, no, thank you. I'll do policy based around in the future or, you know, versus let me hear what you guys want to do and I'll go back to the vendors and say, hey, look, there's a real need that the PSAPs feel they want to be able to do something as simple as that or as exotic as that. And then we'll come up and say, yeah, I'll align that to an error code or something to that extent to show that we can actually support that rather than me just saying, here's what you get. Now figure out if you like these or not generally. So what you're looking for is the exact opposite. You want us to come up with all the variables and then you are going to come back and say that's possible. I just don't want to waste time if you're, if you already know that's not possible. Excellent. I get where you're coming from. Yeah. I mean, we could, I guess that's a, we could debate which way, I mean, I certainly can get you that and get a list. I think we probably already have that list. It's just, I don't want to make it so either scary or, or confine and confine. Yeah, exactly. I rather, but that's just my opinion because I've seen how this all plays out. But if you guys want that to start, then certainly we can set that up as kind of the baseline template. I think it might be helpful. Is your way down in the weeds on a day to day basis? And we're not, so it may be helpful for us to have some concept of what we can do. Like, if we can't transfer to Mexico, for example, it'd be good to do that, right? You know what I mean? But that's a real live scenario that we would want to do. And if you say, well, you know, international transfers are not the capability right now, that would go on to our list of, we need this, but we understand that it's not. Yeah, don't, don't, don't confine yourself to the box that Ryan provides you as the takeaway here. You know, if he gives you the list of what we're, what we can do today, think outside of that and what else, because you can't, if you don't ask, you don't know. And then if we don't know what you want, we can't ask the vendors to provide it. So we can be that go between for you. Would it be like some of examples of what we're looking for, at least some of the discussions that I've heard so far on this topic would be, you know, establishing a menu that PSAPs can choose from, for example, making a selection between operator busy versus operators offline, or once you break that down geographically diversify, if you have other PSAPs you want to split, rotate your calls, and stuff like that. So are those the kind of options you would like us to work through? That's what I think. I mean, I know we've kind of done this exercise among CHP centers of getting her wish list of things that she wants in the next gen environment and then trying to align that to ways that we could support that. And if it's too hard, then we come back and kind of negotiate with Alicia and her CHP centers to come to a happy medium. But to me, I just don't want to say, well, here's how we're going to do all the answer. Here's how we're going to do you know, these various policy scenarios that are per the textbook, if you will. You know, there's not a lot of, I mean, Alicia, you have all kind of custom things that you would want that aren't necessarily going to be in my menu that I would give you from the baseline, if you will. Just to give some perspective, because we are kind of knee deep in this as well at CHP in testing, things like I need to bring inland live. Inland is a giant region, right? It's the entire inland empire, but in order to support everything around it, we need to bring inland live. Inland needs an alternate answer in case something happens, right? Inland's alternate answer is way over in Indio, for example. Indio is not ready to be live. How do I alternate answer? I three calls that may end up at inland to Indio successfully, that's a policy, right? We need to write that policy and that's what I need. Your technology at OES may not be able to do that right now, but we need to define that I need this thing so that the vendors can work toward it. That's just one real life example of thousands of different scenarios. Exactly. That's why I asked from the PSAP side, if you can come up with a general list of a few of the things that generally you would like to have happen and then we align that to the best policy to support that. That's to me how we should do it, rather than just saying here's the three things that you would get at a very high level, knowing that we can come up with some custom work around if we need to, like the international calling or a 10-digit policy to go to 10-digit if the on-net stuff isn't working, but to me we need to start to figure out based on the PSAP's concerns and real-life scenarios on how they want to call us to be treated and then align that to policy. That's our biggest hurdle, right? It's today PSAPs want it manual. They want the ability to flip the switch and send calls and that's the one thing policy-based routing doesn't do. That's a hurdle that we need to overcome too. When we're talking about this we need to understand how do we get past that mindset that it's going to be okay if we automate this. I think what's important as well is to survey our organizations and the PSAPs that are there and determine what do you do now? What would you want to do in the future? How can we support the Next Gen project if we are not able to receive or process a call here at our center? I think it'll become standard list. It'll become part of the checklist when you buy new CPE, the cloud-based CPE that has far more options than what are available to us today. I would assume that that's got to be part of that installation. Okay, let's set your codes. Let's set your policies while you're getting it installed. That'll probably start to create a knock-on effect. We'll get more and more of these done as that call handling gets out there. I think options are important. Everybody has a voice. Is there any planet like CalNina or Apcor or anything where Cal ODS has a topic to sit and talk through this with any managers? I know a lot of the issue is not everybody's involved, but if you're attending CalNina or Apcor, you're likely more involved and a little more knowledgeable about the tech and all that. Is there a plan to sit down related to this or something along the line? We did a ton of these, but I think we did them too early. We were doing this like two years ago. Three years ago, we were doing all these policy-based routing breakouts and people were just not understanding what we were talking about. I think we're too little too late for the upcoming CalNina. Call for papers is already in, but I don't know what we submitted for. I should probably know that. Yeah, pull the schedule. Yeah, and that's a difference. That's very much a difference, but agreed. I think that now that reality is going to be setting, and let's be clear with network migration and OSP migration, if we're still on the same CPE, the options are limited and we can set a baseline, like Ryan's talking about. Here's your option A, B, and C. That's all you get today, until you switch over. We'll have not a lot of time, but we'll have the time to be able to continue that outreach and continue that messaging. Then we'll have to check. I think Alicia's checking the CalNina schedule right now, but yeah. Even that would be good to know, like, hey, you're on this older CPE system. This is all you're getting, and so that might be where you come in and say, this is all you're eating technology-wise, but if you switch and to go to whatever this other vendor is, then look, you have all these other opportunities or things like when they do go wrong. That is easier said than done, Jerry. I mean, we were trying that when we first started rolling things out and we got a pretty good backlash for PSAP, so we wanted that manual process in place. That's why we went down that rabbit hole of calling the knock to do alternate answer, which takes like 30 minutes. It's a terrible process, but it was the only thing that we could do in lieu of policy-based routing. It was the only thing that was somewhat of a manual process like you guys are used to. We did briefly go down that path of, okay, this is what you're going to get. We got a lot of heat for it. We tried to correct, but it hasn't been very successful. That process is getting better, that calling into the knock to get that manual reroute done, but think about when you call AT&T today or Frontier for your network. If you need a manual reroute to a PSAP that's not on the same selective router, it's like two hours for them to get that done. It takes forever. If it's not automatic, if it's not, if you don't have the switch in place, so it's like that. It's cumbersome. But if you're saying you'll help us with that messaging, we would love to go back to, hey, this is what it's going to be. The manual process is going away. We don't have that to offer you anymore unless you want to sit on the phone with a knock, which nobody does. That would be great if you guys could help us with that with your professional organizations. We have a few of those. That was India's big thing, not India, sorry, Imperial, getting my eyes crossed up there. That was a big roadblock to go live before we went live there last year. They did not enjoy that alternate answer process. We worked with them. We got it down to a semi-manageable amount of time for them to do that, but it's not the answer. We have those PSAPs that have had that lessons learned and that we can utilize their experience to say, hey, this is not what you want, guys. Let's talk about policy based routing to see if it's any better. Jeff, you've been waiting forever, man. We ended up circling around and answering your question. Okay, so I think the next question is who's going to start this list on our end so that we can actually put pen to paper? Do I have any of them for you? I can start it. Okay. Okay, team it around and get it to you as soon as we possibly can. I'll put a draft together before the end of the week and send it to the group, and you guys can just start, you know, track changes, whatever we want to do on it. Sounds great. Sounds good. Okay, then we'll have to make sure it's an agenda item next time, so you've got the agenda. Perfect. All right, any other comments on policy based routing? All right, let's talk about regionalization and consolidation. This is a topic that has been gone for a while from the table and is creeping its head back onto the table again. I don't think it's really relevant with next-gen coming out of the way. For some background, you said it. It was the topic du jour for a long time, and then it sort of went away. Back when we first were absorbed by OES and the 911 branch came to OES, unless I think you might have still been working here at the time, as Mark Gilarducci was our director and he said, and I quote, I want one piece out per county, which we kind of said, okay, well, that's aggressive. Obviously, that never happened, but the fact is 440 PSAPs is a lot. It's a lot. Over half of our PSAPs are two in three position. It's a large number of PSAPs that are small, and our small PSAPs definitely have an important purpose and a place and everybody does a great job in this state of answering 911 calls. However, with the state of the industry, as far as staffing goes, one of the things we've talked about is how does regionalization and consolidation help with that? How do we have 80 PSAPs in Los Angeles County? Not to pick on you, Josh. 80 PSAPs in Los Angeles County, you can throw a rock and hit five of them at any place in San Gabriel Valley. Are there opportunities here where these people could still potentially keep that job, move to another dispatch center or have a regional dispatch center for all these five agencies where people aren't getting let go, right? People aren't losing their jobs, but the staffing question gets answered at the same time because more calls are coming in to a single center. We thought that that might be a relevant conversation with that being something that is a goal to be put out there. It seemed very fitting for this group to talk through and to get suggestions as to what can we do? What can OES do? What can your groups do to message this? We have technology now finally coming into being that can help with this, with cloud-based call handling and potentially even remote call handling. I don't want to say that out too loud, but it's on everyone's mind, right? Some states do it, some countries do it. Not saying that's a path we're heading down, but would these need to be items that we discuss and topics that we discuss? And so what we want to talk through at OES is short of writing legislation. What can we do in policy? Legislations, it's tough, right? That's hard to get through, but policy, we can do things. So do we create financial incentives for PSAPs to do this? Do we pay a chunk out to pay for something else? I mean, it has to be within the bounds that we're allowed by the FCC, right? There's a list of things that we're allowed to give you money for as PSAPs, but if we can stay in those bounds, is that an option? We thought this was an important topic that we can start to bring back to the table. Is there anything at all within the retention and recruitment contract that is going to lend towards, hey, maybe you should think about consolidation in California? I haven't read it. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Alicia, I'll have to get back to you on that. I have to imagine there's something in there about it. I mean, it's and one of the obvious ones in my mind, right? For potential paths forward. Because I think that's one of, we keep, we talk about it, but it's just our opinion, right? The world, according to the way we view it, representing our various organizations, having a third party come and say, other entities are doing something different that we believe would be helpful to you, and it looks like re-digitalization or consolidation. That would be useful to have. We can use it as a tool to discover, but also be able to make some decisions. And on the topic of decision and decision makers, those police chiefs, sheriffs, would probably want to know who's going to be in charge of the regional centers. Are they willing to relinquish any power? That's a big one. To say, I'm going to send all my staff over here under the umbrella of the regional center, which is governed by who? And how do we present that? That's why this is very much a long range issue, right? Because setting up those MOUs takes time, right? We have several examples in the state, very, very successful ones. RCC being probably one of the shining stars of that example, right? Of an agency that has several PSAPs or police departments and our sheriffs, but police departments in their jurisdiction that they answer for, and it's a JPA, right? So that's what makes this a long range issue, because that's the long lead time is getting everyone to agree, because nobody wants to give up their kingdom. We understand that, and that's why we have 440 PSAPs. So, I'm off and burning this point. We're experiencing that same problem in Stannis-Loss County right now, where it's, we don't want to relinquish control over our smaller PSAP. For example, we have a small PSAP. That's about 50% staffing. They've had six dispatchers left, five of them left to come over to the JPA. They're sitting with one dispatcher and they're bringing in officers to do dispatch just to try to keep their PSAP alive. We have the same problem with the two other smaller PSAPs in our region. So, some sort of incentive, whether it be financially or some position from the state, saying, hey, we support regionalization. This is our official position. Off Brenda's point would be helpful to kind of deploy in a fight to keep these JPAs and these regional centers together. Yeah, and in your case, it's already there. The JPA exists. We're operating it. I mean, that's, in my mind, that's a slam dunk, right? Like that should be something that, I know it's not, should be. But that's something that a PSAP should be willing to do, because you're only sending calls there. It's not like you're losing officers or you're losing, you know, it's, I think it's a mindset thing more than anything. And in our operations manual, it says in there, you should, in the section where it tells you how to buy your CPE and where to get your funding and how to go through that step by step, it says right at the top of the front, the state 911 office recommends consolidation and regionalization where appropriate. So that has been our position for a while. But it's something that, you know, if we're just saying it, it's not enough. So we need to start to do a little bit more, I think. Yeah. I was in, we were in, Ryan and I were in Illinois visiting their state office a little while ago. And they have a law on the books in Illinois state legislation that says no new PSAPs period doesn't matter. So they have 126, I think, or something like that. I can't remember. Can't remember. Anyway, it doesn't matter, but they can't have anymore. So if one closes down, it doesn't get replaced. They got to go somewhere. So, I mean, that's a big one, right? Legislation is a drastic action, but it's something that I thought was a clever way for a state to address that overcrowding of PSAPs. I think this is one of those topics that, much like the policy-based routing is just an enormous topic to look at and think of. There's a lot of examples of where consolidation in this industry has been successful. There's a lot of examples where it's been recommended and discarded. Just the county that I work in, San Diego County, we've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for consultants to come in, and we have reports on paper, and it didn't mean anything. At the end of the day, it was thrown away because of things like local control, building. So as we think about what could we look towards towards the future, and I know you said from a financial standpoint, this probably is not a realistic thing, but if buildings and facilities were a part of that, that might be more of a leaning, because I know that's one of the things in our county that derailed it was location and funding and everyone having to chip in. Brick and mortar, right? Yeah. Anyways, this is a massive one, and I think it's a tough one just getting over the personalities and the local control, and then when you don't even talk about existing leases or MOUs and all the other things in place, this is a massive one, and we have a lot of scars in San Diego from this topic. Yeah, I remember. Well, I think that we would just ask that as we discuss this topic, we can do what we need to do through policy at OES. We have a lot of control that we can exert, and we've used that in the past for new peace apps coming on board. That's why we set the minimum number of monthly calls at 1200 calls a month, 911 calls, not 10-digit and all that. So we've set that bar somewhat high so that we don't get a lot of new applicants anymore and we can disqualify those who come in who want to be peace apps. Sometimes agencies get a waiver. There are other factors of play here. One of the things that we're seeing is that we don't have the ability to set policy in county. If a county agency, and I mean a locality, not like a sheriff, but I mean like a city or an entity in a county, is not happy with the rate that they have to pay to the county sheriff to get the calls answered or if they're not happy with the service and they want to become a peace app and there's no other alternative. We don't necessarily have that legislative authority to say, county sheriff, you need to charge them X amount per call in order for this to be fair. We can't do that. So that's a big strike. That's not going in our favor that works against us here. So if there's a way that we can reverse that and help, even help small agencies who potentially want to become peace apps, get them the resources to stay where they are, either running through the calls to the county or something, that would be even helpful. We just need to be looking at all options, I think, because the number is actually growing. We've actually added, I think, three peace apps this year, or in the last couple of years, I should say in the last three years, we've added like three or four. So we were on a good downward trajectory. We were down to 438 from our all-time high of 465 with Sengar all-time high back in the way back. But now we're creeping back up. We're back at like 441 now. So, Andrew, when you guys look at that and what they say is an unfair price from the local sheriff's office or wherever, do you compare it to what their costs are going to end up being, or is that just something they throw out? Or when they're saying service where they used to be, say, another center, do they have to give actual reasons or it's just something that is thrown out there and no, they want to open their own center? So it's a good question, Erin. We don't have, the Warren Act is fairly narrow in its scope, right? So we don't have a lot of, say, like I said, we don't have a lot of say over who can and can't be a piece. Well, we do get to say who can be a PSAP if they meet the qualifications that we set out. But what it doesn't say is, yeah, who gets, who are, you know, do we have the statutory authority to shut a PSAP down? We have the statutory authority to send them to the Attorney General's office. But that's got to be a pretty serious situation if we're going to do that. But it doesn't say anything about that topic that you're talking about with county rates or level of service. It really stays silent on that. Now we have addressed a lot of that in policy as far as P.01 grade of service and things like that. But really, I mean, the answer is no. I mean, we can go anecdotally, if I've got paperwork from Tehachapi from 10 years ago and they were fighting with Kern County, and then somebody comes in from Alameda County, for example, I can compare those anecdotally here in the office, but no, I don't have the ability to go out and gather that data or, you know, force PSAPs to hand it over. They'll give us data, you know, if a PSAP wants to break it away from their county, they'll provide the paperwork. And if we're going to the PSAP that doesn't meet our requirements and they're pushing, we will absolutely make it. There's a large paper trail that comes with that, right? Because we're trying to disincentivize PSAPs from coming on if they're too small. But at the end of the day, no, it's one of those things that if they're unhappy with the service and their citizens are not getting the service that they feel they deserve from 911, then if the PSAPs got the funding, they got the building, they got the officers, they got everything, there's, you know, if they are able to follow the process, get us the documentation and appeal successfully if they're in the case that they're small, then there's not a lot we can do. We bring them on board. So yeah, it's if you, as part of this group, maybe if we can talk through documentation and rates, maybe specifically even, that'd probably be pretty helpful of what your county sheriff charges, local PSAPs in your counties or your JPA, or, you know, just so that we can start to see what these rates look like. I mean, I've, back when I was an advisor, I knew like the rates for like consolidated fire, you know, like for Digo and Downey and some of the larger fire centers in LA, I knew what they were charging. But that was just because I was in the mix every day. But if we had that data, it probably would help us out. Okay, thanks. Concept of transparency is interesting and could be very enlightening to PSAPs who go through this on a recurring basis. You're talking about public shaming? Yeah, kind of. I mean, it works. The other way of looking at it, though, is not necessarily focusing on the decentralization, but focusing on those who are interested, right? Those who want to make it happen. Absolutely. And have the cooperation. What can OES do? Like facilities is one big item. It's very expensive to try and find a land and build on to it. And if the state can do anything to help that, then great. Or the professional technical expertise to be able to design a building that's appropriate for a giant PSAP. You've been just hanging for those personnel that maybe an entity can't come by via contract. That might be helpful. And maybe we just kind of flip it on a 10 and look at, well, if... What can we do? What can we do? Like everybody's on board. What can OES do? What would we need from the PSAP community and our organizations to make that easy for all of us, I suppose? Yeah, and I imagine physical facilities is probably top three, I would say, right? For a lot of these. Local control is probably number one. Honestly, I think that's the biggest problem that we have to solve. But yeah, I mean, we're willing to look into that, whatever we can do to help. Or even to Alicia's point, identifying vacant land space that this building filled with dreams could be. Ultimately, existing buildings don't always have all the requirements or capabilities that are necessary to move into the next generation of 911. If we're able to erect a building that would give us the leeway to just design and formulate how we could coexist in the space would be great. But first and foremost, is just identifying, does the state have any vacant land space that could be considered available for use? Sure. And I guess what I would recommend is I would suggest if your counties or your neighboring agencies are looking into something like this, I would say consider us a resource for, not yet, I don't want to go on record saying we are a resource, consider us a potential resource for funding. But I would not, if I were you, in any way, shape or form rely on the state to do the actual work, because then it's going to take you years and years and years and years, just getting through the red tape. So once you start getting DGS and building walls, DGS buildings, and all of the stuff that we have to do, the site planning and all that, I wouldn't even know where to start. So I would say, it would probably be wiser to look at it from a local level and then engage with OES for funding to support. But we will, I'll commit to taking that offline with OES leadership and seeing if that's something that we would be interested in or able to do. On to regional task force briefings. Do we have one or two folks here ready to break? Yeah, we do. We made a boo boo. So Janay and Don are kind of, they've got the training wheels off. They're running the task force now. So Ryan and Paul and I are kind of stepping away a little bit to let them step up and start to lead a little bit. So they ran the task forces. I wasn't at any of them this quarter for the first time ever. And so I let them go to Orange County today for the counting meetings. So we didn't check calendars. And so they are not here to provide their brief out, but I think we do have some members in the audience. Josh, you didn't go, did you? Why not, man? Grab a mic. For LA County, Greg's dispatcher's called off sick. So he was actually in the chair. And I had a similar issue at our dispatch center that I couldn't go. So, but I was able to send one of my staff basically kicked it off with the review of the new state reporting tool that's available to PSAPs to help them voice their concerns with issues around the CPE or our RNSPs. As well as reintroducing and going over the next phase of the pre-migration testing, what that entails, how it all works, as well as onboarding the new management company, what's going to be there. Again, the resources, how that's going to impact all of us. We also introduced our new LA County rep. So very, very happy about that. I'm sure you'll be getting a lot of emails from everybody in the state, everybody in the county. Switching gears in LA County, we've not had a lot of really great turnout to the task force of late. So we've embarked in a, we have a new LA County coordinator. As you know, Ella retired. Leandra and myself have been talking. So we embarked upon a more concerted effort to actually onboard some new agencies and some new talent. So it's not the Greg and the Josh show and get some more voices in there so that when Cal OAS does come down, there's more value there versus them just giving us presentation, folks sitting in the chair going, yeah, that's nice. And then we all move on and I show up and I give you the same thing that they gave you. So we do have five agencies that we're reaching out to and another few that we're in talks with because we do see value in the task forces, but we need folks to show up so that we can actually give valuable feedback from the chair back to Cal OAS and then of course the LRPC. Any questions for LA County? I think you bring up a good point, Josh. In LA County, that task force specifically has always been lean and mean. We set that one up. Most of them are 15 people or so so that we'd always have like the good round table. But when Ella and I put that one together, we handpicked, I think like nine people. So we kept it small because, you know, those are the people. And I think early on we had good engagement. But this task force has been going on now for four years, five years almost. So, you know, that's how you have membership changes. You have people retire. You have, you know, you just have fatigue, right? I mean, like it's a long, it's a long project. So I will ask as the LRPC members here, if you have PSAPs in your respective areas that you would like to bring on board to any of the regions for the task force, we're certainly open to new members at all times. It's not an exclusive club. We just want people who, we don't even want technical people necessarily. Just people who will give feedback. People who want to talk. There's, you know, we don't want to show up to a meeting like Josh said and give our spiel and have no feedback. That's not the goal here. So we just need good operations oriented folks who can kind of digest what we're saying and give us some good feedback. You talked about four or five years now. Is there material for a new incoming task force member to know what this thing is so you don't spend task force meetings getting people up to speed and repeating yourself? Yeah, we never get anybody up to speed. You get dropped in. It's, we have a charter. We wrote a charter that we do provide to new members. So I do have a charter that's available and I can, you know, hand that out to me to anybody. It's not a heavy read couple pages. We developed it at the outset of this. I think it's still mostly relevant. I think one of the things that we'd like to talk about, I think this is a good segue, is the charter as it's written. It was written forever ago. So long ago, I think when we brought it to the LRPC, I think Chris, Aaron and Chuck were still here. So I mean, it's been a while. That charter was written specifically with a goal in mind for the task force and that goal was to advise us on operational input from the next Gen 911 rollout, right? So we would come in and we would say, okay, here's what we are doing. Here's what's happening as we build this network up. How is it going to affect you, the dispatcher? How can we make it better or make it workable for you? And that topic, we rung a lot of water out of that tile. I mean, we really, gosh, years and years, Ryan and I went on the road and Paul and it really informed us. I mean, more than you guys probably could even imagine in helping us shape this rollout. But we're not rolled out, right? Obviously, we're getting there, but we're not there. But all of the decisions and all of the work and all of the input that the task force has brought us and all that feedback from the PSAPS has all been added and applied, or most of it has not all of it, maybe. But we're not making those decisions anymore. We're not reaching crossroads every day like we were back then. And so we, the state are looking at this task force every quarter and saying, what can we bring that will stimulate conversation? Because those questions have all really been answered. Those pre-network buildup questions, they're pretty much all done. So we have talked a lot, Ryan and I have talked a lot about should we rewrite the charter to focus on something new? And what should that be? Because we've asked the task force several times, Josh, you've heard me say this probably three or four times at meetings, do we want to keep these things going or do we wrap them up? Now that we have, you know, we kind of have achieved, I don't want to say we've achieved our goal, but for the scope of the charter, we've really achieved our goal. The task force was really good. And if we don't have a task anymore, that's fine. We can suspend them until they're needed again. Or do we adjust the charter to give them a new task? And I think that that's a good question for this group, since they do filter out their report to you guys. I think just reassessing the scope of the project is definitely a direction that needs to be taken. You don't want to box yourself in to say, okay, we've done this. So let's just cross this off the list and your duties as assigned are satisfied. It should be an ongoing, just as the project is ongoing. And I think there should be a way to continue the process where we're at, because there's going to be questions. And all the questions need to be looked upon by the majority instead of just a small group of individuals who you're talking to that are saying, okay, okay. Instead of saying, well, this is what I think. Because there are a lot of individuals in this profession that have a lot of concerns. They have a lot of ideas. And those things need to be considered. Sure. 100%. And that's been our biggest struggle over the last year was coming up with topics that we can engage in a real conversation with and get real feedback rather than here's what we're doing at the state. The number one rule every quarter when we sit down to create task force slides is no presentations. This is not a brief out. Every topic we have needs to be a discussion point rather than a here's what the state's doing. Because then you're just traveling around every quarter to four different sites. It's not easy. I mean, scheduling these things, getting everybody together, pulling everybody together, and they're small. So you're only hitting a select amount. You're only hitting 40 PSAPs. And so that's not efficient for a brief out. So, yeah, 100% agree, Brenna. And that's where we have recently kind of hit a little bit of a wall of, okay, what can we keep this thing focused on that we can have a real roundtable and really get those ideas? I don't think it's, I think it's perfectly reasonable for us as an LRPC to every year say, what are we doing with this task force? What do we need them to do next? Like policy-based routing, once we have something on paper, we do need that team of people to look at it and give us feedback and tell us if they've lost our minds or if we're totally missing something that's very important. So, yes, I think we need to pull that charter out, dust it off and figure out what are we doing over the next 12 months and keep that going until we've decided we've done everything. And there isn't a new topic, which probably will never happen. Potentially, right? And that's, we've tossed around so many ideas. You guys internally just, does this thing become just a user's group, right? Just a tip of the spear for, you know, all things new technology that when, as we adapt and roll it out, these are the people that give us direct feedback. I mean, we've really tried to think about ways that we could keep this group going and keep it useful. Because what will happen is at the end of the day is if it's not useful, people won't show up. And then, you know, that's, then what's the point. So, do you have an ask of us today that you're planning? Yes, I do. That's a lot of homework. Well, so I think this one's easy. I think you guys, if everyone's got just ideas, just jot down your ideas of how we can make the task force viable into the future. The hard part of this ask is just being mindful that it's a, it's supposed to be a conversation and not a brief out. How do we have a topic that's broad enough that we can always add something to it or keep throwing stuff at it, but not so narrowly focused that we run out of stuff to talk about after the first two, three meetings. That's the challenge. But if you guys have ideas, we're all ears. Absolutely. One of the things with the task force, first of all, Josh, thanks for coming out and doing that brief there. And afterwards, if you don't mind, I'll catch up with you and see if I can't help with some of the LA area PSAPs as well too for some recommendations. But secondly, what I hear, as I listen to a lot of discussion is that we're missing some of the strategic planning that helps set these up in advance. And so it might be a good idea for this group, not only to look over the charter, but agendize at some of the meetings coming up, like if we wanted to kick off what the plans are for calendar year 2025, then our last meeting, we set our strategic goals so that can be passed down to the task force. Secondly, I think one change we can make to help with that is take the technology portion out of it in the title. These should be strategic task force for 911 because there's a lot of topics at those meetings that aren't always technology-based. And some of the topics that we're dealing with at the LRPC, even on this agenda, aren't necessarily technology-based. And as someone who sits on the Southern Region Task Force, there's a lot of great discussion that happens that isn't just technology and learning the PSAPs of the struggles that they're facing, the challenges they're facing. And it's a very rare opportunity in those meetings where we have good representation of different disciplines, small PSAPs, large PSAPs, and some things are a big deal to others and not to others. So the more we can leverage that group, I think it'll make our decision space a little bit easier and will be more informed. That's the beauty and the frustrating part of the task forces is that I'll ask the same question, all four of them, and I'll get four completely different answers. It's a good thing, but it also shows just how diverse the population is, a PSAPs in state, right? But yeah, no, I appreciate it, Jeff. So were you at the Southern Region on this last round? Unfortunately, I was not. It was conflicting with the LCW conference I had to go to. Well, then I won't ask for your briefouts, sir. Excellent. Do we have anybody else who was present and would like to brief out online perhaps? All right, hearing nothing, we'll look forward to the charter and putting together our thoughts. Anybody else? I've got Aaron, and I've got you guys. Anyone else that's missing today? The LRPC? I think this is everybody, right? I'm sending it now. All right, moving on to the next item, which is agenda items for future meetings. Does anybody have any agenda items to add to our plethora of items? We gave Johnny an homework. All right, hearing nothing, quickly moving on from that item. Public comments. Anybody have any public comments going once, going twice? All right, you missed your chance. We are moving on to adjournment. Do I have, I don't need a motion to adjourn, do I for this? All right. Thank you, everybody, for your attendance and your feedback today at 2.43 p.m. The LRPC is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all.