 Okay, good morning. This is Pat Mellon. Can anybody hear me? You're good now. Sure can. Okay, very good. Thank you. So welcome to the November meeting of the 911 advisory board meeting. We'll start off with a roll call. Chief Chris Child from CHP. Present. Brenda Brunner. Present. Liam Magoski. Present. Rosa Ramos. Sheriff Braun. Here. Sheriff Ayub. Sheriff William Ayub. Chief Edward Hadfield. Chris Herron. Present. Chief Elise Warren. Here. Chief Andrew White. Here. Okay, we have a quorum with seven members present. Going to the item number two is the approval of the August 20th or August 2020 meeting. It was held via video conference. Is there a motion to, are there any corrections? Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Who is that? Brenda Brunner. Chris Herron, I'll second. Okay, then we'll go to a roll call vote. Chief Childs. Well, I would approve them, but I wasn't on the last meeting. So my apologies, this is my first meeting. Okay. Brunner Brunner. Aye. Okay. Liam Magoski. Aye. Sheriff Braun. Aye. Chief, I'm sorry, Chris Herron. Aye. Chief Warren. Aye. And Chief White. Aye. Okay, the minutes are approved. Okay. So now we go into closed session. It is a pursuers to government code section 11126E. So we'll temporarily step away from this and go into closed session. Yep. Hi, good morning, everybody. Closed session has completed. All of our board members will be logging back into the Zoom meeting. We'll give them a few minutes and then Pat Mellon will go through another roll call to establish quorum again and then we'll proceed forward with the board meeting. Pat, when you open up session, would you just please remind everyone that we are recording session in the open forum? Sure, well, thank you, sir. All right, let's, we'll go through the roll call of the board members again. You know, for all the members, please, please know that we are recording this this session and I believe it's YouTube. There will be a YouTube video of it, so just be aware of that. Chief Chris Child, CHP. I'm here. Present. Okay, thank you. Brunner, Brunner. Present. Nia Magoski. Present. Rosa Ramos was missing before. Sheriff Braun. Here. Sheriff Iub, I noticed that you were on the closed session. I'm here. Thank you, sir. Chief Hatfield. Chris Herron. Present. Chief Warren. Here. And Chief White. Present. Okay, thank you all. As far as the closed session, we provided an average report to the board members and other than that, there's nothing to report. We're moving on to the legislative update. Mr. Salvador is the chief of our legislative and external affairs, Reggie. Good morning. Can anybody hear me? We can, sir. Okay, good morning, everybody. Within the time, I'm just going to go ahead and read through a couple of the state bills related to 911 that had been signed during this last session. As a reminder, you will be receiving a list of both these bills, as well as a list of federal bills that we are tracking, noting that I will just be discussing the state bills as Congress are currently in a lame duck session right now, given all the activities in Washington. So to start off with AB 1775 has been signed by the governor on September 30th, which is by Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Soyer and deals with false reports of harassment. Hey, Reggie, your audio's coming in and out, so I'm not sure how close to the microphone you are, but it's very difficult to hear you, which is uncharacteristic, by the way. Is this better? Did you hear me better? Folks, can you hear me better? Yes. I sure can, thank you, Reggie. So AB 1775 was signed and that provides that intimidation by threat of violence includes no false claim or report of a police officer or law enforcement agency alleging that enough- Hey, Reg, I'm not hearing you very well right now. I don't know if the rest of the board members can hear you. You're just coming in very, very lightly. Fading in and out with a little feedback in the background. Oh boy, let me do this. I think it's whenever you turn to look at something else, it cuts it out, maybe wherever your notes are. How about this? That's perfect, but as soon as you look wherever you're looking, that's when it cuts out. Okay, well then here we go. So bottom line, AB 1775 was signed, right? And it's basically also states that knowingly allowing the use of or using the 911 emergency system for the purpose of harassing another is a crime that is punishable. So that was signed on September 30th. Also signed was AB 1945 by assembly member Solis. And that actually defines the first responder for first for the purposes of the California Emergency Services Act as an employee of the state or a local public agency who provides emergency response services, including a police officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, public safety dispatcher or a public safety telecommunicator. It also provides that the definition of first responder does not confer a right to an employee to obtain a retirement benefit formula for the employment classification that is not included or expressly excluded that formula. Also signed was AB 2213 by assembly member Lamone, which requires Cal OES and California volunteers in coordination with the VOADS or Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster to develop planning guidance to identify volunteers and donation management resources that could assist in responding to or recovering from disasters. What is specifically notable about this is that at the very last minute, the legislature put provisions that were initially in SB 794 by assembly member Hannah Beth Jackson and inserted it into this bill. And what that clause does is that it authorizes a city to enter into an agreement to access the contact information of resident account holders through the records of a public utility and expands the types of public utilities that can enter into these agreements. Now, what that actually does is it also expands the ability for alert and warning notifications that was originally set on the county but now has expanded to the cities as well. Lastly, SB 1441 was also signed by Senator McGuire, which extends the operation of the Local Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Collection Act indefinitely and it makes a non-substantive changes to eliminate cross-references in the MTS Act to the Prepaid Mobile Telephony Services Surcharge Collection Act. Other than that, I will be sure to provide this to the board members and will be sent out accordingly. And I'd be able to answer any questions you may have if you guys can hear me again. I see, okay. All right, thank you, thank you, Reggie. All right, next item up is agenda item number five, which is a 911 branch report and we'll turn it over to Budge. All right, thank you, Pat. I appreciate that. I'll zoom the camera over here to where I am. If I can figure all this technology out. All right, so I'm gonna be giving you an update on the items that you see on this graphic here. And I'm going to apologize in advance because the 911, the next gen 911 update is going to be rather lengthy. So you may wanna make sure you've got a full cup of coffee because it might take us a moment to get through that. So we'll start with the call stats. Next slide, clicker's not working. These have remained unchanged, but what we did was we wanted to take a look at changes that may have been happening in our call stats due to COVID and wildfires. So we ran some stats comparing July of 2019 to July of 2020 and then August in September. And you see that our 2020 volumes are a little lower than what they were from 2019. So certainly not the significant dip that we had seen earlier in the year when we were on lockdown, but definitely the 911 call volume is slightly down. I don't know what that percentage is, but it's not a significant difference. So we will have our finalized numbers for the entire year in a couple of months, but we wanted to give you kind of this snapshot of where we are at this point in time. All right, we also have had a slowdown in our statewide CPE installation and primarily that's due to two things, COVID number one and some challenges that we were having with our CPE and its ability to support next gen 911 I3 standards. So in our contract, we have the requirement that our CPE is Nina I3 capable. And we've been testing that in the lab and we've got an updated status for you there. So we built a lab, it's got Motorola Vesta equipment in it and it's got Intrado Viper equipment in it and we're testing to ensure that the CPE equipment we've already purchased and installed at the PSAPs is Nina I3 compliant. And what we're learning is that both companies, both solutions needed software upgrades in order to make the interface. We have finalized the software version for Intrado. So those are the Viper systems and we'll be able to get those software upgrades out to the PSAPs. The Vesta equipment, we have finished our testing, but Motorola is in the final stages of validating that software. They will not have that software ready for Cal OES until the end of November. And then at that point, we will be able to schedule those upgrades as well. So what we've done in the interim is we have suspended sale on that equipment because we can't knowingly sell CPE equipment that's not compliant with the contract. Once we solve those contractual things, we'll take another look at where we are with CPE upgrades. And obviously we're gonna work very closely with our plan for the cloud and data center model CPE that are on the new contract. So the next step in this process for this graphic here, Andrew Mattson will be coordinating, will be coordinated with your PSAP to make sure that we coordinate the install and upgrade of the software, all right? So can you mute us for a second? Just a second. So that's kind of where we are with CPE. I'm gonna pause there to see if there's any questions on this slide or where we are with CPE because I know this is extremely important to the PSAPs out there. Yes, Brenda Brunner. I have a question. The software that's gonna be tested in the lab, is this the cloud-based CPE software or is this different? So great question, Brenda. It's really both. What this slide is talking about here though is testing the exact equipment that most PSAPs have in their back rooms today. So the Viper Investus systems that are out there today, that's what this graphic is about. I'll talk about the new cloud-based in about, I don't know, 10 slides or so. Okay, thank you. All right, any other questions on this slide? Okay. I think you need to keep going to the next slide, please. This is just an update of where we are with text and I'm in one deployment. It's mandatory that we finish this by January 1st, 2020. We have good news in that we are actively working with every PSAP in the state to complete that install. And we are at about 80% complete with this project. And depending on the test schedule with the originating service providers and the text control centers, we are on track to finish this by January 1st. Sharice has been working remarkably hard on this project. And so if you have any questions or concerns, certainly reach out to her. What you see on this graphic is the breakdown of how many PSAPs will get over the top, roughly 200, I mean, 300 and how many will be integrated, which is, I don't know what's that math, 137. So that's a breakdown of those that have integrated text versus those that are using the Comtec over the top solution. We do wanna point out that those PSAPs that are using the over the top solution after NextGen 911 is deployed, we will be transitioning them from Comtec over to RapidDeploy. And we could talk about that. I've got a couple of graphics on that later. Any questions on text? All right, so now we're gonna walk through where we are with NextGen 911. So we've developed this graphic to give you an update on PSAP installs, our OSP, Originating Service Provider Integration, the test and integration that we're doing. We have a lot of detail on that today to give you an understanding of where we are. And then the transition plan, which we briefed out last time and we'll give you a refresh on that. So this is an update on our system providers. I think all of you are very familiar with this graphic. The one thing we will let you know on this is that we're predicting the completion will be more toward July of 2021. And there's a lot of moving parts there, but certainly prior to 2022, we will be completed. And so we'll keep you up to date on that end date. This is our high level schedule of where we're at. And I've got graphics associated with each of these lines running across this graphic here. So we're finalizing the NextGen Core Services. You see that about midway down the chart there. This week, by the end of the week, we should be able to complete the NextGen Core Services testing between two of our four 911 service providers. So, and then we expect in early December to finalize everything for the remaining two. So this schedule has been impacted by a number of things, but I think first and foremost, we are the first in the country to do this, certainly on this scale. And so we have even been pressing the envelope on the providers of equipment, just be able to do what we're asking them to do in this space. It's really been quite remarkable. So I've got some more details on that. And we're anticipating our earliest go live to be in January. We are gonna be starting PSAP testing in December, but the actual transition to go live will be in January. And I have some graphics on that as well. So this graphic shows you from a PSAP's perspective, everything that needs to be in place and tested before we go live. And we wanna just reiterate that every single red line, every connection on this graphic, we are testing to make sure that these failovers and redundant systems are in place and that the redundancy and failover mechanisms have actually been tested. And that's what we're doing in the lab. And I'm gonna walk through, I've got a graphic later on some of those tests that we're doing. This is a update on where we are. And I will let you know that our process is that the region installs their equipment first and then ATOS installs their equipment. So that's why you see the ATOS numbers in almost every category are lower than the region because the region had to go first. And so this is where we are in the North. We've got about 45 PSAPs installed from Cinergem, 25 from ATOS, and then close on the heels of that, they're installing circuits and then ATOS brings their circuits in. And we're moving at a quicker pace now than we were earlier in the project. And we are determining the priority order that these installs need to happen. And then keep in mind, your CPE upgrade needs to go in that same order because your CPE needs to be upgraded after we finish up all this equipment installation. The numbers for the South are shown there. And keep in mind the term remediation refers to the power upgrades we have to do in your back room and the installation of a rack of equipment and all of that so that we can then bring the equipment and install it. That's what remediation is referring to. And these are the numbers for central and LA in terms of equipment installation, circuit installation and for NGA-911 and for ATOS. So I'm gonna pause right here to see if anyone has any concerns about the process, what we're doing, what we've been doing in your back room and what's coming next. Hearing none, I'll press on. We added this graphic and this is probably the biggest comment that we're getting. Oh great, here comes the state again, doing a bunch of work in my PSAP right in the middle of all this other stuff that's going on. And all this other stuff is COVID and wildfires and now we're coming into the holiday season and we need to keep the project moving forward. So we're doing our best to not disrupt what you're doing operationally. We also wanna make sure you understand what this project is doing in the near term. It's simply updating the way 911 calls are being delivered to your PSAP. All those other functions and capabilities that NextGen will provide, those won't come through this network until the original service providers provide that capability, which they haven't yet. And the training occurs to educate your 911 first responders on how to process videos, photos, multimedia and other things. So yes, the system supports that. No, that will not be there automatically on day one. So we wanna make sure that's clear. Day one, we're just impacting how you receive 911 calls and you should see better 911 call routing, calls delivered to your PSAP faster and with better location accuracy. And our goal is not to impact your operational reality that you have in your PSAP today. That's what's happening with the initial transition. So any questions on that? Okay, I walked through these graphics last time. I'm gonna go pretty quick through them. Essentially your PSAP is connected to legacy today. We're gonna connect it to NextGen 911 and do acceptance testing and make sure that it's good to go. And in order to do that, all of these items on this graphic need to be in place. Everybody's gotta install their equipment, the circuits have to be installed, the acceptance test plan has to be completed. And we've gotta validate that everything is ready to go based on the needs of your PSAP. And we have a very detailed process outlined on how we do this. And when we go live, what that means is we'll come to your PSAP and test that NextGen 911 is in, that you can receive test calls across that network and transfer them and read the location information and not impact your CAD spill and all the functions you have in your PSAP today. And then we'll begin to schedule transitions with the carriers and you'll do test calls with each carrier as they transition. And that's generally the process that'll happen in every single PSAP as we cut throughout the state. So any questions to that? All right, hearing done. A little bit about alternate answer. NextGen 911 has the ability to route calls everywhere under any condition, but initially what we're gonna set up is we're just gonna mimic the way your CPE behaves today and your alternate answer configuration so that if you needed to send calls to another PSAP based on some condition that happens in your PSAP, the NextGen 911 system is set up and ready to do that. And then Andrew and the regional task force will work to develop more robust policy routing decisions that we can put in place after the transition to NextGen. That way we don't have too many moving parts at the same time. And that was based on feedback that we got really through this board and through the long range planning committee and the regional task force. So we certainly have adjusted to make sure we accommodate that. We talked a lot about these transfer clusters and so when we come to your PSAP, one of the things we're gonna ask you is to validate that the information we have on transfers matches what you're doing on a day-to-day basis. That's really what this conversation here is all about. We obviously have the star codes from the selected routers. We have that data available. We have eCats data, so we know where your transfers are going today. But the missing piece is just to do that reality check with the PSAP to make sure we haven't overlooked anything prior to going live. And then we'll make sure that everybody you're connected to can receive an NextGen 911 call transfer from your PSAP before you go live. That's the work that we're focused on now. And then we'll look at each PSAP and go through the process. And I went through this during the last advisory board, so I'm sure you all probably remember that. And then we've had a lot of questions on how did we get this scheduled? Like how did we figure out phase one, phase two, phase three, phase four? We really looked at phase one as starting with the least complicated selective router configurations out there and we did them first. We wanted to make sure we didn't bite off more than we could choose. So that's where phase one came about. Just quite frankly, we looked at the selective routers. The remaining phases, we looked at distributing across the four regions and then looking at transfers between Cal Fire and CHP and the county sheriff and then looking at what PSAPs would all need to be ready at roughly the same time. And that's how we came up with the remainder of the phases. So PSAPs that are connected to multiple selective routers, whenever your first transfer comes up, that's when we'll make sure you're ready. So what that means is as we get into April, May, everyone should be ready. So the complexity of are you ready or are you not ready goes way down. So that's kind of where we are in the process. And I'm gonna pause here because I've been talking a long time. I wanna see if anybody has any questions on the transition schedule and what we're doing. Yes, this is Kim Turner, but I have a question. Yeah, Kim. I'm trying to keep up on page, excuse me, on the slide before, I think it was slide 22. If you would kindly, I think it was 22. It talked about two weeks and I didn't quite catch that. And I don't know if everyone else did. There was a two week notification there. So testing will be scheduled two weeks prior. Is there any latitude to give us, I'm assuming this is testing at the PSAP level or did I understand that? Is there any way we could have a little bit more notification because we're deeply impacted by COVID, like we still are, so that we can have the right people available, particularly at least since we're coming up on the holidays, would that be possible? So we won't be able to start until after the beginning of the year for most people. And we will do our best to get more than two weeks, but if you just count the number of PSAPs, it's certainly not gonna be possible in every scenario. We will do our best to give you as much advance notice as we can, but with 438 PSAPs in a go live scenario, almost impossible to give more advance notice than that. Completely understandable. Has there been any contingency plans in case the governor locks our state down fully again? We are already under the essential worker classification. And so we're able to continue forward because 911 is obviously an essential service. And when we go into lockdown with the outages we're seeing in our system today, it's in the best interest of California that we move this project forward. Thank you. All right, so this is just a couple of graphics on our transition phases. We have an amazing amount of detail here that we've been communicating with your PSAPs. If I put all that detail in the slides, it becomes unreadable, but this will just give you a sense, this is what phase one looks like and the PSAPs that are directly connected to those phase one selective routers. And then we start to steer the originating service traffic providers. And really the way this is gonna look is we'll go to the first OSP and we'll say, okay, T-Mobile, are you ready to steer? The PSAPs ready now, Sonora PD is ready. So we say T-Mobile, are you ready to move traffic from Sonora to the next gen network? They say, yes, we scheduled test calls with you, we moved their traffic over and then they're cut over. And then we go to the next OSP and the next one and the next one and so on. If we get to one that's not ready, we can wait, not indefinitely obviously, but you certainly as a PSAP could be in a place where some of your calls are coming across legacy and the rest are coming across next gen and that's perfectly fine. This is just some details I put in here on what the teams are doing with the originating service provider integration. I'm not gonna go through all this, but we wanna make sure that it's clear that one of our checks we're doing is to validate that the PSAP boundary that we have for your PSAP matches what it should be for your PSAP and that's part of our checks. These are the remaining of the phases. As I said, we'll start phase one in January and then February, March, April, May will be the rest and our goal is to be completed by July. We will keep you up to date on if any of those change based on things outside of our control, but right now this schedule seems very realistic, although aggressive. And this is just another view of kind of the same process and what we're doing and we've come up with some dates. The Sonora Selective Router, we're gonna start that on January 11th with Sonora PD. January 18th, we'd like to do Placer Belt PD and then January 25th, Brawley PD is kind of where we're gonna start the process with. All right, I wanna talk a little bit about the testing because there's been some concern that what we're deploying in your PSAP has not been thoroughly tested. And we just wanna give you a comfort level of what we're checking. I've used this graphic before, but we built a lab and all of our Next Gen Providers are in there and our two major CPE Providers are in that lab. And what we're doing is validating that the CPE can interface with the Next Gen 911 system that they can receive and transfer calls between the region and the prime. They can transfer calls from one CPE to another, all the NENA i3 capabilities are there and all the interfaces are in place and all the failover scenarios are in place. So what does that look like? Well, this is a short list of the tests that we're doing in the lab. So I'll leave that up there as I talk through this. But right now we're in the process, like I said, of finishing up what you see on the left-hand side of this graphic, the region to prime interconnectivity and we'll have two of those done probably this week and then December, the remaining two will happen. And then over on the right-hand side, that's all the CPE testing that we're doing. And that's quite a matrix because it's from prime to CPE, so ATOS to CPE and then CINERGEM to CPE and then NGA 911 to CPE and LUMIN to CPE. And all the failover scenarios that exist between all of them, all of that is being tested in the lab and then we'll test that same capability at your PSAP before we go live there. So, and we're tracking and monitoring all of this to make sure that it works. So I just want to pause here to see if anybody has any questions or concerns. I know there's a lot of acronyms on this slide. It's very technical, but I just wanted to give you a sense of what we're doing. Brenda Brunner, I have a question. So, when you're starting with, let's say, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, for example, and we try- For example. Yeah, for example. We transfer to several other agencies. While we're ready, we're still, is there still a need for you to get the other agencies that we transfer to ready? Yes. Can we be ready and they not be all the way ready? And how would that look or transfer between our agency and another? So, great question, Brenda. So, if you're ready and an agency you transfer to is not ready, we will not push calls to you. We will get them ready first and then we will push calls to you so that you have the ability to transfer to them in the case that you do that. Or that you need to do that. Okay, so in that instance, we're still gonna be kind of running concurrently between the legacy and the next-gen platforms? Absolutely. I would say most PSAPs will be three to six months concurrent legacy and next-gen at the same time. Absolutely. And they're completely redundant, different systems and all the paths are separate. So, and we test it to make sure that that can happen, that you can receive legacy and a next-gen at the same time. And that's part of the PSAP readiness testing that we're gonna do. Okay, but we can anticipate that the selective router will be decommissioned in the process. No. Okay. No, we're gonna leave that, the functions of the selective router will be in place for a minimum of 120 days, 90 to 120 days. So we can track the calls to make sure no more calls are coming through the selective router after we think we've cut over all the originating service providers. So we don't miss anybody. And at that point, we'll stop paying for those selective routers. Okay. And we really won't decommission them because they're not ours. They're a service that we get provided by AT&T and Frontier. We'll just stop paying for it. What they do with the selective router is up to them because they may need to use it as a transfer switch or some other capability in their network, which is fine. It's just not being used to deliver 911 calls to a PSAP. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Great question. Okay. So I just wanted to give a short update on GIS and where we are with that. So Geocom and 911 Datamaster are the subcontractors to ATOS and they've provided a dataset and we're in the finalized step of making sure the LDB, the LDB is the location database and it's generated by Datamaster and it's got to be shared with Lumen, Synergym and NGA-901. And that process of sharing had to be defined and reconciled. So we're in the process of doing that right now and finalizing that. And then the GIS dataset, which essentially is the geometry. It's your PSAP boundary files and the other details that are associated with the PSAP boundaries. That information has to be shared between Geocom and each of the regions as well. And so we're doing a lot of work here on the data flow and we've also hired a GIS unit using Next Gen 911 grants that we got from NISHTA, the National Highway Transportation Association. And we really are refining the GIS task force and we came up with a graphic that I think will help understand the flow of what we're doing here. And so this is the first time we've showed this publicly. So hopefully it makes sense to everybody. But we're getting data for the system from really wherever we can. If it exists locally, we'll get it locally, local GIS data. And if there's other GIS data like Tiger data sets or maybe Caltrans or CHP or somebody else has data that we can use to inform our dataset, we're doing that. We run it through integration, we run it through checks and then we have to validate it. That's that orange loop that you see there. And we validate that with the PSAPs, the county coordinators, the local GIS authorities. And then once it's validated, it comes back in and gets checked. The important thing to realize is that the valid data makes it into the Next Gen 911 GIS dataset at the top of this graphic. That's what we're routing calls on. We are not routing calls on local data directly. So we really wanna make that distinction. And then we will share the valid data back with the local agencies. And if you wanna update your local GIS dataset, great, that would be wonderful. But if there's a problem with that part of the process, we still have validated around 911 calls. And so this flow and all of the data formats for each of these lines and how this process happens is what we're defining and making sure we train to for all the people that are included in this. So pause there and see if any of the board members have any questions. I have a question. Yes. Bear with me, because yes, this is, this graphic is the first time that we know we're putting it on paper. But obviously the GIS workflow is what makes all of this other work of decommissioning the selective routers and doing all of the other testing in the lab. We have to have this GIS workflow working to be able to actually route the calls. Is that accurate? It is, and we have a dataset now in that valid data box up there that can be used to route 911 calls today. And we're going through another validation loop to make sure that everything's good to go. What's not shown on this graphic is we've also built in a process that if a call arrives at your PSAP, and it's not either at the right PSAP or doesn't have the right location data, there's a process to inject a trouble ticket to get that fixed. So that's part of the process as well. So these timelines of decommissioning this, well, not necessarily decommissioning the selective routers, but switching PSAPs over by region and then based on complexity, still are all trying to come in to that July 2021 timeframe. This GIS workflow, this data that we have is sufficient enough to go ahead and do that on this other side of all the other technical pieces. Yes, and if you go back a couple slides, these tests on this graphic on slide 37 are also validating that that GIS dataset is accurate and good to go. And there was a couple of bullets on the OSP integration that tests the interface with the location database. That's part of the testing too. Okay. So yeah, it's extremely complex and there's a lot of steps in there and I am certainly oversimplifying it so that we don't have people falling asleep. Fair enough, but I do think that that, that this is important to understand that, our local data is only one part that's then my word scrubbed or verified and then put back into the big machine until it all connects up together. Exactly. So I think it's a good, I think it's a good attempt or it's a good start for an explanation for us all to get on the same page. So thank you. And I'll tell you that if your local GIS dataset has some unique characteristics for local needs, that's fine. That's why we've done it this way and we fully expect that, that there are certain local needs that are above and beyond 911 and this process facilitates that. And really the role of the task force and Cal OES is to define the interfaces so everybody is working toward the same data sharing standard. Even if your local GIS data is doing something else, you're still operating toward the same sharing standard. Okay. Hearing no other GIS questions. Just a few more slides on our update. I told you I'd come back to the RapidDeploy project. We do have the ability to go live in every single PSAP out there. We have everything installed statewide and we've got a lot of positive feedback here. We know not every PSAP is using the tool but every PSAP can use it is what we're saying. And we're working on other integrations like OnStar and ADT that would come into the Radius Plus platform with RapidDeploy. And this also includes the SMS text from 911 capability. Where if you get a number that you want to them send a text to and say, hey, did you just call 911? Did you mean to call 911? They can respond back via text. That feature is available today as well. And what we will mention now is that if you are an over the top PSAP and you're not using RapidDeploy, we will in 2021 transition you from Comtec over the top to RapidDeploy over the top. So it might be wise to start using this RapidDeploy location accuracy project because it will shorten the learning curve when we go over the top for RapidDeploy because you'll already be familiar with the process. You'll already have logins and it's really just another interface. And the same tool. So just be thinking that through and reach out to Kurt if you have any questions on this and he can get you up to speed. And I don't know if he has any comments or feedback on this, but we've had some really good success stories. Some lives are being saved and the location information being delivered from RapidDeploy is far superior than what comes through the legacy 911 system for wireless calls. I do have a question if no one else does. So the integration of data from OnStar and ADT, what does that mean for operations? What does that mean? Okay, so Kim, we are supposed to wait for a public comment for your questions, but we'll answer it now. I'm sorry, I thought you said if anybody has any questions, my apologies. But that's fine, we can answer it because we want to facilitate collaboration. So right now, OnStar is working with RapidDeploy to take the crash data and make it visible through Radius Plus. And that project is ongoing. It should be available in early 2021. And that would just be another feed that would show up in the Radius Plus software. Same thing for ADT. There'd be no additional cost to Cal OES for that and obviously training at the PSAP, but once that becomes available, it's just okay, this is now available. Here's the training for your dispatchers. Use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want. If you don't want it used, fine, don't use it. But the dashboard will be there. The same way with the SMS text from 911 capability, these are just tools that we're making available so that if they work within your operational parameters at your PSAP, use them. When you say ADT, are you talking residential and commercial warms? Yes, from that company only though. So, and we'll get you more details on that. We're just letting you know that this software product that we have out there has additional tools that are continually being added to it. It's a cloud-based solution. So as they go through their development cycle and we do the training, then we roll it out statewide. It's just part of the package. Thank you. Fudged to ask an add-on question to that that Kim mentioned. I see it says integration from OnStar ADT and other data sources. From some of the stuff I've seen, that also includes medical information from certain devices, is that true? That is true. There's a number of other data sources that they're pulling in and they're constantly doing that. If there's something specific that you want, you can reach out to Kurt and we can give you a status of if they've got that available or not. All right, any other questions on that? I had a question, Butch. Yes, Chief. Can you speak just very briefly to like, so rapid SOS where that fits into that phase out or because right now it is kind of duplicate. I think Michael brought that up as well. That's a feedback I've received also. Yeah, so today the way that the location information flows is your device, your magic little device that rules your world. If it does, if yours is like mine anyway. When you call 911, it sends the data from Apple or Google into the rapid SOS clearinghouse and then the rapid SOS clearinghouse has that data and then rapid deploy pulls that location information from the clearinghouse and displays that on a Google Chrome interface in your PSAP. That's the way it works today. So that's where rapid SOS comes into this for our project. Now, rapid SOS has other product offerings that are out there. Some PSAPs use them, some don't. Cal OES is in purchasing those and we're not providing those. So there could be some other functionality you have from rapid SOS that we're not aware of and that we aren't providing. All right, and then we're also building out a Comcast circuit and this is an ongoing graphic we've had. We're up to 230 PSAPs have this and that's to give us more reliability on that location accuracy project. That's what the purpose of this connection is. Just a few more things to update you on. We're almost done. Things were holding tight. I knew it would take a long time today. We do have, this is the list of cloud-based and data center-based CPE vendors on our new contract. It's the same list we showed the last time we met. And we're now at the process where we have sent a test packet to all the vendors that are on this list right here. They've all received it. And we've outlined for them what they need to do to begin testing in our lab. And we've set up our lab to be able to facilitate their connections and their testing and what they're doing. And we'll begin to schedule testing as soon as we've worked through all the network connections and other things that need to be in place. And we cannot deploy cloud or data center CPE until our next Gen 9.1 network is built out, which you've heard from our schedule is in the summer of 2021. So that would be realistically when these solutions would be able to be deployed in your PSAP. So between now and then we'll get them tested as they're tested, we'll tell you who's passed the acceptance. And then we will be able to show you and work with you to see that interface in our lab if you want. The next advisory board will probably be done from our lab. It's in its final stages of construction. They're installing a wall this week and then we put in our furniture and our dispatch consoles. Right now we're working out of a really small room just to do the testing we need to. But we're going to make it a training center, a display center, and we'll be able to support a virtual interface so you can see what these new cloud-based CPEs look like. So, Brenda, I hope that answers your earlier question on where we are with the cloud and data center CPE vendors, but that's where we're at. Yes, and I'm just kind of contemplating the availability and do we have to make appointments for these if we wanted to bring a group in to kind of play around with it, because for me, I'm looking at replacing CPE equipment. We're in year six, seven maintenance. So these are things that we really need to kind of get ahead of so that we know what options we have available to us. Exactly, so as these vendors get in the lab and test it, we'll let you know via Andrew and your PSAP advisors that, hey, these CPE products are available and for you to look at, and then we'll just schedule testing either virtual or on-site depending on how many people you want to bring so you can get a sense of what the solution looks like. We can absolutely do that. Thank you. Okay, I have a question for you. Yes. It's kind of going back a little bit, but can you talk briefly to the migration for agencies that are on like a Vesta ring or Vesta hosted? I know the equipment's going into all the PSAPs for their migration. Can you explain how that works? Very high level. Yeah, so if you're in a hosted solution today, we would have to look at the other agencies that you are in the hosted solution with so that we don't impact anything operationally by moving you to a new solution. But after we've done that, you just work with Andrew and your PSAP advisor and you would move from that current environment into this new CPE environment. And it's really your PSAP advisor that walks you through that process. And if we run into any technical snags, then Andrew and his team brings in Ryan, who's our technology division chief, and to help work through the technology challenges that might be there so we can get you the CPE you want. Thank you. Okay, so we're doing a lot of work with SB 670. We are in the process of taking the emergency regulations and putting them into permanent regulations. And we're developing an automated tool for information sharing. We anticipate that by the next time the advisory board meets all of the local agencies, PSAPs share for emergency managers will have access to that tool. And I've actually seen a demo of what it looks like, a live demo and the tool is exceptional. So right now, if you have any questions on an outage, you just simply reach out to the contact number that's here, tell them the zip code or zip codes that you have questions about and we can instantly get you an answer. If it's a large outage, we're gonna be proactive and push that data to you. So that's kind of where we are with this project. And we just wanna make sure that we have a good 24-7, 365 email address for your PSAP. And for the sheriffs that are out there, obviously for your sheriff department, which is probably your PSAP and the emergency managers in down at the county EOCs that are out there. So we can make sure that we set up the credentials in the system for you to be able to view the information that's out there. All right, we're finished up with Setna and where we are. This is the fund condition statement. It has not changed since the last time we spoke. We have set the rate for calendar year 2021. And we recommend that the surcharge stay at 30 cents like it is now. And it's based on the calculations you see here. So according to the statute, we take the revenue that we, to determine the revenue we need, it's based on the appropriations given to us by the legislature. So we just can't say, hey, we'd like a lot more money this year. It has to go through the legislative process. And then we take the number of access lines. That's that 57,833 number that you see there. That's about 3 million more than last year. So to give you an idea of the growth we're seeing. And then we set the surcharge needed to get the annual revenue to support the top line of the chart, the 207 million. And it's just straight math from there. We do want to emphasize that Setna is stable. The new legislation that was passed is providing the revenue needed for the 911 system. And unless people start throwing these devices away, we don't expect a dip in the revenue. It is an independent revenue source that must and can only be used on 911. So even though you're hearing a lot about budget shortfalls and things that are being impacted, this is a separate funding source and it's dedicated to 911. And right now the surcharge is at 30 cents, but the statute gives us the ability to go all the way up to 80 cents if we need it. And we're obviously not even close to that upper bound. I think if you do the math, each penny is somewhere around 7 million a year or something like that, so in new revenue. So it's a very, very solid funding source and it's providing what we need for 911. And I really want to extend a thank you to all the associations, organizations, police chiefs, sheriffs and everybody out there that got that legislation in place because it is certainly having the desire that we wanted. I mean, the result is exactly what we needed. We have a dedicated stable funding source, so thank you. All right. I think that's it for me for now. How about that? All right. The next item up is from the Long Range Planning Committee and that would be Mr. Herron. Stay close, budge. And good morning, everyone. Can you hear me okay? Make sure I don't think of, yeah, I see a nodding head or two. So since the last advisory board meeting at the LRPC has actually held three meetings, our regularly scheduled meeting October 14th as well as yesterday and then a special meeting on November 2nd where we discussed AB 911. We continue to receive regular updates and provide feedback to the state on the topics that budge just presented, the advisory board. One thing I wanted to mention on text 911 was we asked or I clarified yesterday with budge that the state does plan to issue a press release in conjunction with the January 1st, 2021 deadline for all PSAPs to be taken next. And let's see, the next gen 911 regional working groups held meetings earlier this month and they provided updates at yesterday's LRPC meeting. They continue to have good discussions and can ask questions and provide feedback to the state on the project. The state has also conducted what they call regional calls where they invite PSAPs, managers and representatives of all of the regions to kind of see this type of an update and have interactive feedback. Although there was a lag in the GIS working group meeting, the state recently filled some GIS specific positions that were created and that group met for the first time in several months in order to continue the momentum they're meeting again in December and Alicia Fuller from CHP is our LRPC liaison to the GIS working group. Finally, in terms of working groups, the LRPC is targeting early 2021 for the COVID-19 working group that we've chatted about so much this year to form and begin meeting. With that, I will sort of hold off and turn it back over to Budge. The LRPC does have, we do have some additional comments on both of the next two items. So coordinate with Budge as we move through the agenda. Okay, can you? You're good. I can't, can you advance it for me? There you go. Budge, do you have a couple of slides on item seven or do you want me to? I don't have a slide on item seven, Chris. If you want to just brief that out on the back of centers and on funded PSAPs, I don't have anything on that. Okay, sounds good. I'll give them on it and then you can weigh in. The topic of backup dispatch centers was discussed at our recent LRPC meetings. And the state actually provided a draft policy, funding policy that would allow PSAPs to use their funding allotment to help create backup dispatch centers and for the state to take on network costs associated with those backup centers. While this solution doesn't solve issues for all PSAPs interested in creating a backup center, it is an improvement over the previous policy which didn't allow for funding of them at all, essentially. And so once PSAPs do transition to the next Gen 911 network and the new CPE contract, they'll certainly have the ability to create a backup center if there's local support as well. It should be noted that the new policy encourages what we've held for quite some time on the LRPC at least, which is encouraging consolidation, regionalization and the use of policy-based routing. I'll reiterate what we've said many times, which is that it's not the desire of the LRPC for agencies to create backup centers without including other PSAPs in their region in the discussion and planning of those. Bud, anything else specific on the backup centers? No, I think that's it, Chris, that we set the policy up. The idea was to ensure that it's a true backup center and to support the needs of the PSAP and then to find a way to document that in such a way that it recognizes what's there today and also aligns with the new CPE contract, the cloud and data center model. And will you clarify for me on the unfunded PSAPs? I thought we had a, saw a couple of draft slides, but are those... Yeah, we had not prepared any for this meeting. I'll just mention then that we did have a discussion yesterday. There's about 25 PSAPs listed that are, quote, unfunded by the state either because they don't meet the requirements. In other words, they're not providing a 24-7 service or they don't have the call volume required to be funded by the state. The vast majority of those were military installations, which the state is working with on resolution. And in fact, they're working with each of the PSAPs that was listed. Couple other examples were parks and recs. We had an airport, one of the port authorities. So the state just wanted to be transparent and we did discuss that with the LRPC and feel confident that the state is moving forward and reaching out to each of those to ensure that there's a solution as we implement next Gen 91. So I'm not sure if any of the board members have any questions or comments or feedback on that, but that's really, you know, want to make sure that you, if you have any questions for us related to these two topics, we're happy to entertain those from the board members. When would you go there? Sorry, I stepped on somebody. But I had a question regarding the plan to support backup centers and with some of the requirements that are being drafted or put into place to consider your backup center or true backup center. Will that information be available for viewing? I know we kind of talked about some things, but is there a document that you could share? So Brenda, yes, and it has been shared was my understanding. So Andrew, if it hasn't been sent to all PSAPs, I think it has. And essentially, I can pull up the policy and just read it. It's very, very short. The PSAP would utilize their CPE allotment to support that backup center and under the new funding model that makes a lot of sense. And, or, you know, if you run over your allotment, you'd have to self fund the rest, but we do not think that'll be a problem under the new model. Under the old CPE model, there may be some challenges there. We understand that. We would like the backup to be a minimum of six positions and it's got to be fully equipped backup center, like it has to have CAD and radio and a NIMO-1 system. And then we'll bring the network to you. We'll fund that whole part of the next gen NIMO-1 network. We'll put the same complement of equipment in that backup center, but to do that long-term investment, first of all, it doesn't make sense to do that at every single PSAP, obviously. So, and we're looking for PSAPs to make a commitment that others would be able to use that facilities. We're thinking more of a regional backup scenario. So in other words, large agencies that don't have a good backup alternative and not knowing that could really be their alternate answer, those are really the agencies that this really applies to. And it's those agencies we would really like to facilitate. And then once we put the effort into that from the state and the funding, other smaller agencies would also have the opportunity to use that same facility as the idea. So MOUs are put in place and everything. And then we're asking that the PSAP agree to test that at least once every 90 days so that when it's needed, there's not enough, where you go in there and you turn on the lights and it doesn't work. So that's the idea. It is published online in chapter three of our operations manual. And that's a public document. It's out on the 911 page today and everything is out there right now. Just a point of order to help like with Brenda. We saw a draft of this or a copy or an excerpt of this at the LRPC yesterday, Brenda. And it is posted in the funding manual but just point of order, it was revised in October of 2020. So I mean, it's very new. And to Chris's point, it is a lot better than what we've ever had in the past because next generation or excuse me, backup centers were never funded. This does give an opportunity for legacy centers to have some grandfathering for network costs but it does focus us on the future. But I just, out of fairness for all my PSAP managers, it just changed. It's not like it's been there for a while. Then I think we're on to agenda item number eight, which is the AB 9-11 feasibility study. Is that you or Chris? Chris, do you want to start this or do you want me to start? Go ahead and then I'll add the LRPC comments before you open it up to questions and comments. Okay. So AB 9-11 was a piece of legislation that was put into law last legislative cycle. And it required Cal OES to determine the feasibility of a database that could be used by all Californians to voluntarily provide vital health and safety information into a database. And then when that person would call 9-11, it would link to the database, pull the information and make it available to those that would need to know. Obviously the 9-11 first responder in the dispatch center, as well as other first responders, law fire, EMS, who might need that information. So it necessarily includes all the technologies in the call flow. So the 9-11 call processing equipment, obviously next gen 9-11 and its transport capabilities, computer aided dispatch and even RMS to an extent, all of those at the public safety answer point. And so report was generated. I think the report is somewhere a little shy of underpages. And it was sent to the advisory board members and we are gonna put it through ADA compliance and get it up on our website. And we are within there, there's an establishment of a rough order of magnitude of the cost to support a statewide system like this. And the legislation required that the report be delivered to the legislature by January 1st and it required a call we asked to present it to the advisory board and then you would vote and make a recommendation on it. So that's really what today is all about. And I've got a couple of slides of summary. This is basically an overview of the system. So point one on the graphic is the statewide self registration database where citizens would enter information into there. There was a lot of feedback on how do you make sure that information is valid? How do you make sure it's protected? How is it kept secure? And those points are addressed in the paper. And then when that person calls 911 and it goes into the dispatch center into the PSAP at point three on the graphic, it would then reach out to that database, pull the information across the network and display it for the 911 first responder. And the piece that's very important to understand is that because the legislation required the data to be available to first responders, you have to get the information into CAD so that it can be pushed out to the field. And so CAD was included in the study. So essentially you've got this self registration portal that would need to be established and then you need a mechanism for that data from there to go into CAD. And then you need the CAD to have the ability to push it out to the field. And then since it has to be available to all Californians, you now get into this space where you've got to consider how do you ensure the information is available to everybody? So you enter into this whole, how do we get CAD, all CAD systems to be able to pull this data in and make it available to everybody? So we put together a couple of key points. Now, admittedly, this is a Cal OES summary. So we're not trying to put words in the mouth of the long-range planning committee or any of the board members. But it includes this self registration database. CAD is required to ensure the database, the data is available to everybody. It certainly aligns with our strategic plan. And if you remember the connecting the technology graphic that we've been using for a long time, this is a really good way to make sure that information can be shared with every public safety agency in the state. And it certainly has some significant advantages. These are highlighted in the report. It's page 40 something, if I remember right, page 42 or something. I think it's somewhere in there. And we have heard a lot of feedback that this is a very difficult project to complete. And we understand that. We understand what difficult it's all about. Trust me, next gen nine and one in the new CP contract were not easy. So if the legislature directs us to do this, what it looks like for Cal OES is we need to do what's called a budget change proposal. And essentially that would give us the additional authority to implement the system. Authority in terms of resources and personnel and those are all highlighted in the report. We would develop a competitive bid RFP, we select multiple vendors and then local agencies would be able to choose those CAD systems that are on that contract that we've negotiated, we manage the same way that you do CPE today. And so if a local agency decided not to use it, then you just keep the CAD you have now and you buy it. But if you choose this process, then the state would already have completed the RFP process for you. They would fund the system, install it and make sure that it's interoperable. The analysis also includes that Sentinel is eligible to be used for this. And we came up with based on an implementation plan, it would just be an increase of two cents in year one and then four cents in ongoing years until we get up to that rough order of magnitude of 116 million that we would need at steady state to keep the system up and going. And this is what a high level implementation plan would look like if we're directed to do it. This year, we would try and get it into the governor's budget. Obviously the legislature's mandating us to do it is the idea. And then we get the personnel in place, we do the request for proposals, we select the vendors, get them on contract and then we start the build out in 2022. And these are high level schedules dependent on a whole bunch of different factors, all of which are out of our control. But this will just give you kind of a snapshot of what it might look like if we were directed to do everything that's in that report. So that's just kind of t-ended up. We think the report has a lot of good information in it and I'll turn it back over to you, Chris. You might be on mute, Chris. I was, thank you. So thank you and I'll just add some comments and some information for the other board members before you open it up to them for questions and feedback. As you, as we both mentioned, the state has provided updates to the LRPC on the AB 911 feasibility study as it's progressed. And that included providing us with a draft copy of the study to LRPC members for the opportunity to provide written feedback, which several members did. It also generated discussion at our October meeting that led to us holding a special meeting on November 2nd where the only topic was this study. And so we were able to have a couple hours worth of discussion where additional feedback was given to the state for their consideration to include in the final draft. As Budge mentioned, the origination of the bill is to determine whether implementing a statewide system to allow residents to voluntarily provide that supplemental information that would be available to the dispatchers and first responders. As is noted in the report, the systems typically have a low adoption rate. And so to make the cost worthwhile, I think the state and the consultant have really identified an opportunity to leverage the network to facilitate this system that includes an opportunity for PSAPs to have CAD to CAD connectivity and or as Budge just sort of went over to provide really a statewide CAD solution or CAD solutions that would allow that supplemental information to be shared across PSAPs and all the way up to the first responders in the field. So in addition to providing feedback, some LRPC members certainly express concern that the scope of the study seemed to expand from that original supplemental information system to now statewide CAD, which as Budge said, he was given feedback that that's a pretty big project. I would suggest that without that creativity, it seems unlikely that the return of investment would support implementing the whole, the supplemental information system that was the origination of the bill and that requires self-registration. For any of you that have the alert systems, you know that you just don't get people to sign up for those systems or at least to re-sign up and keep information updated. And I would say while there are many unanswered questions as to how this statewide CAD or CAD CAD solution would be implemented as evidenced by many other projects that we report out on, the state under the current guidance has been, our leadership that has has been extremely collaborative with the PSAP community. Whether it's our work groups, whether it's all of the discussions where they go out and interact with PSAPs, you know, getting feedback is what this current state 911 office is all about. I've been on the LRPC for about a decade and there's more collaboration occurring today than at any other time that I've been involved. And I think the state's really shown that they're dedicated to advocating for PSAPs. So from a personal perspective, I'll just suggest, I have no reason to doubt that that wouldn't continue on a project like this. And I think that the opportunities associated with it are too beneficial to pass up. And with that, I'll turn it back to you, Ludge. So I think at this point, we're welcoming any feedback questions from advisory board members on this topic because this is a vote and a recommendation that has to be sent to the legislature. Linda Brunner, as I was reading through the study, I mean, it has very valuable information in the study and as a parent of an autistic child, I find it hugely important. One of the things that I kind of questioned or wondered is, is there a possibility to have an interface into the CPE that will present the same type of data at the PSAP so that it could be forwarded to however it needs to go. And this would follow not just, let's say, a location of an incident, but a telephone number that can be associated with an individual. Is that, was that considered a possibility? So the report, Brenda, the report does address that and that the problem with that is you essentially turn an automated process into something manual because there's no way, there's no interface between CPE and CAD that you could push this data across. So you basically have an air gap and that was part of what the study looked at. The information that goes from CPE to CAD is really location information and that's all. It doesn't have this extra data that's there. And so for call centers that have call takers that cannot dispatch, you know, you really, you come into this challenge of how do you get that data that's vitally important out into the hands of the first responders? And that's really what we zeroed in on. And that's what we were required to look at in the study. Okay, so as the first responders, are they actually viewing the information from the CAD? How was that database looking? I mean, is it like the supplemental info? They'll look at that as a portion of the CAD system or how is it actually, I don't know, received to the first responder in the field? So that would be the interface between the database and the CAD system. And we would define those requirements in the RFB to make sure that the data could get from the database into the CAD and displayed out to the first responder in a way that meets the needs of the local agency. So this really goes a lot to what Chris was saying. We would need a lot of collaboration with the agencies to determine what that interface looks like to make sure the correct data is displayed and who should have the ability to see that data to make sure that it's properly credentialed and protected because it would be PII at that point. Okay, thank you. I have a couple of comments if nobody else wants to jump in. We can get bogged down in the discussions about CAD. I'm seeing that going on in the chat right now. But before we get into that, because the idea of having more options for CADs that connect and talk to each other, I don't think anybody's gonna argue with the fact that that would be a good thing. However, with the MANIAC, then this looking at, I mean, I don't wanna use the name Smart 911, but basically supplemental information on a particular person or location that is in a self-registration database is what this was intended to look at. And for the cost of that, and this I think it was coming at, I don't have it, what was the slide, 114 million dollars, it was on one of the slides, is that the cost for Californians to be able to do this? I think that's one thing that we as an advisory board should consider when we determine this. And then the second part is with the other options right now, such as what we're using in the state rapid deploy where people can self put their medical information in, such as that same thing, those ADTs and all of that information, when people can start using the magic device that rules your world is to use budget phrase, if you can put that information in that device, would that suffice and do the same thing for that protected population that wants to share information? I could go on on this, but I know we're on limited time, so I'll stop there. Are there any other questions? This is Sheriff Ron. I can't speak for other counties, but we're mandated to have an access and functional needs database that for most of us is not very functional where we're supposed to be able to track. Self register, people who are in need of assistance in an emergency. And we just had a fire in the North end of my county where we lost probably 50 homes and it's an older community and our AFN database only had maybe 10 people in it. I know there are more than 10 people. So I think this is a great idea if it can pan out. The self registration part is the hardest part because the people who are most needed are the people who are at least likely to be able to self register. We're gonna need a big outreach on that to make it happen. I do like the concept of it. It will replace what counties are supposed to do on their own with an AFN database that generally is not a functional database and does not serve any purpose. So I support the idea. I do understand how expensive it is. $100 plus million is a hard sell to swallow, but that's what we're supposed to do is serve our communities, especially the people who are at least able to care for themselves in case of an emergency. Okay, are there any other questions? This is an action item by the board. Sorry, I had a few comments. All right, who's that? Chief White. Hey Chief, go ahead. Yeah, I think first of all, I'm coming on the back end of this. So I did have a chance to read through the report and it's obviously very comprehensive. I think there's a lot of concerns though. First of all, talking about this kind of statewide CAD and how that relates to what agencies currently have, be a massive undertaking. I think to the sheriff's comment is really important. Looking, they analyzed a number of other states that have this and the cost per resident is at least according to my calculation was gonna be exceptionally high in California and the registrations are extremely low. The other part, which I'm kind of unclear of in the legislation it mentions about providing the information through an encrypted connection. And it kind of assumes that a lot of places have MDCs or mobile data computers, a number of the fire agencies don't have those capabilities who may need access to this information as well as people are first responders in rural areas. So I think that would have to be considered. There's a big statewide discussion going on right now about encrypted data from our information systems and what that's gonna impose on agencies. So it's just concerning, as this moves forward, obviously a lot of all idea, just wonder for the amount of money, what that return on investments gonna be and whether it makes sense that the state actually, and I know the legislation required us to look at it this way, but the technology companies are doing a lot of work in this space and the comment that was made about, looking through existing interfaces to have it kind of come in over the top as opposed to now being the cause for this kind of massive central system. So thank you. Okay, any other comments from the board? All right, before we move to a motion and a vote, we do have a number of items and comments that were made in the chat. So I'm gonna ask Paul Troxel to go through and read those comments. And then we'll open it up for those that are on the phone that they don't have the ability to put it into the chat window. So from the chat window first, Paul, a question was asked, will this report be online? Yes, we'll put the report online as soon as we get through ADA compliance. So depending on how online that takes, it'll be available online, okay? Second question, if we keep our own CAD vendor, does Seton and then fund the integration cost? So I think that's a down in the weeds question for later. In order to ensure the interface works best, it's probably better to replace CAD at PSAP with a standards-based CAD. So that's something I think we could address in the implementation phase. I don't know if we need to solve all that today. Adding on to the previous question, if we use a state CAD vendor, does Seton pay for the integration of the state CAD to existing RMS? So I think the RMS feed may be outside of scope. And so that might be an additional feature that the local agency could support, but at least we would be supplanting the CAD cost that the local agency is doing. So that's something we could look at as well. But initially, I don't think we had included RMS in the cost model. Does this include mobile CAD? Yes, the solution includes the mobile part of the end-to-end. So this gets to Chief White's point where not everyone has an MDC, and so we took that into consideration in the rough order of magnitude cost. Other integrations that currently exist or future, this is related to the funding of integration to the CAD systems. So again, this is an implementation question. What we did in the CPE contract is we put an ability to have a one-time cost to develop an API. In other words, an interface to some other technology and we could certainly do something similar with this solution. And then it would just have to be vetted through OES so that it didn't go crazy and blow up the cost model, but it's probably something we could include in the RFP process depending on what those interfaces are. Why does it have to integrate with CAD? Smart 911 does this service outside of a CAD system? So the challenge in this legislative requirement was it has to go all the way to the first responder and any solution that goes to the first responder that is not resilient enough to have the reliability we need, you could inevitably create a system that's not always available. So we've learned even just look at the Location Accuracy Project that we have where it was a supplemental data type project, but the data was so valuable that PSAPs ended up relying on it for day-to-day operations. We wanna make sure it has the reliability built in to support the need. And that's really what this focus was on in the report and why we looked at CAD. And I think too, some of the comments from Chris, some of the other advantages when you consider the cost to do this for just a two to three 5% adoption rate, for not a significant amount more, you get all of these other capabilities, CAD to CAD interface, the ability to send closest available resource, the ability to truly transfer the entire incident from one PSAP to another. You open up a possibility of backup centers because everybody's on a CAD that is standardized. So there's a lot of other advantages that come in when you move it into the CAD environment that make the return on investment make a lot more sense for something of this size and magnitude. Who is on the hook for the maintenance costs? That would be the CAD vendor and part of the contract and it's built into the rough order of magnitude costs that was in the project. Did the study evaluate how often field personnel actually reference data that they can access now? Experience is that field personnel do not frequently access the volumes of data that they have. They ask this batch. So yes, and that's why we took the study to the next level to do a true CAD to CAD interface because a whole bunch of other advantages come even if the first responder is not using the data for every single call, which we knew would be the case. So that's why we took the study to the next level and said, look, what can we do above and beyond just this single myopic focus on this one need? What could we do that would be a better bang for your buck to do, have more advantages in the use of the data. And the last question, which stakeholder groups were met with from the access and functional needs and vulnerable populations? And was there discussion around the ability for outreach to their communities in regards to participation? So I do not know off the top of my head which groups were consulted. I know somewhere. So I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. Oh, yeah. And I think it's in the study. The study itself lists those ones that I don't have it open. So we did consult those groups to get input from them. That was part of the process. Any other messages in chat? One more that came in, Paul, at the very end. Does the proposed $100 million budget for the project take into account funding CAD systems for 450 PSAPs? Or is that just the database that seems very low? It seems a very low number to replace all CAD systems. It does take into consideration replacing all CAD at all 448 PSAPs, 438 PSAPs. Yes, that is included in the number. Then we have a comment. My name is Teresa Anderson. I am a public policy director for the ARC and UCPCA collaboration. I appreciate everyone's hard work and effort on this important issue. We are co-sponsors of the bill and urge your yes vote on moving forward. I would like to address the issue related to enrollment and as a statewide advocacy organization, we commit to working together to conduct robust statewide outreach. Thank you. OK, if that's the last chat, since there are some that are only on the phone, we'll open the, hopefully we can hear your comments. So for those that are on the phone, if you have any comments, please stay for more in the chat. OK, going once, going twice. OK, we do have one more chat comment. Paul, did the study include the potential increase in response times due to first responders reviewing information prior to arrival on scene? The study did not look at response times. I don't recall, do you? All right, well, since that is the last chat comment we have with this again, this is an action item and the requirement of the legislation is to forward this report to the legislature by two January 1st. It does need to be considered by the board, so we'll entertain a motion. This is Chris Herron. I would make a motion that we accept the report and forward it to the legislature with our support. OK, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Sheriff Braun, I'll second that. OK, we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion by the board? OK, roll call vote. Chief Childs. This is Alicia Fuller for Chief Childs. He had to go to another meeting. He affirms the motion. OK, Brenda Brunner. I affirm the motion. Leigh Ann Magoski. I vote no on the motion. Rosa Ramos is absent. Sheriff Braun. I vote yes. Sheriff I am. Aye for me. Chief Hadfield is absent. Chris Herron. Aye. Chief Warren. Aye. And Chief White. Aye. OK, the motion carries. OK, so next item is item number nine, which is agenda items for the future meetings. I would like to make one quick comment in that is I apologize for we were having some connectivity issues at the start of this meeting. And I had this in mind, but I didn't do it. And that is to welcome our new members. So we have four new members. Chief Childs from CHP. Rosa Ramos representing Kalnina. Sheriff I am representing the California State Sheriff's Association. And Chief White representing the California Police Chiefs Association. So welcome to the 911 advisory board. I do know that our director, Mark Larducci, had hoped to be available to make some welcoming comments to you all. Hopefully we can have him at the next meeting. But he's been participating in the California Broadband Council meeting since it started at the same time as that. So again, my apologies for missing that opportunity right at this outset. Do we have any agenda items for the future that the board would like to request? Hearing none, agenda item number 10 is 2021 meeting dates, February 17th, May 19th, August 18th, and November 17th. Please mark your calendars and hopefully you will be available for those meetings. Next item is public comment. We did have some comments regarding the AB 911 study. Paul, do we have any other comments on other items? Yes. A comment, this was regarding our phase deployment schedule. The state may need to be flexible because many agencies have multiple projects occurring. And in order to have the right people available, even tentative advance notice is essential. Otherwise, another project may have already been slated at the same time. Earlier notification is the best chance for success. Request was made if the list of agencies in the phased deployment plan will be published and available so agencies know regionally where they are. We have the list, maybe we can just put it on our website as well and get it through ADA compliance and get it up there. So I think that'd probably be the cleanest way. For the test plans, can you speak on how these were developed? How are you ensuring that something is not missed in the test process as required by the I-3 standard? So the test plans were built based on the requirements in the NINA I-3 standard and all the elements that need to be functional in order for this to work. And really, are ensuring that something is not missed is that last PSAP readiness step that we do at PSAP so we make sure anything unique to that dispatch center is not overlooked by our other set of tests that we're doing. So that's really the checks and balances that we have in place. Will anything change for the dispatcher working the position? Will any specific training be required for dispatchers or supervisors? Will technical support workflow change for supervisors or IT staff? So yes, and here's the change. One, quite significant, you will finally have visibility to know if your 911 system is working or not. So today, the way that happens in your PSAP is you probably go, hey, it's kind of quiet in here. Are you getting any calls? No, I'm not getting any calls. So you pick up your own cell phone and you'll dial 911 and you're like, oh, the system's down. And then you start scrambling. That will go away and people will actually have a near real-time interface to let you know if your system is functioning properly. And we'll have a trouble ticketing system that is interconnected between the next gen 911 providers so that if you do have a problem, you can immediately enter a trouble ticket. Training will be provided on how to use the system monitoring tool that provides visibility and how the system is performing and how to enter the trouble ticket. And then the other complication is we are going to have a period where you will have some calls coming across the legacy and some calls coming across the next gen 911. We have absolute visibility into the next gen 911 side. The legacy side, not as much. So that will probably be one of the challenges is during that transitional state, if you're not getting calls from a particular carrier, we have provided the data to our Network Operations Center people from each of the next gen providers to know where you are in the transition. And so that when you do make that trouble ticket, they can quickly determine, oh, that's a legacy side because we're not getting calls into this PSAP from that provider yet. That's probably the most complex issue that we'll have to deal with. And we're already starting to train our providers on that. And it's not something that we would expect your PSAP to know. It's something that we'll have to provide for you. And so that's probably where it gets kind of complicated. But other than that, there shouldn't be any other operational impacts. Everything else should flow the same as it does today. In regards to the current CPE, CPE I3 compliance issues, is there data that can be shared of the compliance issue? So right now, where we are with Viper is we've finished their testing, we've got a solid software solution. So there's no compliance issue there. The Vesta, we've also tested everything, but the piece that they had to do development work on, and this is a little in the weeds, but in the next gen world, when the call comes into the network, you establish a CIP session, session initiated protocol, an IP session. And it's anchored from the originating service provider all the way to the PSAP. And that determines where the call should go. Once it's anchored, any updates that need to be made on that call. A good example would be the call comes in phase one, meaning you don't have an exact location in a wireless call, and it suddenly goes phase two. That update in information or a rebid where I get new location information, it has to flow through something that's called the PIDF. And I don't remember the acronym, it's PIDF-LL. It's the PIDF flow. But that new information needs to go across that data channel, and there was some development work that needed to be done on that data channel. And that's the work that's been completed, tested in the lab, and now they've got to run through their final QCs to make sure it's ready for production. That was the last piece of the puzzle that we needed to have in place. And so we're, like I said, we're very close to the finish line on that. For the testing process in the field, as deployment takes place, what testing is being performed at the adjacent but ready PSAP, example, El Dorado County Sheriff, who will be affected by the Placer Bill PD deployment? So the call will be made into Placer Bill PD, and then Placer Bill PD will transfer that test call to El Dorado County Sheriff. El Dorado County Sheriff will validate that they've received the call and can answer the call. So that's the kind of testing that will run through during that PSAP readiness phase. What does tear down by call taker mean? Are real call takers participating? Not sure with current COVID restrictions. No, so what tear down by call taker means is that once the bridge is established, and if a call comes into Paul's PSAP, and then he transfers it to me, I have the ability to say, okay, Paul, you can drop off this call now. I mean, it's just that testing in the transfer process that we have to facilitate. It seems like a duplicate effort to already have the RapidSOS portal up and running to also have RapidDeploy. So great question. RapidSOS is not a project the state is doing. We have a contract with RapidDeploy. So our effort is focused on RapidDeploy. The local agency is using RapidSOS for something else. That's their choice, and we respect that choice. What expectations are being created for the public that now becomes the burden to the PSAPs to manage? This is overwhelming from the operations perspective. Am I the only one feeling that? What context is that? So I think this was related to our RapidDeploy location accuracy update, that project update, getting more rich data coming into the PSAP. So... I can clarify, that was my comment. And I don't want my comments to be perceived as pushback, absolutely or not. I think it's amazing what the future holds for all of us. However, my concerns from the operational level are, I totally understand that Kalyus does not take the position, nor really should they, about operations, but the availability of that information by default changes how we operate. And even though we say we have a choice not to use the information politically speaking, from our communities and constituencies, we are in hard-pressed not to use the data because of public expectation. This is a lot that's coming to us that I quite frankly did not expect public-private partnership, because I don't recall ever being asked our opinion since we're the ones who have to carry out these expectations. It's very concerning in many ways. And again, I do not want it to be perceived as negative. It's just a lot and it's a lot coming fast. And oftentimes I feel like I'm the only one who feels this way. Maybe people do and they're just quiet about it, but we really need to get on board so that we can best carry out the vision of Cal OES. And I feel like I'm the last to know and I don't want to feel that way. I really want to be a partner. I want to be a good partner, but I don't know if people really understand the gravity of what position we're being placed in in the operational level. I hope that clarifies what my comment was. Yeah, it does, Kim, and thank you for that. I think really what we'll do then is we'll, Andrew, I'd like you to add to the regional task force a discussion on training that we think would be needed. That's probably one area, Kim, where we need the most input from the PSAPs on what impact are we truly having with this new technology and what training is needed to make sure that the training meshes appropriately with the operational needs. And so we'll be much more deliberate in that process. And I think that's the way we can really shore this up. So thank you for that feedback. Thank you. When will the recording of this meeting be posted and will the link be shared? It normally takes, the YouTube video normally takes what, about a week or so? So probably in about a week, the YouTube video will be up. Depending on availability of our staff at Cal OES to process it and we'll try and get the slides up as soon as they get through ADA compliance, whatever that takes. Last one. This is many police departments do not respond to alarm calls now. This is in relation to the rapid deploy integration. Why would ADT info be beneficial? Are PSAPs being consulted before there's an integration or information availability? Not all the info is good info. We may have a choice not to use the info, but by doing so we are exposing the PSAPs and agencies to the political backlash should they choose not to. We have to figure out a way for the end users to be looped in so we can work with Cal OES to carry out the vision and the possibilities of what we can do to better serve our communities. Yeah, so that's great feedback. And that's why we included the option of you not to use it. We think that's a far better position to be in than to not make it available to everybody because a few have the concern. So the features are there and you can just turn them off and not use them and in some cases they're not even available because the company is providing the feeds or not feeding the data in that area. So we know that's a gap and we acknowledge that but we would like to make the information available to those that can use it in the areas where it is available. That was the last public comment. Okay, folks, that is the last public comment for those members of the board and for the public. Thank you for sticking with us for our excessive two hours. And with that, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Moved by. Leanne. Okay, Leanne, is there a second? Second, Brenda Brunner. Okay, without objection, we will stand adjourned. Thank you very much. See you in January or February? January. January. Thank you. February. February. February. Thank you in February. February.