 I'm gotten fire chief and also chair of the SWATN Board of Drums. Carrie? Gary Dillon, Waterbury Fire Department. I'm sorry, gentlemen, would you do that again? You were really quick. Gary Dillon, Waterbury Fire Department. Thank you, Gary. I also meant to call on Carrie McCool. The only time you would jump. Sorry, I'm Carrie McCool on the dispatch. Supervisor at Montpelier Police. Thank you. Dominic? Sorry, you caught me off guard. I'm a subject matter expert with Televate and happy to be here. Rick? Oh, you muted yourself. Okay, I'm Rick Burke, a managing partner with Televate and likewise happy to be here. Thanks for having us. Kim? Kim Cheney, I'm a member of CVPSA and live in Montpelier. Thank you. John Quinn? John Quinn, representing the town of Berlin, Berlin Select Board. And Ryan? Ryan Brice, Washington Fire Chief. The person at the phone of 777-5052. I'm not hearing you or you. I know you're unmuted yourself. Can you say your name and your town of residence? Okay, if you get a chance, we'll come back to you. Otherwise, go back and mute your phone. And then the other person on the phone, 498-8592. Could you please? This is Peter Matthews, Northfield Fire Chief. Matthews, Northfield. Thank you. Is that Walter under Dorothy's name? I can't see. Oh, I can see his Dorothy. I'm sorry, sir, but the only name coming up, I think, must be maybe your wife. The person using Dorothy's computer? Assistant Chief Wayne Todd Broughton. Wayne, thank you. Capitol Mutual. And John Neely? Is that Needly? This is Kadeley. Kadeley? You may be talking about John Cating. That's me. I'm on the select board from Worcester. Thank you. And there's a Greg. Thanks for being here. Greg. Yes. Would you introduce yourself and what town you're from? Greg Light, town of Plainfield. Thank you. And mute yourself when you're not speaking. The same for you. Thank you, Wayne and Greg. Mute yourselves. Jean. Jen. Jennifer Minor, President, Cabot Ambulance. Thank you. Keith. Keith Van Eyderstein, Berlin Fire Department Chief. Thank you. Moretown Chief. Moretown Fire Chief. Did you say your first name again? Stefan. Stefan. Thank you. Montpelier Police. A good evening, everybody. Brian Pete with the Montpelier Police Department. Thank you. Christine Sullivan. Christine Sullivan, Waitfield Select Board. And I have to... Chris. Smith. Chris Schmidt, Cabot Ambulance, Vice President. Thank you. Nicholas. Mick Brissette, Washington Select Board. Thank you. Callie. Callie Streeter, Moretown Select Board, Fire Department Lease On. Thank you. Brent, Doug Brent. Doug Brent, Fire Chief, City of Barry. Thank you. Anyone I missed who hasn't had a chance to state their name and their town of residence. I see Will up there. It's Sally who I missed earlier. Will you want to go first? Sure. Will Sutton, Worcester Fire Chief. Thank you. Sally? Sally Dillon, Waterbury Fire and Capital Fire Representative to CVPSA. Thank you. And Tripp, I believe Tripp has joined us since I went through that row. Tripp Johnson, Chief of Waitfield-Face and Fire Department. Anyone else that I've missed that's attending remotely? Okay. So, in person. Dave McStain, Town of Roxbury. Dave Roxbury. Thank you. All right. In person. And you want to come, you want to stand up and introduce yourselves, just say your name and your residence. Steve Whitaker, Montpelier. Jeff Campbell, Warren Fire Chief. Walter Rothfeld, Cabot Fire Chief. Joe Altora, Deputy Fire Chief, City of Barry. Okay. Thank you. I think that will help. And especially if any of us need to go back over and review this recording, we'll have some clear names and positions because the names on the screen usually give us one or the other, where you're from or your name. Thank you. I want us to get into the meat of this meeting. I think you're all familiar with that we have this wonderful report. I would like to give you a little backstory that Central Vermont Public Safety Authority, a little bit of history. Some of you know it, many of you may not, but our total vision is working together to improve regional public safety services. We felt that combining local control of the many would form a more efficient, effective, sustainable regional public safety service. And that would enhance the hiring and retaining of employees, offering more training and advancement opportunities. We feel that working together to improve how public safety services are delivered and how they're paid for, that by combining local control, we have a larger control regionally, and particularly a larger voice when it comes to state and federal funding. We hope to use the meat of this report to advance further applications for those funds and would like for the Capital Farm Mutual Aid System to sign on with a commitment of sending two representatives to be a core team to work with our consultants, Telavet, that would really nail down the issues of governance and cost formulas, ones that you can accept through your representatives, and the ones that the city can accept through their representatives. That we need to go forward, and we can't go forward without dealing with these two core issues. Now, I've been with this process of moving towards regional public safety coalition since 2006 when I was president of the Board of the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce, and I worked with George Malik. We informally worked three years until 2009 when we had an official committee which we had two appointments from each town, Barrie City, Barrie Town, Berlin, and Montpelier. These eight people and two representatives of the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce sat around the table for four years working on the current charter and trying to get towns to vote to join. He did a lot of presentations to the select boards at the time and almost had four towns being the coalition behind Central Vermont Public Safety Authority. But politicians, sometimes you get reelected, sometimes you don't, and the scenery changed a lot over those four years and we ended up with only two communities voting to join the Public Safety Authority at that time. So when the charter went to the legislators in 2014, we had the city of Barrie and the city of Montpelier as voted in members. Since then, we've reached out continuously hoping to have other towns join us and we're very, very pleased when Capital Farm Mutual Aid voted to join us in July of 2018. And right away, we had Sally and Will being there a very essential important part of all the work we've done with consultants since then. Now, we've presented three different studies, I call business cases, of whether or not this Public Safety Authority group would advance a one location dispatch center or one system with two location dispatch center. At one point, we were even did a study on just having Montpelier be the regional center because Barrie wasn't sure it wanted to continue. So we felt like we've explored a lot and we're hoping that this last study will use what was done but move on in a whole new way. The Center for Public Safety Authority and I personally am not here to advocate that we're the network entity, but we are the entity that has the funding to do the planning, if you will all participate with us and with a real commitment that we want to do this work and get the governance model and the cost formulas that you and the cities can accept. And that's what we're about tonight. So I'm going to turn it over to Rick and Doug Hoyt may chime in. Other people may chime in as a fact. Doug, maybe you want to say a statement now. Doug Hoyt, you want to say something now or do you want to chime in while they're presenting? In the interest of time, I'd like to have Dom and Rick go over to plan or the results of their work. Which I think you'll find quite revealing and it should underscore exactly why we're sitting here tonight looking at this and contemplating the future. Okay, it's your show, Rick and Dom. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Time out. I missed it. I said I looked at my agenda. I missed public comment. So, Steven? Well, yeah. Also, it's a joint meeting. Yep. Bob Fields got his own. Same thing, public comment. It's that time? Yeah. Yep. Okay. We have a two minute, two minutes. In the interest of time, I ran over by a half a minute last night so I'm not going to read the statement that I prepared for last night. I will email that to Joe and ask him to circulate it. But I want to point out a couple of things to watch for tonight because I argued for this study for years, three years back that we needed to get this needs assessment completed and then we put out an RFP and then we compromised it and narrowed it for the second RFP. Last night we were told that this, that Telvide has completed a vulnerability or a resiliency assessment and an inventory. And those things are not evident here. What it's clear, what's clear, what's become clear is that even buying a brand new system, a multimillion dollar system is going to take a year or two before it's built and online, which means that we need to identify what are the weak points in the system we have now and think about buying some spares. And that's primarily a capital fire scope and responsibility. But this type of planning, we enter from the needs assessment into an engineering phase and then an RFP or a series of RFPs. So we're at least two years out before a new system is online and we can't afford to have this system fail in the next two years. So both the inventory and the resiliency assessment, I would ask you to hammer on Telvide to get those deliverables because I don't see them. And it's all about the governance. I will that you'll see that in a written piece. And we also need to address there's a new contract in effect between capital fire and Montpelier for the dispatch. But life threatening issues are getting under the rug delays and failed responses by Cap West. And there's no reporting. There's no accumulated log or reporting or training being addressed there. It's two minutes, you're up. Why don't you stop Donna when she went over two minutes? Chief. Okay, I do want to clarify one point. It came up after the meeting last night when we presented to the city councils. Stephen has done a lot of due diligence in his own personal interests, but he does talk from himself. He does not talk the way of public safety authority. So I just want to clarify that as all citizens have the right to opinions and he has a lot of experience, but he has, he is not part of the public safety authority board nor has he been directed by the central Vermont Public Safety Board to talk to us, on our behalf. Sorry, I didn't say that quite right. So on that note, anyone else have a public comment that's from the group, something that's not on the agenda that you would like to state? All right, Rick. Thank you, Donna. Thank you, everyone. I am pleased to be here and we were honored and still honored to be part of this effort and part of a broad team to have conducted this study and we look forward to presenting our findings and recommendations to you tonight. Before I get started, I would like to send words of gratitude to a broad-based team that really supported us. Kim and Paco and Donna and Doug and Doug Brent, Joe Alsworth, Scott Bagg, Paul Staruti, Carrie McCool and a number of you that if I didn't mention, I appreciate you. There was a great deal of participation across all aspects of this program and we actually were able to build on a body of work and effort that had been ongoing for some time. So we, I'm sorry, I was watching a screen jump and I'm watching. Yeah, sorry. That's all right. So I really believe that what we've engaged on with all of you is a collaborative effort. We build a lot of good relationships and friendships along the way and we honor those and we really are, we may not be members of your community and physical living there, but we are members of your community and want to do and assist you however best so that you can achieve your objectives. And so some of what we want to talk about are those objectives. So Dom, if you could please begin sharing the presentation, that would be appreciated. So while Dom is bringing up the presentation, I just want to tell you, we have a very long presentation but we consolidated it to a number of key slides and we're going to go through those slides. We want to have a good pace on this presentation so that we give you an opportunity to ask questions and to get your answers to those questions. A lot of what we're going to present to is not news to a number of you and will be new news to a number of you as well. But it is because of the hard work, creative activity, impressive discipline of people who are the first responders and the dispatchers themselves who are serving their communities and communicating off of, as Will explained to you, a very at-risk radio communication network. Do you have the ability to share your screen? I need the host to enable screen sharing, Donna or whoever is acting as a host. Well, it says that I've got it marked. That's why I bumped the screen when I tried to screen share so it should be screen sharing. Did you try and not able to? That's correct. It gives me a message, host disabled participants screen sharing. I believe you're sharing your screen? Yep. I'll try it. Still getting that same message, I'm afraid. Okay. I see that you're no longer sharing but has not enabled participant sharing yet. Okay, I think. I'm sorry, I'm technically challenged. Here it comes. There I should be sharing now, hopefully. Good, good. Okay, I'll go into presentation mode. Hopefully that makes it easier for everyone to see. How's that? Is that your whole screen now? Not quite. Yeah, we're seeing the notes on there. We don't want to see your notes. Maybe because I have another monitor hooked up. Excuse me. All right. Well, all of them is, you know, arranging it. What we've agreed with Donna is that, you know, we'll go through a slide or two or three and then we'll ask questions. But, you know, ask if you have a question. So, but, you know, at any given time, if you have a question, I think, you know, we don't, we would prefer not to wait to the information, real-time information is going to be valuable. So anyway, with that said, you know, let's have this free flowing and let's be sure that all participants get out of this meeting what they arrive from what they're attending to. Put that over here or just minimize it. Are you seeing a full screen? Yes, it's great. That's perfect. Great. Okay. So with that said, we, Televay was retained by the Central Front Public Safety Authority and its board and members to conduct a telecommunication needs assessment and to provide recommendations based on our findings. So what we've done is we've prepared a presentation and our agenda is to go over the project objectives and to discuss the project scope. Please commute. So our key findings present our recommendations next steps and then have some open discussion. So with that said, away we go. All right. So the study that there was a, you know, primary objectives were documented in the study and the needs assessment really was to document and assess existing communication systems for capital fire of the capital fire mutual aid systems city of Montpelier and Barry City. Our focus were on those systems and primarily, you know, when you look at telecommunication systems, you know, we're really looking at radio systems, dispatch capabilities, and, you know, we also looked at broadband within the community. Next slide, please. So in terms of our principal objectives were to identify the gaps in these systems. You know, what, how do they perform or how aren't they performing the way they need to perform? And we base that on the interoperable continuum of the Department of Homeland Security, which is a good standard model and all best practices. We, we've been in business for 20 years. And between Dom and I, we have over 70 years of experience and, you know, collectively our team members have hundreds of years of experience in public safety communication systems. We've seen systems of all different sizes and shapes and frequency bands and anyway. So we have a collective body of work that we were over-referenced and put in this, conducting this study. And then our goal then was to determine options and the cost to upgrade the systems to meet and use the requirements. And certainly, as we're going to do here is to provide next step recommendations. To continue, there was two primary tasks and there was a dozen and a half or so sub tasks, but you know, task one was a completely a region wide assessment of the existing public safety communication systems and to define stakeholder requirements. And supporting that, we talked to a variety of engaged stakeholders and the service area of interest is really colored there in peach and in blue. The primary service areas of central fire, the city of Montpelier and Barry city. And so, you know, that was our defined service area of interest. We additionally are tasked to us to propose solutions with design and cost estimates for resolving indoor and outdoor radio dead zones in Barry city in Montpelier and for central fire service areas. And not really, that's our primary objectives. So with that said, here's an overview of our findings. And, you know, there needs to be sort of start, you know, with a police overview. Let's see, we, you know, we in order to develop these we communicate directly with representatives from the police and the police chief from Montpelier was part of that and others. But anyway, improved in building coverage. Certainly, you know, your buildings are not the average. I mean, you have a thick granite walls, the radio signals just, you know, have a hard time getting through. Additionally, there are interoperability between different public safety responders, police, fire, emergency medical, emergency management with capital police and others that, you know, are still not where they would like them to be. And there needed to be a continuity of operations and we'll go into that little bit more detail what that really means. But definitely communication plans and practicing them. And then, you know, there's a need for the upgrade of dispatch consoles. Your consoles are really, they are quite ancient. I mean, you're still, they're still functioning because, you know, you work, you work hard to make them function and you have support, radio shop support, all those. But basically, they are out of date and they're at risk of failure at any given time. Rick, if I can offer a case in point, I understand there is some difficulty on the dispatch console, not fully communicating the information on a call for service. Meeting tones are going out, but then the information is cut off. Understand that's being dealt with right now. Thank you, Don. All right. Next slide, please. All right. So our key findings for fire, landmobile radio systems. And, you know, I mean, the term of art is really landmobile radio. We're going to recall, you know, LMR, landmobile radio, radio systems. I mean, walking talkies. I mean, basically, we're talking about your critical radio communication. So mission critical radio communications is what we assess. And again, before I go into this, I just want to say, again, a number of you have been working and presenting your needs for quite some time. And ideally, we can use, and all of you can use this, you know, this report, document it, report public information available to, you know, all of the community, you know, to adopt, to refine governance, to find funding, and to implement it as quickly as possible. And so your system is antiquated, using antiquated equipment and technology and a configuration. It is an old school design. And in fact, we have looked at, you know, hundreds of systems of our career, if not more. And, you know, this is one of the most antiquated systems we have seen. And I hate to be so blunt about it, but I don't think I'm telling you anything that you didn't already know and that you have not been trying to address and resolve. You're using a single frequency for multiple departments. That means you frequently talk over one another or, you know, you can't even hear one another because, you know, you're also the same frequency is used both to, you know, talk to and from dispatch. So you're, you know, the configuration of the radio network is not conducive to reliable performance. And, you know, you also have a radio, your radio channel is interfered with, both from Canada, taxi communications and elsewhere within the state of Vermont. So, you know, and again, I'm telling you what we identified through our requirements gathering, identifying needs and assessments and gaps and, you know, and your channel is, you know, that channel, single channel for so many users, so many communities is highly congested. And it's very difficult to communicate over because of the configuration of the radio network. Next slide, please. All right. So additionally, there are coverage gaps throughout the service area. There are areas where you have to make calls for service that you can't hear the primary radio network, the over-the-air network. And, you know, what you're responding community does is they wisely, you know, relay information. They may have to go to a location where they can hear the radio network and then drive and use a tactical radio channel over the radio. How your responders, you know, miraculously know the flaws of the network and figure, you know, have figured out ways around it so that you can communicate when needed. It's the same with dispatch. You know, everyone is working very hard to ensure that 911 calls for service and calls for dispatch to respond to the service are done the way, you know, the way that public safety needs to be responsive. And, you know, you make it happen because of your hard work and your intelligence about how to make the system work. It's not an optimal way to do it. It's actually very dangerous for not only the responders but for the communities you serve. You're in building communication issues are paramount. The over-the-air radio network does not serve your in-building environments, whether in cities, in city environments or in town environments because there's just not enough RF out there to support, you know, their communication requirements. There's a lack of redundancy in your radio systems on the backhaul networks. There's single link and there, you know, they and typically when we design radio, public safety radio networks, communication networks at mission critical grade. So to achieve mission critical grade, you have to have redundancy on your backhaul networks. You have to have redundancy on your power networks. You have to have redundant components so that you can quickly repair and replace and address issues real-time. Your system is old, 30, you know, it's age equipment and it's a high risk of equipment failure. And, you know, I've been very direct about this because we need to let those who are, you know, have the responsibility of finding a way to resolve it, understand it. Critical information is delayed or missed when communicating. The way the network is architected, it's not a simulcast network. So you have to communicate off of a particular radio channel and the responders, because of your terrain, it may be better that you're communicating off of one radio tower than another. And it's just very complicated to do it. So, you know, in reality, you know, your communication gaps delay and hamper response and put your first responders and the communities they serve at risk. And with that said, are there any questions before we, you know, we move on? You may unmute yourself and say, I have a question and just identify yourself. Okay. There'll be plenty of time as we go through. So, with that said, next slide, Dom. And so, Dom is going to present the recommendations. Thank you, Rick, and good evening, everyone. Again, very pleased and honored to be here and honored to work on this project with the professionals here. I will go through the recommendations in a number of areas that we investigated, many of them parallel what you just saw to start out with the police LMR radio system. As you might expect, these recommendations mirror some of the key issues we identified. Certainly, there's a need for additional radio coverage in the city areas and particular downtown Montpelier due to difficulty coverage in buildings. Additional radio site would enhance that and is sorely needed. Additionally, vehicular repeaters are being used today in a number of areas. We recommend further use of vehicular repeaters which would also enhance the coverage throughout the service area. Vehicular repeater can be used, of course, on a mobile vehicle and can extend coverage where you may not have coverage sufficient to reach portable radios. Also, Rick had mentioned the need for continuity of operations, interoperability. We recommend a regional task force be put together to develop interoperability standard operating procedures. Specifically on the law enforcement side, there of course is Montpelier police, there's City of Barrie police, there's Capitol police, Washington County Sheriff, all they need to interoperate on various occasions. Fortunately, those users are on the same radio frequency band, but there still are specific frequencies and procedures that should be defined in order to maintain that interoperability and to provide continued service. On the fire side, we recommend a regional standards-based simulcast radio network be developed. P-25 is a standard that was developed for public safety communications and is in wide use throughout the country. We recommend the system being P-25 capable, also being analog capable to allow migration over a period of time. There has been some work done previously, as Rick mentioned, some of the stakeholders many on this call today have been working diligently to put together a concept. Elevate was able to build on that concept and provide additional requirements and additional definitions of the regional system. The intent of course would be to improve coverage throughout the entire Capitol fire response area. We would also recommend incorporating additional vehicular repeaters to enhance the portable radio coverage in particular. One of the key issues that you're dealing with, as Rick mentioned, was congestion, especially on the fire communication side. We recommend adding additional radio channels so there can be separate channels for the city operations, very appealing and Capitol fire, which extends throughout many of the towns surrounding the central Vermont area. Of course, the radio channels currently are experiencing some interference. We need to identify interference-free VHF channels to be used. Some of that has been done and the initial licensing has begun. Again, we commend the stakeholders for their diligence in identifying those and we recommend continuing with that process. Another item that is of concern is that some tactical radio channels are used currently primarily for communications on scene. Generally, that's a radio-to-radio communication that does not go through the infrastructure. Which currently cannot be monitored by dispatch and that creates a safety issue for the first responders. We recommend this regional system should include additional receivers for those tactical channels to allow monitoring of that on scene communication by dispatch to enhance the safety of our first responders. We mentioned dispatch consoles were a current concern. It was a critical update needed for those dispatch consoles. They are two different manufacturer's consoles are used today in the two different PSAPs, Montpelier and Barrie. Both of them are out of support, no longer supported by their manufacturer. We recommend upgrading those and we recommend utilizing a common dispatch console between the two PSAPs. This will enhance interoperability between the two and also provide a ease of continuity of operations and redundancy should one PSAP have to take over operations for another during a critical timeframe. Currently, there's not a public safety grade CAD system in use. There is a system being used today known as Valkor. There's primarily management system. A full featured CAD system is recommended to be implemented. We understand the state is working with Valkor to implement such a system. We recommend that be adopted by both PSAPs with a common CAD system to enhance redundancy and continuity of operation. And also a fiber connection circuit between the two PSAPs was recently installed in order to allow communication between the two and monitoring of the operations across the different PSAPs. We recommend that be upgraded to a redundant circuit to again ensure continuity of operations and resiliency. We also looked at recommendations for regional interoperability and we recommend documenting radio communications plans. As mentioned earlier, specifically for interoperability, identifying what frequencies and resources are available, how are they to be used in an event of which it includes multiple agencies working together. Those plans need to be reviewed and all users need to be trained through both tabletop and unseen exercises in order to make sure those plans are effective and that can be put into use when needed. Also, the radio network that we recommend needs standard operating procedures to ensure it's operated at efficiency and utilizes all the functionality available. So, Dom, let's take a see if there's a question break here before we move on. All right, there's a lot of information we've covered and want to be sure that the audience understands it. I mean, some of you may not know what a CAD system is. Most of you may know, but are there any questions about what our recommendations are so far? I had a couple along that line, Donna Bates speaking. One, to really explain the difference between CAD and data keeping, and the other was, I think it was a misspoke of Dom's mentioned PSAP I think he meant dispatch center. So, you might want to discuss those two also. Okay, so I'll take the dispatch center first. I think, you know, obviously CVPSA has some background on PSAPs, public safety answering points. They are really the location where the 911 calls are received, and then they are from there, they're delivered to dispatch centers so that, you know, dispatching for the service call can be managed. In many cases throughout the country, the PSAP and the dispatch center are one and the same. Now, there are, you know, in most cases, we consolidate dispatch and PSAP together. And certainly there are hybrid models like that you have. I mean, your PSAP is not in your community, it's outside of your community. And then your calls for service arrive there, they're directed to the PSAP, and then they're forwarded out for local dispatching. And so, you know, there are benefits to having your own PSAP, because a PSAP as a body can also collect 911 fees that we collect for phones and cell phones and internet phones and other communications. There's a service fee, a 911 service fee that is collected from all phone subscriptions. And that money goes to the PSAP and can be used for a variety of purposes. You, you know, in central Vermont, you don't have your own PSAP. And normally PSAPs, you know, there's an advantage to being a PSAP, but there are also concerns about dispatch centers and PSAPs in some regards. So if Dom did say PSAP, and that was, quickly you pick it up, I didn't, and I'm listening gently, but that will cover the PSAP explanation. And if there are questions, then I'll be happy to answer them. I have a question, Donna. Just a minute, Kim, I want to hear the CAD. All right, Dom, you want to take the CAD, sir? Yes, Donna, your question was regarding CAD and how that is used. Is that correct? I wanted a clear explanation between the CAD system and what the data collection we have now, why it matters. Okay, CAD system is a tool used by dispatch operators to help them efficiently, and it stands for computer-aided dispatch. The system that helps them efficiently handle a request for service helps them efficiently dispatch the correct unit or the correct responding agency. It helps them organize information regarding the call and report that. And in cases where you have connectivity to vehicles or responders in the field, they can use the CAD system to provide additional information to the first responders on scene as well. Right now, the system currently in use is primarily just for what's called record management or RMS, record management system, which strictly just records information associated with the call for service and does not provide the additional benefits of the dispatch operator or the users in the field. And if I could add to that, it is very rare to see a community of your size not have a computer-aided dispatch system that you that you can rely on to ensure that you're the right, you know, the right person, the right personnel are being dispatched. That is also a repository for the different types of apparatus available that, you know, could be called for service and researched and available. It also allows you to track who has been dispatched and in the event that there's another call for service, you know, a dispatcher can look and say, well, I can, you know, this responding agency is closer. We can call them into service. It is a very robust way to manage calls for service and the dispatching of the first responders for mission critical incidents. Now, Kim, I believe you had a question. I did. Rick. Yes, sir. You're talking to fire chiefs and residents of primarily the towns that surround the two cities. Right. Can you please tell them why their citizens and families are at risk because of the operations of the existing system? Yes, sir. I'll be happy to. I'm not happy to tell you that you're at risk, but I can certainly explain to you and I'm sure that the fire chiefs, you know, could probably even more elegantly and directly explain it, but I'd be happy to give my perspective. And if anyone else wants to add to it, a call for service requires a rapid response in order to ensure that the incident is responded to and as quickly of the amount of time as possible to safeguard lives and property and also for the safety of the responders themselves. Delays and communications or lack of communications puts the community at risk. The information that needs to be conveyed to the responders who are going to be on scene are going to respond to a call for service and this includes a fire and an ambulance personnel. I mean, you're citizens who are in need of service for police and fire and ambulance services are at risk in the event that those radio transmissions required to alert and call the service of the closest fire or ambulance service, they don't get that information in a timely manner and then they don't have robust, reliable performance throughout their response. Receiving the information call for service and route to the call for service on scene, responding to the event. If at any stage of that process, the communication is unreliable, the responders' lives and the citizens' lives are at risk. Rick, I'd like to expand on that a little bit. You mentioned ambulance service as well and the EMS responders, when they have a patient that needs to be transported to the hospital, it's certainly helpful for them to be able to communicate clearly with the hospital ahead of time such that the medical personnel can prepare efficiently for the patient based on their needs. We met specifically with representatives from Central Vermont Medical Center and they indicated how the coverage problems hampered that process severely. There were some areas where the hospital desk could not hear the ambulance as they were transporting patients. They could not get sufficient information as to the type of ailment the patient had or what their needs were. So they had to wait until the ambulance arrived at the hospital before they could make accommodation. Better communications would certainly enhance their response and provide safe critical time during a medical emergency. If I could add to that also, there's also an interest in public safety and using broadband communications. However, your radio networks are operating and performing so poorly. They need to be addressed. It would be nice if funding wasn't an issue, but it always is. But we really need to address our radio communication issues before we really can even engage in broadband communication solutions that would even enhance our responders' ability to perform their functions and address citizen needs. Dominic, do you think it's fair to say that in the next 10 years, virtually every family in Central Vermont will need emergency services for some member of the family? I think that's absolutely very likely, Kim. Certainly it's sad to say, but most likely that's the case. I have a hand up from the Woodbury Fire Department, I believe. What, what a Berry Fire Department? Sorry. Yeah, just a couple quick questions as I was listening to this. We already have firearm frequencies. We don't use them. They're not assigned. But I think the comment was made that our current system doesn't allow the dispatchers to monitor those. And my question for that piece is, are we next going to look at increasing the dispatchers so that they can monitor a number of different departments who are on fireground frequencies or tactical frequencies? So that's one question. And then the comment was just made about hospitals and ambulances can't communicate sometimes with hospitals. So are we next going to be looking at the hear frequencies and upgrading that? Are we going to be responsible for that? I'll take the second question. First, the regional system com step design that Televate has developed and put together does include additional receivers for that frequency that's used for ambulance hospital communication. So it doesn't, it does include additional infrastructure to enhance that communication. However, are they, are the hospitals going to be paying for a portion of this? Or is that going to follow on us so that the hospitals can hear us better? I'd like to say all stakeholders that are users of the network should have a financial stake in the development and operations of the radio network. If the community benefits from it, in my opinion, in our opinion, and what we've seen throughout the country is that all users of the radio network should pay a proportion of their fair use of the radio network, including financial capital investments that benefit them. And the hospital is interested in being at the table and participating in decisions and cost. Thank you. And that location is being pursued as a possible location for additional radio transmitters. All right. So, Chief, if I could get to your first question. Absolutely. And then I'm not going to speak on behalf of Kerry and the others. They certainly could speak for themselves. But yes, if there are more channels to monitor, to communicate over, it could, it is going, it could potentially put a strain on the staffing at the dispatch center. And I don't know today what those risks are, but, and if there is the shortage of staffing, but yes, typically the more channels you have to monitor and communicate over, it does increase the burden on your personnel. So I can, I can speak real brief on that. We're already down two positions. So we just filled one, we have somebody in training and then we're down one position already. And at any given time, if two of our dispatchers that are on duty are taking, say, a structure fire, we're committed to that call. So it's, can be a struggle and enough if we get another critical incident. And to have to listen to a fire ground channel could be a burden on those dispatchers for other people calling in. Thank you, Karen. Are there any other questions before we move on? Okay, Don. Okay, thank you. Continuing on with the recommendations, we've had some discussion already about broadband systems and how there is a nationwide trend for public safety users to incorporate broadband communications into their toolbox, if you will. Of course, LMR radio is excellent technology for instant voice communications. But broadband communications provides additional capability that can supplement that voice communications. There is a nationwide network known as FirstNet, the FirstNet responder or first responder network authority. And they are building out a nationwide network in every state. We recommend that that central Vermont coordinate with the state FirstNet stakeholders and understand what improvements FirstNet plans to make in the central Vermont area to enhance the broadband systems throughout that area. Once that infrastructure is enhanced, then the use of broadband systems can be and applications can be incorporated into public safety users to enhance their operations and provide them additional capabilities to better execute their mission. Push to talk over cellular and mission critical push to talk and help supplement where there may be difficulties with LMR communications. Also on the broadband side, there are a number of applications that have been developed specifically for public safety use. Things such as situational awareness on the law enforcement side, building plans to assist with fire operations, EMS applications as well, are prevalent that can be used once broadband systems have been enhanced. So we recommend developing a strategic plan as to how those applications can be utilized and enhance the public safety mission. Moving on, Rick, I believe you're going to address governance. Yes, I am. Thank you. Okay, so you have a governance model today and the CDPSA is a regional governance model. As Donna indicated, as we started, it encompasses the two cities, Barry City and Montpelier and a central fire, a capital fire, I'm sorry, is also a member and has seats at the board. However, it doesn't extend to all of the towns that are part of the service of the two dispatch centers. And so basically, in terms of what is seed, we really want to recommend that we've got to clarify of the role of the central public safety authorities role in funding, procuring and operating regional telecommunications systems. There's a real benefit to all users in a regional network because interoperability, efficient and cost effective investments in these systems when they're regionally developed instead of being individual, each entity has their own. So what role and how do you govern this? I mean, there has to be, if you look at the interoperability continuum, governance is really the foundation, how do you govern yourselves and how do you make it happen? And there's reasonable significant investments that have to be made to achieve the reliability and the performance of public safety-related communication. So also do a procurement and in terms of operations, how does that go going forward in a regional radio network environment? We recommend that we've got to integrate city leadership from the two cities to support funding and procurement. CBPSA has bonding authority, but they don't have a revenue source that is going to make it efficient and attractive to a bonding bank or others to bond a build out. But we've got to have the city leadership in there to participate in guiding this and finding funding and supporting procurement. We also recommend that the charter be extended to include and support town membership. Obviously, a select board member, some of them are on this call and appreciate your being there. I wish I was there in person to meet you. But we recommend that because it's a regional network, that the towns be engaged and have a seat at the table to participate. We also recommend that there be greater fire chief participation on the board at the board level. And I think that's in play. And I recommended that there be a prudent use of committees, subcommittees and working groups to make recommendations to the board, experts that are subject matter experts for a particular cause. So there's a technical committee, there might be a finance committee, there could be a training committee. And you have some of these in place now. But the best governance models we've seen are you have the foundation for them right now. The participation that you have now on an ongoing basis is something that a lot of folks in communities don't do well. So you have a really good foundation. Now you need to build upon it and solidify its purpose and its support from the community. And in our report, we wrote a good model for you. If you haven't read the report, I highly recommend you start with a governance section because it gives you a good understanding of the purpose for governance. Next slide, please. So just to close out this part of our presentation, we really looked at regional partnerships. The most effective communication systems for public safety really incorporate other partners. If it's only the public safety, then all the burden of cost is borne by public safety and the governments for which they work under are four. So we wanted to see as part of the study, if there were partnerships within the region, that would be good players and good partners for you. And so part of the scope of the work was to really investigate partnerships. So we did. And we reached out to an opportunity to have outreach and communication with a few of them. CB Fiber is a municipal corporation that is building broadband. And their mission is to build broadband. They've got federal funding and they're building fiber to unserved and underserved communities of central Vermont. We talked to them about providing fiber could be redundant to some of our tower sites. And I think those discussions should continue. We identified a few towers that they they passed by that could be of use to us. We also spoke to Washington Electric Cooperative. Radio, they have radio towers and, you know, they in place of operating their own radio network, why not invite them on to be a partner and use your radio network? Obviously, you would have your dedicated channels. They would have some dedicated channels, but they would bring assets to the table. And you could operate a regional network that would also cost share some of the capital and operational ongoing costs. We additionally spoke to Vermont Electric Power Company. They've got a statewide radio network and they had, I think, over 50 towers, radio towers, some of them in your backyard that, in fact, some of them they own, you're already on, but the capital fire is already on, but they have backhaul and they were, they were really eager to be a, you know, a participating member. They, you know, they're they're also a municipal utility company and they want to be a partner as well. And we didn't directly speak with the state of Vermont. Telev8 has worked for the state of Vermont in the past, but, you know, Dom did mention that they're working on that CAD system. And I know some people don't think that is a CAD system, so I can't speak for it because I don't know it, but they have radio towers that might be accessible and they should be approached if they haven't already about what they can contribute. If we can, you know, if we can leverage assets of partners as well as provide and share assets and access to systems, it's going to be better for the, for all of the players. And so we documented our findings with them and contacts and recommended that we follow up with them, you know, as soon as, as logically reasonable. Okay, so we're going to go into, talk about the radio network. I mean, before we do, I just want to check in for two things. One, time, I know we've, we've got a little longer meeting than last night, but I want to be sure Donna that we're, that our pace is okay, or and where we've, we can take some more time to go through the proposed design. Yes, I think continue. All right. And before we go into that, are there any questions before we move it, move into the, into the, the regional land mobile radio network concept? Okay, Don. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. As we discussed, part of our scope was to present potential solutions for the communications gaps that we saw within central Vermont. And a lot of that focuses on a regional concept design. So we'll talk on a high level of a dual simulcast system concept approach. As many of you know, you have individual radio sites that are in use today that are not simulcast. This stakeholders within the central of Iran have recognized that a simulcast system is needed. We wholeheartedly agree with that to both improve coverage and to ensure all users are able to communicate over the network. And it reduces significantly reduces the congestion. We've looked at different needs for the city areas versus the rural capital fire town areas. And we're proposing a dual simulcast system to address those different requirements. So we would include new simulcast cells or subsystems. Again, one focused on the city area, Montpelier and Berry and the corridor in between. And then one focused on the broader area that covers all the towns. So we have specific sites we've identified for each of those systems. We've done preliminary propagation simulations to secure adequate coverage. And we recommend a common system using a common core, which will be the most efficient way to implement such a system. It will also provide access from each of the dispatch centers. And also we've included additional receive sites to improve the ambulance to a medical center of coverage. Last night. May I stop you a second, sir? Would you for those who are not technically astute about this, can you explain to people what a simulcast radio network is? Yes. And thanks, Rick. And I'll use this to do so. Part of our analysis included recording data, recording signal level from various radio sites that weren't used today. And we formed a simulation using a public safety propagation tool to estimate the current coverage. There are currently five transmit sites in use today. And those are independent and I'll use independent as non simulcast. So each of those five sites are used separately or independently. So the dispatcher needs to understand the area of the call where the call is originating from. And they then pick the correct tower or radio site to use to transmit their information. So while we're showing here what we predict as the current capital fire coverage area, it's shown as a composite of most five sites. But in reality, each one is only used independently at a time. And what what you're looking at here is on the left is what we call how found communication. So that's the communication from dispatch or from the radio tower to the first responder in the field. And then on the right is the inbound, which is shown as coverage for radio user back to dispatch. You'll see that the inbound is more restrictive than the outbound. That's especially typical in this type of system, because outbound have a greater much greater power, typically 100 watts or more coming from the tower, where on the inbound side, this assumes radio user has a portable radio mounted on their head, and the portable radio has much less power, 55 watts. So that's why you see the lesser coverage on the right. Any questions on that before I proceed? Okay, we'd like to compare that with the dual system conceptual design that we put together. So we see much greater coverage here, both on the outbound and the inbound side. The outbound very effectively covers the essentially the entire capital fire response area. We are utilizing a total of nine sites, and they are configured in a simulcast operation. So that means that all nine sites are used to transmit the same information at the same time. So users throughout the network hear the information simultaneously. Again, we see a little bit different coverage on the inbound, and mainly because of the lower power of the portable radio. But that, of course, that coverage is much improved with a mobile radio, and that is why we also recommend the use of vehicular repeaters in this concept design to help extend that portable radio coverage. Again, you'll see nine sites in use here. Many of the same current sites are used as well as additional sites, primarily in the southern portion of the response area. We have some additional coverage predictions shown on the left. We are showing what we recommend as improved in-building coverage for the city areas. So that's shown specifically for the material in various city areas, and that's shown as coverage inside a medium construction building. Then in the center, we show the mobile coverage for the concept system that was developed. So this is coverage to and from a mobile radio or a radio mounted in a vehicle. So you can see this comprehensively covers the area required for capital fire, including all the towns that we have identified. Finally, on the right, you'll see the improved ambulance to medical center coverage by including additional receivers at three strategically placed locations. And time to move on to the cost analysis next steps. Before we do that, any questions on the concept design or what was recently presented? So, Abdam, could you please go back to that last slide, please? Yes, thank you. All right. So as a number of you are aware of, a capital fire had solicited a design from Burlington Radio Shop, and it had fewer towers than what we recommend now because that design, when we modeled that design, so we use our propagation tool to model that design, and there were still some, you know, when we did site visits with Joe Al's work, we, you know, we identified that there would still be gaps in that initial design, and so we added some additional sites. Okay, just to point out, as you all well know, there's very challenging terrain within the Vermont area, so that has significant impact on the coverage of individual tower sites. It's difficult to identify those sites and difficult to cover a large area with a single site. That's why you see a large number of sites being here to provide comprehensive coverage. Absolutely, and so I want you to pay attention to the slide on the the 20 dB, a medium in building coverage site plot. So, you know, what does that mean? What does 20 dB of in building coverage means? Well, that means that the signal is, you know, is seven times weaker outside than outside. So, as the radio signal travels through walls, it degrades, it weakens. You know, it's sort of like, you know, using your dimmer switch to turn your 100 watt light bulb down to just the, you know, the dimmest one watt. You know, you're losing, you've reduced the power of the light bulb intentionally. Here, buildings just, you know, they suck up radio power, and so what we're trying to demonstrate here is that in a building that is 20 dB, that was going to provide 20 dB of signal loss, you know, that's what we've modeled. However, there's two things that we need to be careful of here or aware of. One, you have buildings that are probably higher than 20 dB, because of granite, and two, the VHF radio signal is over 20 foot in wavelength, and that radio wave has a very difficult time getting into buildings, windows, doors, any way it can get in. It just has a harder time getting in, and that's why we also recommended, you know, vehicular repeaters, which, you know, will regenerate a signal out from outside, takes the over air signal, retransmits it in building, and gives you a little bit more power. So that was why that, you know, we wanted to say, well, reliably to improve the reliability of service in your buildings, you know, a combination of more sites and potentially vehicular repeaters. I just wanted to clarify that, to ensure that, you know, you're understood what these maps also represent. Thank you. Okay, so let's move into system cost analysis in next steps. I have a quick question. Yes, sir. This is Nick Breset with the Washington Select Board. How does the simulcast system work with multiple channels? Like, if Barry Mott-Payer are going to have their own channel and the rest of the Capital Fire Mutual Aid have their own, how does the system work with multiple channels operating off it? So each channel is supported at every site. So, for instance, recommended for Capital Fire would be a nine-site simulcast system. So you'd have every channel supported at every site. So when one channel was activated, it would activate on all nine sites and transmit that information simultaneously. And if the other channel was in use, exactly the same thing, it would transmit on all nine channels. You can support multiple channels at a given site by either using separate antennas or by combining the channels into an RF component known as a combiner to utilize a single antenna. And you would have a separate radio base station for each channel. Sorry, when you do the cost, will that also include how much it costs to have each channel be simulcast? Oh, yes. The cost analysis does include the number of sites recommended here and the number of channels as well. So, Nick, there's also a really important beneficial operational benefits from a simulcast radio network. As Dom mentioned earlier, today we've got to steer the communication to what we anticipate is the strongest serving tower. And sometimes that isn't the strongest serving tower because of your terrain. In the simulcast network, the communication is sent simultaneously to all the towers in the simulcast cell. So therefore then, a dispatcher and a radio user doesn't have to affiliate with a channel at a tower, they just have to affiliate with the communication path. It simplifies operational for both dispatchers and for the radio, the first responders taking the call. And it is a very prudent and efficient way of achieving reliable communications. And so, you know, it's already on the plate as something of benefit and it is the right way to go. And another difficulty, if I can add of the current system, if that one's multiple agencies have to be alerted, they may be in different areas and require different towers to reach them. So that would require multiple transportation and multiple actions by the dispatcher to alert those different agencies. That would be eliminated with a simulcast system. All agencies would be able to just once over that simulcast network. And by having two cells, dispatching within the two cities would be done on a separate dispatch channel in that cell. And so today when you dispatch, everyone is dispatched together. So now, you know, we make the network perform more efficiently by focusing the dispatch to different, to those two different geographies. And it's actually just a more robust way to do it. It also takes traffic off of channels. You have more channels and everyone then isn't dispatched every time a call for service goes out. We segregate it by cities and towns. But you also program those channels into the radio so that the capital fire can still listen in and be called for service. So, you know, they would still have channels. Everyone would have similar channels, but dispatching would be sent to those, you know, those two different, you know, those three different user communities. I know it's a lot to absorb. You know, we've been doing this all our lives. We try to simplify it, but you're asked through all the right questions. And I hope we've answered them the way and you understand the objective. I understand. Thanks. Pleasure, sir. Okay, Don, let's go for this. Okay. All right. So, you know, here's some, you know, I mean, basically, CBPSA considerations. Basically, your communication gaps require immediate attention. And, you know, when I say immediate, you've already been discussing this for a number of years. I mean, the longer we wait, the greater you're at risk. And so, you know, we, and we've done it, you know, done a good job. And when we got a report out within the last month and a half, we've had, you know, me's with the cities and now with the towns and capital fire. So, you know, we've got to keep the momentum going. I mean, it's important. These, we needed, we need to figure out how to address these, these issues now. Well, there certainly needs to be a viable source of funding for what, you know, what you, you as a group decide needs to be done. And we're going to, we'll go into the capital expenditure SNES. But you've got to have capital expenditures. And you also have to, at the same time, when you build your governance model, you have to address the operational expenditures. So, I need X amount of million dollars to build the network. But I need an ongoing pool, steady revenue to operate the network of too frequently. We find the funds to build the network, but we didn't address how we're going to sustain it long term. So you've got, we've got to address both of them in our governing, governing model. We've got to manage the procurement. So, you know, you can't just go into, into Costco and buy the radio network. And you know, it's government procurement. So we've got to have a formal procurement process. You know, we've got to write an RFP. We've got to solicit, solicit bids. And we've got to do this soon, because that is the, you know, the first long, you know, first long pulling attendance, agreeing to what we're going to do and finding the funding for it. And we've got to go and procure it. We think that partnerships with utilities and some of the broadband, as we mentioned, have merit. They, they should be considered whether or not they can, you can get them lined up before we can sort out the funding and do the procurement. It may not happen, but it could happen after the fact, but it's something that should be, you know, considered. Are there, you're one of your biggest dilemmas is that, particularly for a capital fire, that you're a volunteer, usually volunteers, you have full time lives and jobs and other responsibilities. It's very difficult to achieve all of these objectives with only a volunteer force. So by pooling your energies together, you know, there's going, it's going, you're going to get to the finish line sooner. You know, it's certainly having other partners makes a difference. And, you know, got a good governance structure today. And, you know, we're confident you can build on it. You know, yes, governance is hard. There's a number of, there's a lot of brilliant people and strong personalities within your community. You know, we've got to find a way for all of us to work together. We've got to reach consensus. You've got to, you know, to compromise. You've got to just reach consensus on these matters. Lives are at risk. And so we need to, you know, put aside anything that's at difference. Of course, you know, I'm confident you can do that. But, you know, it is never, we work in a lot of governance models, state models, communities like yours, large cities. I could tell you all kinds of, you know, frightening stories about how it goes. But in the end, people find a way to work together. And you're doing that now and forward. I also wanted to just look to the graphic. It says engineering process. You know, it's been some, you know, some questioning about, well, what, you know, what is the engineering process? And what do we got to do? And how do we got to do it? Basically, you know, we try to simplify this into three steps. The needs assessment and the concept design, which we have in our, in our, we state it within the report. And again, building on the body of work that, you know, folks in your region have already started. Then we go into a procurement phase and a vendor engineering and high level design. I'd like to say that we have a really good high level design because we visited sites. We don't know if those sites are available to us, if they can be leased or if the towers of any of your sites are going to sustain, you know, they have the ability to sustain the communication of the antennas and cables additional, but, but we've got a good high level design out there. And, you know, we just, you know, we need to do some, you know, additional work to solidify leases and to do some loading analysis on the towers and so forth and so on. But everything we've looked at is an existing tower. We didn't see the need to build new towers. You know, we, we, and again, some of your partners have towers that might be better and that no available at no cost to you. But, you know, we've got a good high level design that can facilitate a vendor procurement and the vendor's engineering. A vendor is going to engineer it and say, if we hand over this constellation of sites, they're going to tell us, you know, what, what kind of service and what kind of guarantee of coverage they're going to give on them. But we, you know, we're, we're, we've come a long way on that. And then the final step is, you know, after the procurement is done and the vendor selected and you got to go and build it. And, you know, things happen when you're, when you're building a radio network, you discover things that you didn't know were going to happen. We have a big project, working on a big project in Los Angeles is on the phone with them last night and they had solidified some mountain sites in a coastal site. And when they went to do ground soil studies, they'd already done some, they found out that they were given land that was a dump for concrete that had been removed. And now there's all this concrete that wasn't available before, before now the cost of that build is going to go up. And, you know, there wasn't a pile of money set aside to facilitate that. But during the build, things happen. Our goal is to really ensure that, that we, we understand what all those risks are. But, you know, during the, the detail design and implementation of things can happen, but a simple three-step process I just wanted to share with you. All right, next, next slide please. Okay. So I don't think this, you know, this cost slide is, is new to most of you. But, you know, basically what we've done here is we have quantified the cost for the recommended design improvements and enhancements that, that are, are detailed within the report. And we've quantified them based on cost modeling of them through independent research and through also our, our knowledge of building and, you know, building systems like this and environments like yours. And you're familiar with, you know, SOMO-CAS, analog SOMO-CAS network. So, you know, this is what, what, what budget we've put together. We're additionally asked to prioritize some of these line items. And, and, you know, as you could see, most of these, you know, these are all things that we've talked about during the presentation. But, and a number of them work were, we, they were verified with the stakeholders. I mean, we know a number of radios you have and, and, and, you know, how many new consoles were required and what their costs are. You know, this is the only, the only item on here that, you know, if and where required is tower upgrades and reinforcement. We put a budget together of $330,000 in the event that radio towers have to be upgraded. We, we can't, and during the study we didn't do a tower loading analysis, but a tower loading analysis study will have to be done to determine if any of the tower structures need to be reinforced to support new antennas and cables. And that's very common. And, and so, you know, that's the only thing that, you know, the only line item there and potentially showers that might be leaking or aren't large enough for our needs. So, we, we put a budget together for that. But each of these other line items, you know, were, were based on research and best practices and information that we're very aware of. So, with that said, is there any questions about, about, you know, what we presented so far in this, this, this budget here. Hello, sir. Yes, sir. My trip from Whiteshield faced in fire. You expressed that you looked at preexisting sites. I was under the impression there was going to be a new site in Warren. Is that correct? Chelsea. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Is that a new radio tower down? Chelsea. I can answer that. Yeah, that, that is assumed in the concept, concept design of the Lincoln Peak site, I believe. Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Joe. That site is existing. There were estimates included to, to enhance the, the tower and shelter at that site. Thank you very much. Also, I noticed on the mapping coverage, one of the maps didn't even have the town of Faiston in it. I was wondering, is there any more studies or any more improvement for the town of Faiston? A closer look at that. Want to go back to the map, Tom? I am. Yes. Yes, just a second. I believe should be included. Were you referring to the coverage? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Faiston, the town of, that is to the west of the Waitsfield site there. Is that correct? Yes, sir. So that, that is included in the, in the response area and in the planned coverage area as well. I'll, I'll scroll back up towards the top. You can use the scrolling for a minute. Though this is the service area we show here. It is somewhat partially transparent behind the words, but Faiston is included in this. Yes, but I was taking a look at the, the better service area, the coverage area. How much that's going to improve from the pre-existing that we have? Okay. Our, our analysis shows that there's very little coverage from on the portable, on the portable side currently within Faiston due to the terrain. The Waitsfield site is currently in use, but the concept design also brings in the Lincoln Peak site, which does improve coverage within Faiston. I think you can see from, from here in the center, the mobile coverage is comprehensive throughout the town in the center map there. Yes, thank you for your time. Jeff would like to say something. He's attending in person. So in working with Tel Aviv, we looked at the southern end of the service area and it was not balanced. So we developed the Beacon Hill Tower to address Washington, Williamstown in that area. And then we looked at relocating the Turkey Hill Tower in Northfield to North University. And that picked up on the propagation maps, significant increase in Northfield and in Roxbury. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dom. No, you're absolutely right, Joe. That's correct here. You can see on, on, on both of these, the, the Beacon Hill site to the, to the south helps couples that southern area very well. There is the Norwich University site also in the center south and the Lincoln Peak site are three new sites that greatly enhance the coverage in the southern portion of the response area. I have a comment for Koss when you're ready to go back to that. There's some other hands up, Nick, and the Moritown Sheep. Go ahead. Stephen Pratt here, the chief of Moritown. In your study showing the coverage, is it assuming that the Waterbury Tower is going to be moved to Blush Hill or is it assuming was it at its current location? It is assumed in the, the new location, sir. Okay, thank you. Yes, if you can see on this, the old, this shows in that area shows two sites close to each other, the one that's shown yellow or highlighted, that's the one that's being used in this coverage model. It also shows the current Waterbury site and that one's not highlighted, so that's not being used in that model. Does that answer the question, sir? Yes, it does. Okay, sorry for the scrolling. Going back to the other boss. All good questions, so thank you. Are there any others before we get to Donna's? Donna, what can we, a question we can ask for you, answer for you, ma'am. Well, my question revolves around the discussion that Paco and Doug Hoyt recently had with some members from Capital Far, dealing with a $3.9 million for the simocast. I don't know if you're equipped to talk about that or if I should ask Doug or Joe. I don't know the question, so. Well, we've been discussing a $3.9 million that's the first priority coming out, the consoles around the $700,000 and the $3.9 million for the simocast, and we don't have a slide on that, but I do want to have just a little awareness to people about that we're looking at a first step is $3.9, not $6.4. Right, thank you. I think Joe wants to talk. So I think if you look at Televates estimate, that is the Cadillac version of the radio system. So that is everything inclusive. That is the Televates 3000 overview of the needs assessment that they conducted. If you look at the priority ones, I think that's where the $3.9 comes from with Donna and you reflect Chief Botfeld's letter and the letter from the cities reflecting first step is to do the priority ones. And then as we go down the road, then we look at priority two and threes as network is broadband is more robust and built out and as the other stuff comes into play. But right now to address the issues with the radio system, the priority ones should be the focus and that's the focus of the two letters that you got from Chief Botfeld and the Twin Cities letter. And Joe, can I also just add one clarification? The $700,000 for the dispatch consoles is not included in that, right? Right. The cities both bury them on pay or at least staff-wise made the commitment that the cities would get the console. That's correct. So the number will be higher if the cities hadn't, you know, pointed up the funding for the consoles. So let me just clarify that. That was the recommendation of the chiefs in the cities. That is not from the City Councils of Barry Montpelier. They have not made that decision. Okay. That's important. Just so everybody's clear on that. That's important clarification. Montpelier City Council, I can say as a City Council member, did put the Montpelier console in for our FY22. It was one of many capital items that got taken out when we had to reduce our budget because reduce revenues around the pandemic. So we're hoping to backfill that as we get American rescue money. But its concept has been improved by Montpelier City Council. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. So, you know, yes, I mean, funding is, you know, it's obviously, you know, the old adage money doesn't grow on trees. Although in Vermont, you've got some great trees up there. Maybe, maybe there is something growing on those trees outside of maple syrup. But yeah, I mean, it isn't, there isn't a network that needs enhancement that, you know, where funding isn't, you know, the key, you know, the first step that has to be addressed. So. Okay. I'm seeing some more hands up. But I do want to bring attention to 10 minutes left. We'll stay longer than nine o'clock if people are willing. So I see the Moortown Chief and Nicole Nicholas hands up. Maybe you could address those and then see if the group wants to continue. Otherwise, you should sum up. All right. Well, Nick's hand has been up quite some time. I think he should, he's got a good question. So, sir, what can we, what can we answer for you? So my question is regarding the $2.9 million. Does that include boosting the hospital channel? And does that also include the Berry Montclair separate dispatch channel? It doesn't include the, it doesn't include the, the VM, the VMED receivers, which is, is we push that to a priority three. Right. We want to get, we, and we want them pony up some funds. That's why I went there. The regional network includes, yes, it includes upgrades for a regional network. So it does include both cities and capital. Correct. And I didn't see the slide, but maybe Joe can speak to it. What are the priority one, two and three? So party ones are the regional radio system infrastructure procurement, project management, governance and control. Oh, I see it now. I'm sorry. I see it. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. All right. And another question? Donna, is there another question? Well, I, I, I saw the Moortown chief, but maybe it was just left up. I think it was. Okay. But I don't know. I can't speak for the chief. Uh, so I, um, can't see everybody as a group because I'm looking and I always see a next hand is still up, but I think, okay, but new people want us to extend for another 30 minutes and get more questions or do you just want us to sum up and try to end by nine o'clock? Raise your hand if you want us to extend. Raise your hand if you want us to end at nine. I think we only have one more slide. Okay. All right. Do it. Okay. All right. So, um, eight minutes, I could, I could stretch this out for eight minutes, but no, no. All right. So, you know, what are the next steps? I mean, obviously we need to maintain the momentum. I mean, a lot of time and effort have been dedicated to get to this stage long before we were retained and have been supported the project. So, you know, but, and I could see the dedication, the number of participants in last night's meeting and today's meeting and then every board meeting, there's great momentum. So we need to keep the momentum. We've got to reach consensus on, on how to address and mitigate our communication gaps and requirements. I mean, there, there are, you know, obviously there's as many opinions as people participating. And however, however we can get to, you know, through governance, get to a consensus on, on how to address it and how to pay for it and how to fund it on sort of needs to be done. The, you know, the idea is to really put a support core team together to focus on key areas. I mean, you've got to focus on governance, the structure, the cost formulas, the operating roles, responsibilities. You know, we've got to, we've got to maintain that through a core team. Finance, it's clear we've got a secure funding and we've got a secure commitment from those who are going to, you know, step up and pay, and pay for the network. However, we can do it. When it wasn't approached to get some grant, you know, some federal funding, but it didn't, it wasn't successful yet, but we shouldn't give up on it. You know, that there's a number of technical recommendations that we provided. There are a variety of things that were in there and we've got to have a technical team to continue advancing them. And then an implementation and implementation and operations team, you know, that develops SOPs and training and operations and maintenance support, you know, you could divide this up amongst the team to conquer it, but, you know, you really need a core team and we're going to need some, some volunteers that, you know, can continue to support this program to get to the finish line. We can't stress upon you how important it is to continue this and reach the finish line as soon as possible. Every day there's a risk after every time there's a call for service and a responder and responding team goes, there are risks out there. And we don't want to see us then, you know, running into a point where, because of a communication, lack of performance of communications, a call for service not getting through or the right information not getting there, leading to an unforeseen tragedy that, you know, we just want, you know, we need to get this done and whatever we can do to help, you know, we'll be happy to do that. And I'm speaking for a Central Vermont Public Safety Authority, Donna Bate, is that Public Safety Authority is working with Rick and Dom to go to a next phase so they would facilitate the core team and that Public Safety Authority is not doing this to secure the public safety authorities, Justin. We want to have a core team that's really going to commit to a coalition that can agree on governance, agree on cost formula, and agree to move ahead to secure funding. And we're asking Capital West, not Capital West, excuse me, Capital Far, Capital Far Mutual Aid to make a decision to commit two people to this core team. And I'm hoping the next board meeting that you'll do that very sincerely want to see a coalition move forward. Skip, do you want to say anything? Members of CAP will fire as the chiefs and your select board members. We need, our next meeting will be in November, third, well, month and today. It is imperative that all of you show up, and we need to show that we're going to be part of this. And we need to be, as a group, you know, show that we want to be part of this. That way you can count on our end of it. And it'll help you if you're procuring money or anything else. So that's my pitch here is that month from today, I'm not sure where we'll have it, but they'll, they'll be, you know, it'll be told. What's that? Very, very city. As many chiefs, all of them need to be there and show your support for this. That way we can, we can speak as one group towards this CPSA that, yes, we're on board with this, and we'll try to do our share. That way we can work, as you said, as a group to make this happen. And, you know, we're, Public Safety Authority is committing literally almost its last dime to have this consultant because we know the work that Tel Aviv has done. Rick and Dom have gone way beyond anything within our contract. I'm just can't tell you how generous and supportive they've been. So we want them to continue with the core team, but also we are willing to work with Paco and the board of Public Safety Authority to go out with Capital FAR to the select boards. So along the way, they're being talked to and not waiting to the last minute. We really feel that the select boards need to be more involved and want to work with Capital FAR to involve them. So if there's no other comment from Skip, I'm going to adjourn the meeting for the Public Safety Authority board. I guess one thing I didn't quite come away with here. I didn't see an estimated cost per town for our fire departments. We haven't got to that point. We haven't got to that point. That's what the core team would look at. Because that's the first question my select board is going to ask. We have an ambulance squad in our town too and so we split the cost and they need to know they're a private organization, but they use the system so they pay part of the deal. Those are the questions that they're going to want to know. At this point, I can see that we haven't got there yet. But that's what's going to sell a thing to a certain degree. We need to have something to give them. And that's what Rick was talking about, a funding plan. We've got the 3.9 and now how do we do the cost formula? How do we get state and federal dollars to help support it? That's the funding. How do we secure the funding? Okay. I don't have anything more to you, Joe. I am proposed a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. I guess I should have worded the same way. Without any objections, closing the meeting for public safety authority. Thank you all for attending. Very generous of your time. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, everyone. Have a great evening.