 potentially need a closed session. Polling those in the room, anyone online? Alright, so we do not have a closed session, so our next agenda item, agenda item number four is our legislative update. We have our illustrious Reggie Salvador in the room. He's gonna head up to the microphone here and share with us his legislative wisdom. So, sir, take it away. Thanks, Bodgin. Good morning, everybody. So, today's list are the state telecommunications related bills that we are currently tracking. One bill is AB44 by Assemblymember Ramos, which has to deal with the California law enforcement telecommunications system and tribal police. So current law establishes the California law enforcement telecommunication systems, otherwise known as CLETS, within the Department of Justice to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of information between law enforcement agencies and the state. This bill would require the department to grant access to the system or CLETS to a law enforcement agency or tribal court of a federally recognized Indian tribe meeting certain requirements. This bill is currently in Senate appropriations. Additionally, we are also tracking AB 296, which is relation to Cal OES and the 9-1-1 public education campaign. Now, this bill would establish the 9-1-1 public education campaign to be administered by a Cal OES in collaboration with the 9-1-1 advisory board for the purpose of educating the public on when it is appropriate to call 9-1-1 for assistance. Also includes in the goals of the campaign, reducing the number of unnecessary calls to 9-1-1 call centers and reducing delays in the 9-1-1 system caused by non-emergency calls being placed. It also requires the campaign to give local public agencies the ability to tailor the message of the campaign, focus on social media and be distributed to the public via local public agency channels. This bill is also currently in Senate appropriations. Also AB 988, which is the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act in conjunction with veteran and military data reporting. So current law establishes the Miles Hall Lifeline and Suicide Prevention Act, which also creates the 988 State Suicide and Behavioral Health Crisis Services Fund and requires fees to be deposited along with other specified monies into the fund. It also would require OES to require an entity seeking monies available through the fund to file an expenditure and outcomes report containing specified information, including the number of individuals served and the outcomes for individuals served, if known. Now this bill would require an entity seeking monies from the fund to also include the number of individuals who use the service and identified as veterans or active military personnel in its annual expenditures and outcomes report. This bill had passed both the Senate and the Assembly, but at the request of the author is being held at the desk for an appropriate time when it can be sent down for governor's action. Additionally SB 318 is the 211 has to deal with the 211 referral and information network. Now current law establishes various public social services programs administered by California Department of Social Services. This bill would upon an appropriation require the Department of Social Services to establish, develop, implement and administer the 211 support services grant program. It would also require the Department of Social Services to allocate 85% of funds for grants to fund core activities of 211 agencies, including contract handling and improving the statewide ability to manage resource and user needs. Data to support data sharing and delivery to health systems, government agencies and other key partners, as well as shared capacity for analytics. This bill is also currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. And then lastly, we'll also be discussing federal telecommunication bills. One of them is HR 369, which is the NIST Wildland Fire Communications and Information Dissemination Act. NIST has the National Institute for Standards and Technology. This bill would require research on public safety communication coordination standards related to wildland firefighting. It would also require the research, the public safety and communications research division of NIST to carry out research on such standards among wildland firefighters, fire management response officials and specified federal agencies who are responsible for coordinating and mobilizing for wildfire, wildland fire and other incidences. It also has that research must also focus on improving and integrating existing communication systems to allow for secure real-time transmission of data, alerts and advisories to fire management officials and wildland firefighters. And in carrying out the research, it specifies that division must conduct live and virtual field tests of equipment software and other technologies, as well as consult with NIST's fire research division, as well as telecommunication technology manufacturers. It would also require NIST to publish recommendations for specified federal agencies to improve public safety communication coordination standards among wildland first responders and fire management officials. Additionally, NIST must advise the Office of Management and Budget or OMB, as well as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, concerning the agency's implementations of those recommendations. One, two, can you hear us online? Yes, we could. Okay, all right. All right, perfect. And just for the record, understand Mark Chase, you've joined us online, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you, sir. All right, Reggie, you might wanna start over with that last bill as the audio went out. We apologize for the technical difficulties. Please proceed, sir. Thank you, sir. So the last bill that I was discussing was HR 1353, and that is the Advanced Local Emergency Response Telecommunications Parity Act. Now, the bill would require the FCC to facilitate the provisions of emergency communication services such as 911 and emergency alerts within unserved areas. Now, an unserved area is one that has no commercial mobile service capable of providing emergency services due to lack of infrastructure, destruction of infrastructure, a power outage, or other reason. And it would require the FCC to establish a process for companies to apply for approval to access the electromagnetic spectrum in order to provide emergency services in unserved areas. This bill had been received in the Senate and passed the House and has been referred to the committee on commerce, science, and transportation. Now, those are some of the bills that we're currently tracking and I'll be free to answer any questions if necessary. All right, thank you, Mr. Salvador. Any questions from the board, either online or in the room, regarding the legislative update? All right, any questions from the public regarding legislative update? Okay, for the board members, that summary will be sent out in an email, just so you have it. If you were not scribbling fast enough to get all the bill references. One question for me, Reggie, have you heard anything at the federal level on NG911 funding? Are you tracking that? We know there's been a couple of bills introduced that are sort of pending. Yeah, those bills have been pending and reintroduced every Congress and given the volume, it's always one of those things that continually makes an effort relative to both the stakeholders, the agencies involved, as well as that commercial aspect of vendors. But yes, we are tracking and it's one of those things where when the time comes, the time will come. Okay, thank you, sir. All right, moving on to agenda item number five, the California NG911 branch report update. Mr. Troxell, if you'll come up and please give us an update, sir. Oh yeah, you need this. And you'll want that. Good morning, everybody. My name is Paul Troxell, I'm the NG911 branch manager and here are some of the topics that we're gonna be discussing today in the branch update. Starting first with our legacy outage review, again, to remind everybody this is aggregated numbers. This is all carriers reporting their outages. So we have the NG911 network outage. April, May and June numbers are reflected there. I believe when we look at previous months, this has been a pretty consistent pattern with outage in the legacy network. As we advance through CPE, I do wanna point out May, our providers have reported 809 minutes of outage, which has not been typical. We are analyzing that information. We have our outage manager, she's reaching back to all of the providers to validate that. It will have that number validated for the November advisory board meeting. But again, I wanna point out that the numbers in April and June have reflected what we've seen in legacy CPE outages across the state. And then in legacy NG911 location service, April, we saw a significant decline and then May and June seem to be really consistent with previous numbers. Again, that's a number that we're looking into for legacy outages for location. And one of the challenges that we have is we're moving towards this alley emulation service in the state, we are taking legacy location and moving it to next gen location with the alley emulation box. So these numbers for the next couple of months may appear a little different. And in those differences, we'll make sure to capture those talking points and bring that to the attention of the board. Any questions about the legacy outage data? One question, which I know the answer to, but just for the board's edification, are any of these outages automatically reported or are they self-reported by the vendors? These are automatically reported and self-reported depending on the outage. So like location and network are automatically reported to our outage team, CPE outages, depending on the outage that's reported in the monthly report the vendors provide to the state. So when you say automatic, that means the system itself is reporting or somebody's watching the system and then notifying us. Yeah, somebody's watching the system. So it's not quite automatic. All right. It's an auto-generated email after somebody goes, oh, something's wrong. Okay, just want to be clear. So the board was tracking that, which is why you see the fluctuation in the numbers. So it was a question I asked, by the way. Okay, in the NextGen 901 world, for aggregation for this last quarter, we've found zero minutes of outage that were service impacting. And again, as we report these outage numbers, I really want to emphasize that when we evaluated outage in NextGen, we're looking at, was service impacted? Could 901 not get to the appropriate PSAP and to the dispatcher to be answered? And for aggregation, we have zero minutes of outage. Also in core service, we have zero minutes of outage. And what's reflected here is there may have been a time when there was an outage. However, the system worked as designed and it was able to deliver that voice call and get it to the PSAP to be answered. In location outage, please note in May, we have an asterisk. We found an outage in May, in NextGen 901 location delivery that we need to drill down to and determine exactly what those impacts were if service was in fact delivered to the PSAP or if there's a service disruption. So this is another one in our November meeting that we'll come back with clarification for the board. And then through the entire network, we have zero minutes of outage. Now we can have a specific network connection that goes down. However, the network has been designed with redundancy where a network goes down and the call can be routed through a different network path. Again, there was no disruption to that service getting the call delivered to the PSAP. And for Cloud CPE, right now we have one live Cloud CPE deployment. We're reporting no outages with that instance. We have multiple others that have been approved in our in some phase of deployment. We hope to have even more by the time the November meeting comes in. So I'll pause for any questions regarding NextGen 901 outage reporting. Okay. This is just a placeholder stats to continue to show where California is in the way of a total 901 workload. We continue to be busy. We do anticipate as NextGen is fully deployed, our total number of 901 calls may go down because we're gonna have more accurate routing and less transfers of 901 calls. So as we continue to get through full deployment, we'll provide that analysis. Quick update on our NextGen 901 deployment. We did adjust the numbers here to reflect December of 2024. That's our anticipated completion date and all selective routers to be decommissioned by the end of December of next year. What we've done is taken a look at the progress of the Tiger team where we are with our NextGen vendors and evaluated how long it's gonna get us to get to a steady state migration pace. And that should get us towards the mid to maybe third quarter of next year. And then we can start to analyze all that selective router traffic, make sure everything's been migrated, decommission those selective routers and then we'll be 100% fully deployed on NextGen. Which leads us into the Tiger team project. At our main meeting, we briefed out that Cal OES had developed a Tiger team approach where AT&T has dedicated resources for a period of 12 weeks to be able to work alongside our region providers and our prime network service provider to go to all of the AT&T maintained PSAPs which is 374 throughout the state. The team started in June with some training and testing at a couple of earmarked PSAPs. We wanted to make sure that those technicians that were out in the field completely understood the procedures that they needed to go through, the test script and also the OES team because we have a part of the OES team is managing the bridge, managing that test script. A part is managing notifying of the PSAPs and a part of the OES team is managing the schedule. So we did a bunch of training and testing and got everybody up to speed and we kicked that team off on Monday, July 10th. We OES have developed a schedule. We had a few iterations of that schedule and eventually we settled on building in about a two week window. So that gives the PSAPs a good solid two week notification when to expect the Tiger team and it becomes more manageable when we have last minute cancellations or issues within a PSAP where we can't get there. It's easier to manipulate a shorter schedule. So the Tiger team is focused on readiness configuration. So region is coming in and testing doing test calls, prime's doing test calls and they're both landing at CPE. Getting the call and location to the dispatcher and then doing a transfer. Once they get to that point, everything is tested out successful and they're deploying the alley emulation box. The alley emulation box in the early deployment, there's some questions about telltales. Telltales come in in legacy 901 with VoIP and wireline locations saying where this call came from and what services law enforcement fire and medical services should be for that location. In next gen, we right now are working with the vendors to put query caller based on the PSAP feedback when we're deploying the alley emulation service. So we can get that out there. The telltales what we're asking all the PSAPs for is we need secondary boundaries. So we can get the secondary boundaries loaded into the next gen location database. So we know where that call should go if it needs to be pushed to fire or medical. So there was a branch notification that went out recently asking for agencies to provide secondary boundary information and if they had any question to contact our GIS team, Natasha Potter specifically. So if anybody has any questions about this, please reach out to Natasha. She's been getting a lot of good questions and a lot of good feedback from the PSAPs. We just want to keep that conversation upfront. So I'll take a quick pause if there's any specific questions about the Tiger team. Okay, this graphic we've shown before, this is basically what the Tiger team is completing in PSAP up to that red box in the middle of the screen. Once the alley emulation service is installed, they can get voice both through region and prime to the dispatcher, dispatcher can transfer that call. They're putting a green sticker on that PSAP. And then within 30 days of that visit, what we've asked our next gen vendors to do is schedule pre-migration testing. And at that point, they'll start to engage the carriers to prepare for carrier migration. And that's that lower section down there at the bottom of the screen with the carriers or originating service providers. Our GIS team did build a dashboard to track our Tiger team project. And this is available public that link down there at the bottom is the link for the dashboard. And as of yesterday, we had a total of 120 PSAPs have been visited. We're about a third of the way through the project. We have 102 PSAPs that have passed and 18 PSAPs were calling failed, but it doesn't mean that they're forgotten. It could be a simple configuration they couldn't get to while the Tiger team was out there. It could be something a little bit more in depth where it might take hours to go through and problem solve. So with those PSAPs in that failed column, let's call them not past. In the not past column, Andrew and his team will be working to get those scheduled in a visit after the Tiger team has gone through their primary sweep of PSAPs. And then they'll go through, complete all the testing. And once they're good to go, they'll be added back into the past column and then can be evaluated for the migration, which leads us into our next steps. So as I said, the prime in region will be scheduling their pre-migration testing and that's gonna be based on PSAP transfer clusters. I know we've been talking about PSAP transfer clusters for a few years. So just to remind everybody, I'll use the example of Sacramento. The city of Sacramento transfers to Sacramento County, Citrus Heights, Folsom and Elk Grove and Roseville and Rockland and Placer County. And the county transfers to Stanislaus County. So in order for Sacramento County to go live, we need to make sure that everybody else is ready to get an XGen call. So what we're doing is the providers are looking or next gen providers are looking at those PSAP transfer clusters. Is everybody in Sac County good to go? If yes, anybody that they transfer outside to the county are they good to go? If yes, we're gonna start pre-migration testing. So all of that coordination is happening now. And it's a delicate dance because everybody's gotta be ready. Because if you get a call at Sacramento City Police Department that you need to transfer to Citrus Heights, if Citrus Heights can't take an XGen call, then that caller doesn't get the right assistance. So they're working through that. Our expectation is that those will start to be scheduled here in the coming weeks. Once pre-migration testing is done, we wanna take a carrier live at all of those PSAPs in that transfer cluster. Instead of going one PSAP within the cluster and then go into the next, we'll go one carrier live of all of those PSAPs. And when we get to that point, we'll start communicating out to those PSAPs that are next on that migration plan. Any questions regarding migration in the Tiger Team? Yes, question on the dashboard, the previous slide, that's a publicly available link, correct? Can we get that added to the 911 website so that it's there, searchable? So maybe today we'll make the request should be live by the end of the week for sure. So you'll have access to this, so that remotely you can see what's going on in tracking. Thank you. And then if you have questions, specific questions about the dashboard, please reach out to Natasha. It's her and her team. They've done a great job of putting this together and they're very well versed in how this collects data. The data is uploaded in the morning, correct? Is it fair to say once every 24 hours it's being updated? That's probably the best way to look at it. Yeah, okay. So if you're wondering how frequent we sponsor the day, so you can refresh every day. Remember if you're using a browser and you keep it up and active, you might need to actually refresh the page to see that the change has been made, but every day except for probably Saturday and Sunday. Yeah. Unless we're do testing then, I know they would do it. So yeah. Kennedy, you're doing this on Saturday morning over coffee, right? Yeah, yes. All right, Cloud CPE. So we have some good news here. Carbine has advanced from phase one testing. They're starting their phase two testing in the lab. Rapid deploying and Trotto continue to test. I believe in Trotto is scheduled in September for their phase two testing in the lab. Motorola has been actively engaging with the 911 branch on their phase one testing. So based on those conversations, hopefully by the November meeting, we'll see Motorola continue to advance. We still have Lumen, Autos and NGA who are out actively selling and getting installation set up throughout the state. Any questions about the CPE testing? Yeah, just for the record, if there's a reseller, you probably want to add this slide back. I just thought of it by the way, but if there's a reseller of these products, do they also have to go through labs independently? Yes. Okay, so this graphic is much more complex than what you see because some of these solutions are resold by others. And so each of them would also have to subsequently go through labs. So we might want to think about a graphic for November that shows that a little clearer, but I don't know if that makes sense to the board members, both in the room and online. But for example, I know rapid deploy is being resold by AT&T. If rapid deploy makes it through lab, AT&T also needs to make it through labs since we have a direct contract with them before AT&T can sell the rapid deploy solution. So we just want to make sure that's clear and we'll have a graphic on that next time we meet in November. All right, statewide CPE, so far this calendar year, we've had one system installed with system acceptance. We have multiple in some version or some phase of installation. Once those are fully installed, they'll be tested and the PSAP will go through their system acceptance checklist. So hopefully by November, we'll have a few more there. I think it's important to note, as we look down at 2016, we start to see aging CPE and that's what this slide represents here. So current to date, and this slide was done on Monday, we have 187 CPE solutions throughout the state that are older than seven year and higher maintenance. This is alarming to us. Now these solutions have been working. They may have an outage every now and then, but they continue to work, they continue to accept the 911 call and dispatchers are able to get those calls answered. However, it is aging technology. So we, the 911 branch are discussing how do we start more assertive outreach to these PSAPs? I would ask if any member of the board has any input or would like to assist the branch in engaging these PSAPs to help educate them and maybe move them along into purchasing cloud CPE. We would definitely enjoy that conversation. Any questions on this slide? What do you think the disconnect is? So honestly, I think people are waiting until their vendor gets through the lab. There's, you know, we're either forward, cheviere dodge. We have our manufacturer that we like and I think that's what we're seeing here in the cloud CPE world. We keep telling folks, don't wait for your favorite brand to come out, get a brand because it's easy for us to get something in. When your company comes out, you're the company that you like, we can have a conversation. But what we want to do is get you on new technology to keep you safe. Do you find that you're getting resistance or are you just non-responsive? I don't, I can't characterize it as resistance, reluctance maybe. We do have a large group of folks who don't like cloud. They want to see it proven first. We have Jenae Fresno City. Fresno City is our first large PSAP going with cloud. So we have a lot of large PSAPs watching that. Once that's proven, then everybody will do this collective sigh of relief and go, okay, we see it work at Desert Hot Springs. They don't want to discount Desert Hot Springs. You know, it's a five-seat PSAP, it's their community. They're busy for their community, but they're not Fresno. And when you get a PSAP the size of Fresno, that's really going to validate our technology and what the vendors can do to support cloud. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I have a question. It's Mark from Kalina. So when you talk about Desert Hot Springs has been deployed, but yet, you know, a few months ago we were talking, we had discussions that the other Next Gen PSAPs were in line. So is it still the circuit installation that's holding that up or what's exactly holding that up? I think we're waiting for one of the four circuits for NGA. I talked to Lumen today. They said all of their circuits are installed. I believe Autos has a couple of circuits waiting to install, but those should all be fixed by the end of the month. And I believe NGA's, is it this week or next week, Ryan? Do you know for that last cross-connect on NGA? Yeah. Hey, Mark, thanks for the good question. So really, I think to your point, we should be testing across every one of those Cloud CP solutions. And it may not require for testing purposes only the full production network, meaning all redundant circuits across all those different carriers. We simply need one to start that testing. And I've confirmed across NGA and Autos, and Lumen that there is at least one, and Synergym as well, that there is at least one circuit available to support that opportunity to start the testing. And so I'm in active discussions now to facilitate why aren't we starting as, of course we want all four circuits across every one of those regions as part of our production network, but we certainly can start the testing to start cutting into that lead time. And so to your point, yeah, testing should be starting now, and we're putting that pressure on them. So if I'm a PSAP who says tomorrow, I want to sign up with Lumen, what's the expected wait time currently? Say I'm in the Northern California region, if I sign up with Lumen, how long is it going to take me to get a test system up? Is it going to be possible within the 90 days or they're going to be expected holdups? Yeah, Mark, this is Paul. I had a conversation with Lumen this morning, and they said all of their circuits were up. So I would say if you were going to go that route, you should be within that 90 day window. That's their deployment schedule. So is it carrier by carrier, where we see delays? I don't think... Next gen CPE provider? So there was a little bit of confusion about what exactly was required in that network design, getting core to cloud. That's all been worked out. And I believe next week is our last cross-connect to get all solutions connected to all core. Okay, so all those that are in the pipeline currently, because I know several PSAPs have signed up with NGA, correct? Yes, well, we do have one PSAP that's gone with Lumen on a pilot. Okay, so any of the ones that are in the pipeline for NGA, they should be able to start testing and get a prototype up within 90 days? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The fiscal and operational review. Again, this is that team that G'day manages, our PSAP advisory group. They go out, they take a look at the PSAP, they pull all the funding information, all of the CPE information, and they pull the eCATS reports, they meet with the PSAP leadership, they review everything and talk through what the state can do. For them to support CPE upgrades. Because of COVID, we kind of turned the fours off. We tried to do in virtual, but it just wasn't as meaningful. G'day has done a really good job. Her team's gone out and has completed 22 for this year. Unfortunately, well, fortunately for the team, we've had a few team members who have accepted promotional opportunities, leaving G'day with one PSAP advisor out of five funded positions. G'day and Teresa are actively working all statements of work and working very hard to keep up on that day-to-day workload. We've refocused them on getting Cloud CPE statement of works reviewed and approved, and getting Cloud CPE moving. Then, they're going to have to go through the CPE moving, and then Teresa is also actively supporting the Tiger team, so a lot of her time is taken up with Tiger team duties. Once Tiger team starts to calm down, Teresa and Janae will start more PSAP engagement, specifically in that year 10 with CPE installations and start working that list backwards to try to educate folks. So with that being said, if you know anybody who'd be a great PSAP advisor or would like to come work for the state of California, we are hiring. Please see Janae for any additional information. It's a great place to work, by the way. It is a great place to work. All right. Any questions on the CPE? All right. So we've talked a lot. The state has been wanting to engage in a statewide staffing survey. We wrote a contract. We finally were able to get that contract executed with the assistance of the California Department of Technology. The contract, it's a two-piece contract. One is a network study on the other side of public safety communications with the CAHPS network, an NG911 network, as well as a staffing study component. The network study was awarded to Promethean-1 and their subcontractor for the staffing study is NG911 Authority. And the state has worked with NG911 Authority before, and NG911 Authority saw the value in providing the study to the state. So they have engaged with Dr. Michelle Lilly. Anybody in industry knows Dr. Michelle Lilly out of the Chicago area has been an expert in studying and analyzing the impacts of working in dispatch, long-term post-traumatic stress, and the wellness effects in dispatch. So she's a part of the team, very happy to have her because she's got a lot of information that she has done her studies on that she can bring to the table. So our goals are we're going to be working with both the PSAP leadership and our dispatchers in two separate surveys. One, we want to take a look at from a leadership component, what's the hiring process? What's your retention? What's your training? What are the costs associated with all of that? And then from a dispatch perspective, we want to take a look at what's that environment? What is it from your perspective, the dispatch perspective that's good, bad, or indifferent in that environment and we can start to take a look at those agencies who are successful with the PSAP hiring and retention and those who may have some challenges and share some best practices. We're also looking at policies and procedures related to staffing and training and retention. We've noted training in the PSAP is really good. You go through post-basic dispatcher, then there's annual training to get promoted to supervisor, post-asm good courses. There's good second-line courses. When you become a manager, it's like everybody goes, well, you're the smartest person in the room. You don't need to be trained anymore. So we want to take a look at what is it take to train a PSAP manager, not just management training because those are two different conversations. So that's also a component of this study. And then there's going to be a little bit of analysis on what OES does to support the PSAPs and are we staffed right to be able to support all of the desired outcomes of this study. And then our key action dates here, we did work with the vendor to align them based on our advisory board schedule so we can bring that data into advisory board and review it with you through the end and final draft, which will be due in May of next year. So I'll take a quick pause for any questions on the staffing study, okay? A couple procurement updates. So we still have logging recorder that is on our long-term plan to get a logging recorder contract that would be a master purchase agreement and then also CAD master service agreement. The CAD is likely going to get traction here at the end of October or early November as the Tiger team starts to ramp down. We're starting to get migration into a steady-state deployment. We'll have resources in the branch to be able to finish this procurement up, get it over to CDT, and then we'll manage that procurement with CDT going with some pre-solicitation. We'll put it out and get some feedback from vendors. We'll clean that back up and then probably in January, time frame we'll be looking at getting that procurement out live for the final version. And then probably quarter two of 24 we'll be looking at the logging contract based on the status of the CAD master service agreement. All right, set in a fund condition. It's kind of hard to see here when the slides are posted you'll be able to see it in better detail. This is the current 23-24 fund condition statement. We are working with our accounting team at headquarters. We believe we have found an error in the fund condition statement in the 21-22 column under the emergency telephone user's surcharge. It appears that they've calculated that twice for 21-22. So we're trying to validate that now. But this is the existing public version of the fund condition statement. And this is the time of year that we do start the set in a fee calculation. The calculation we just received all of the access line data from the carriers. The calculations are currently being worked and that letter is being drafted to go to executive for review and approval. Once that's approved then we'll send that over to CDTFA which will be required by September 22nd of 23. This is last year's slide. This year we don't have any data to share about the calculation yet. Any questions about the set in a rate? Does the fund... Or did the error on there impact the fund balance or is the fund balance correct? So the fund balance is not correct or carry over. Theo de Caucus from our team who's our fiscal reconciliation manager he does a really good job of tracking that. He has what he believes should be the carry over balance and we've shared that with our accounting team at headquarters and they're analyzing to make sure all those numbers align. So it would impact the fund balance in 21-22 that goes to the top of the next column in 22-23. That is where this has the biggest impact that makes sense. Yes, so the 22-3-9-8-8 is likely a lot less. Way less, like 180 million too much. Interesting, thank you. Yeah. So in order to move forward with all of our fee calculations we have to have all that worked out and agreed upon and then we can get our letter drafted. All right. Any questions regarding the 9-1-1 branch update? So we'll take any questions from board members on that agenda item, items that Mr. Toxel covered. Anybody have any further questions? We kind of solicited questions as we went along. Any board members? All right, any questions from, yeah, go ahead, sir. Yeah. Mark from Kelly again. Paul, can you circle back to the recording longer contract? So, and I'm happy to take this offline with one of the members of your team if that's the more appropriate place. But the next gen CPE vendors are required to record by contract and then offer some type of a cloud logging solution. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And then so the statewide logging recording contract what will this be exactly? To capture everything else that you may want to record at your PSAP. So cloud CPE has a requirement to interface with your local information. But what we want to do is open that up to give you other options to be able to record at your PSAP. Okay. And then as I've talked to the different vendors it seems like there's sort of different approaches as far as one particular next gen CPE vendor may say, oh, okay, well we've partnered with this recording vendor and it will be included and then other vendors have said, well, we are recording but then you're required to then go out and get a contract with a certain, they might make a recommendation but they'll say these are the two or three vendors that we recommend to you but then that's going to be an extra charge. So is there any consistency there or can you just clarify on that? There should be consistency there and if you have that question please reach out to Janae and she'd be happy to engage in that conversation and make sure our vendors are giving you appropriate information. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I'll follow up with Janae. Thanks, Mark. Okay. Any other questions from either the public or board members on agenda item number five, the branch report? Andy, so if you want to take the mic, sir. Yeah, I just had a couple of questions. This is Andy Nielsen. First was on your audit report. Was that only 911 calls? Does that include text to 911? It's just 911 calls that include text. That's 911 traffic. Yes. So the text would be included in there as well. Okay. And then on the reseller that you talked about budge, is there going to be a process identified by the state or is that going to be done on a case-by-case basis? The process has been identified. It's in the contract. If you look at the contract, the name of the reseller is on the contract. It clearly requires, and it's no different at all between reseller and primary vendor. Right. Zero difference, no process change, no anything. So I don't understand your question. Yeah, my point was that some of the resellers have nothing to do with that solution. So I guess they'll just have to work that out between Cal OAS, the vendor and the reseller. No, not true. The reseller has everything to do with it because they signed a contract with the state of California. The state of California has nothing to do between the state of California, the reseller, and whoever is behind that as a subcontractor. Our contractual relationship is with the reseller. Yep. They have to abide by that contract. And there's no difference if an intrado solution is being sold by intrado direct and deployed to a PSAP versus some reseller of intrado and sold to a PSAP. Same contract, same process, same everything. Right. Except one, we're dealing with intrado direct. The other, we're dealing with reseller direct. No difference in process. We're encouraging everybody to go read their contracts. That's exactly what it says in the contract. So you could have actually, you would just have the vendor, if they were on the contract by themselves, do that testing and they would be the point of contact running the certification. And then as a reseller, they would be responsible to be the point of contact driving that with the assistance of the vendor if they needed that. Correct. With the assistance would be up to them. But we know from history that might be a different firewall, might be a different network configuration. It's certainly a different engineering and network operation center that we interact with. So it's absolutely critical because of the contractual relationship that each of them go through individually. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to agenda item number six. That's still you, Mr. Troxel. So give us an update on next gen. I'm a one alert morning, please. Yes. From feedback from the board at the last meeting, we cleaned up this graphic. This is showing April through June. We've got an additional 11 agencies, agencies have signed on for a total of 46. We are in active deployment with the total of 80 and then entities who have adopted and are starting that pre deployment are 15. In the last quarter, we had just over 5 million messages sent with the living total of just over 21 million messages sent. So we are seeing great success in the next gen. And I'm a one alert warning. And I'd be more than happy to entertain any questions or comments related to the alert and warning platform. All right. Any questions from the board on that agenda item? I just wanted to bring up, I know back when we started this, one of the concerns was about agencies ownership for lack of a better term of the data from signups. And I've had calls with the rave and with your team. I think it's still a work in progress from the agency side. I still don't feel comfortable that we have actually have access to the data. They hide it for reasons because of their integration with smart 911. So I just want to make sure that it stays aware in the public forum that it's a work in progress. And I appreciate your team kind of staying on it with them to get it to work out, but it's not where it needs to be in my opinion. Okay. Thanks. Definitely I'll take that back to Michael, but the contract does state, it's the state of California's data. Now we don't want to own your data, but we had to provide ownership to it. So we said it's ours and vicariously it's yours. So I'll say if you run into that communication challenge, please engage Michael and then I'll go back and continue to work with Michael and M rave to make sure we get that cleared up. And then this is just contact information. If anybody does need information on how to engage in the alert morning discussion. Okay. Any further questions on agenda item number six from the board of the public. Okay. Seeing hearing none. Thank you, sir. We'll move on to agenda item number seven, which is a 988 update. Admittedly, this is a busy slide. I wanted to keep it to a single slide. Tomorrow is the 988 advised technical advisory board meeting. So we're going to cover these topics in a lot more detail. That meeting is probably going to go over two hours. So if you're looking for a lot more information on this, certainly willing to answer any questions today, but that meeting is probably your best source of information with what we're doing with 988. So we've installed 988 equipment in our lab. It's actually being tested at this exact moment to validate that what was in the contract is being delivered according to the requirements in the contract. We've identified two different groups of PSAPs. There's six in group one, seven in group two. Maybe it's five and seven. Anyway, there's a total of 12. And so we've installed equipment at all, but I think two centers and by installed equipment, we need connectivity all the way to the 988 center and a single position installed for testing and interaction there. We are engineering the connection. So the way that this works is you initiate a 988 call, chat or text, and it goes into a national system that then gets identified as this being for California and gets sent to California based on area code today. And so that connection, we're working through the agreements with Vibrant and Vibrant's got a subcontractor agreement where they're doing that routing. That testing is ongoing. We've successfully landed calls, received calls, but we're at the step in the process now where we need to arbitrate an MOU process, I guess is the best way to say that. We're working through that process. There's some challenges there. And just to underscore why there's challenges when 988 first came about, there was a relationship between SAMHSA, the federal agency. Their subcontractor Vibrant and all of the 988 centers across the United States. Now, with the passage of federal legislation, each state had the opportunity to put state statute in place and collect a state fee, which we have done. AB 98 was our state legislation. So now there's a state statute in the middle of this process and it's this transitional period where now, where they were used to dealing directly with the center and now they've got a center in the state, the subject-to-state law. We're just trying to work through those details and you can imagine that's not easy. One of the steps on that journey, we developed a draft funding policy. We'll be talking about that tomorrow. It looks very similar to Chapter 3 of our operations manual, which is the funding policy for 901. This is Chapter 13. It was not chosen on purpose. It was just the next number available in the operations manual. So that is available. That looks like it's on the 98 splash page, if you want to know. Our next steps are late third quarter, early fourth quarter. We hope to have some centers active. Again, it's really related to this MOU process between us and Vibrant and SAMHSA. That's really where the challenges are, not necessarily on the technology side. And then early next year, late this year, we'll start those group two installs. So that's kind of a high level of where we're at. If you're interested from a 901 perspective, we do have a working group that Jeff Abair of San Diego County is chairing on the interaction between 901 and 988. That would be a really good source of information if you want to get involved in that sort of handoff between 901 and 988. And there are a couple of other working groups established as well, one related to equal access to 98 and one related to best practices. And so I kind of do some research on what other parts of the country are doing with respect to 98. So that's the, I guess, two or three minute update on what we're doing with 988. I'll entertain any questions from the board because we know there's probably a lot of activity on this one. All right, any questions from the public? If you're interested in listening in on that technical advisory board meeting, that same webpage, caloes.ca.gov. Has the hyperlink to join that meeting tomorrow and then usually about a week after the meeting we make the audio recording available. So you'd be able to refer back to that if you're otherwise busy tomorrow. All right, hearing no further comments on agenda item number seven. Move on to agenda item number eight. And this is the Long Range Planning Committee. And so at this point, we don't formally have a chair but we've been having our meetings nonetheless. Just remind you that the Long Range Planning Committee charter is focused on long range planning, hence the name. So it's very strategic in nature. And we're going to ask Alicia Fuller to come up and give us an update on some of the long range activities that we have been addressing in that committee. So Alicia, if you want to come up, you have your choice of mic number two or mic number 14 depending on which you prefer. It's up to you. Good morning, everybody. So yesterday we went with the Long Range Planning Committee and Cal OES and various members who attended in person and discussed a number of items. The first of which was some strategic updates from Cal OES. We spent some time talking about the CAT RFP that was mentioned and the development of that RFP and how we strategically do that to benefit the entire PSAP community. It was noted that the regional task forces that exist today may be involved in that process and we could pivot those task forces to development of requirements and review requirements for that CAT RFP based on their knowledge of the systems in use today and what their needs are. It was mentioned or recommended that those task forces be pivoted slightly in terms of membership to include those that may be CAT experts from the PSAP community where that wasn't the focus originally of those task forces. So if the various associations have anybody in mind from the PSAP communities that you all serve that would be experts in the CAD domain, it would be great to know who those folks are. In addition to that, we requested to review the data sharing. The data sharing is not getting a lot of traction. So we requested to review that actually at the county coordinator forum so that we can include a larger audience and see what that data sharing contract and product incorporates. I got a sneak peek yesterday afternoon from Josh from El Camino College who's using it in Hawthorne. But I think sharing that out to the county coordinator community and then that community along with the LRPC and the associations being able to go into the PSAP community and say, this is what this is going to be used for. Here's some of the content that's within the data sharing module to get some traction there on usage of that. Additionally, we talked about the cloud call handling strategy addressing the comment that was brought up already today regarding adoption of cloud call handling and why that's not being adopted as quickly as we need it to be. There are about 25 or so that have signed with a vendor. Our suggestion to the 911 branch was to place, like we did with wireless deployment, place a spreadsheet or some kind of information on the website so that everybody can see who has signed and hopefully who has deployed when the deployment actually occurs. That'll give the LRPC members, the associations and county coordinators and other key players the opportunity to see who's moving forward, be able to leverage that to communicate to the larger PSAP community and share lessons learned, share things that are going well with those systems that could be advantageous to similarly sized or organized PSAPs. So that we will hopefully see in the near future on the website. We had some discussion about GIS as well. Natasha came and explained very thoroughly the tell tales issue that we have been facing that has come very aggressively to our attention as we've moved to the alley emulator and the fact that secondary PSAP boundaries for fire and EMS are a critical component of getting accurate information in front of the dispatcher when those 911 calls come through using the GIS based routing information as opposed to the tabular routing that we've been reliant upon for decades now. So we are trying to figure out the best way to help Natasha's team get that information. We've got some ideas that are percolating to get some information to her, but if you all through your associations can assist in connecting Natasha's team with the right people to get jurisdictional boundaries for fire and EMS especially, that's critical in the adoption of next generation 911 alley services. And based on the notification that we got from the 911 branch by the end of this calendar year that needs to be cut over throughout the entire state because the technology that is in use today is end of life, end of support, falling off of contracts the state can access. So this is a critical piece of success for next generation 911. We talked about the retention and recruitment that has already been reviewed today. There will be a number of beta sites for the recruitment and retention survey that will be deployed hopefully in September is the impression that we all got. So if you through your associations have any recommendations for PSAPs that could participate as betas, I think the 911 branch would like to hear very much who those would be, the LRPC is also going to reach out to our PSAPs to recommend some beta sites. And then after that beta runs, the intent is to update that survey with the feedback from those beta sites and then in October do the full scale deployment of that survey. In order to get good information for the entire state of California, we will need everybody, boots on the ground, grassroots kind of effort to call, talk to, email, distribute via social media, whatever it is that we can do to get that survey into the hands of the line level dispatchers. We want as many of them to take that survey as possible, not just the PSAP managers and supervisors. So it will take every single person at the LRPC level, the advisory board level and all of our county coordinators to tag team that essentially and to get the survey into the hands of the dispatchers. I'm hoping that through various associations that have social media, maybe we can get a QR code out for that survey and then we can all share it via our social channels. We got an update from the regional task force for LA region. That was the only region present for the LRPC and discuss many of the things that I've already been talked about today. Nothing necessarily earth shattering out of that. We talked about a lot of those topics already and I think that is all that I have for the LRPC update. Okay. Any questions from the board on LRPC update? Any questions from members of the public? All right. Thank you, Alicia. Of course. Thank you. So the other item here is we want to talk through while we're discussing activities. It probably makes a lot of sense. The idea of the LRPC is to, for the board, to identify strategies, long-term questions, concerns that you want the LRPC to take up and take a look at in terms of providing input to the branch and recommendations. So are there any agenda items that are tasks that you want to specifically have the long-range planning committee look at? We'll pause and see if the board members have any input on that. Okay. I just appreciate the efforts to look at retention and recruitment, why we're not keeping dispatchers through retirement, why they're just not staying in the profession that long. The mental and emotional wellness component really appreciate those efforts. Yeah, we're excited about the study as well. So the big question we're trying to ask is how can the state help? Because sometimes the state comes in and helps and it's not so helpful. So we want to make sure that whatever we do to assist, it aligns with the needs. So we're really excited about that as well. We hope to have some good data for you in November when we meet and if you've got any specific things that you as a board member want that study to accomplish. I mean, please reach out to us. It's at the time now where we can impact the content of the survey and really drill down on how we can be helpful. All right. The other item on this agenda item is LRPC membership. Right now the California Fire Chief Association has a vacancy on this. We'd like to solicit some input. I don't know, Chief, if you have any insight on who might be able to participate there, but we certainly would welcome others to join this group. Yeah, thankfully we have somebody who's volunteered to serve in that position. His name is Jeff Logan. I'm going to read you just a quick bit of information, particularly for those that don't know Jeff. He's a career 911 professional. He started in dispatching in North Commons, San Diego, so he's been in it for a while in 2005. And he went all the way up and worked his way through the organization to become the operations manager. He took a position as the emergency commander center manager for Orange County Fire Authority in 2017 and it happened to also be a Cal Fire contracted agency with OES Area Coordination Center as well. In 2022, he was selected as the executive director for Heartland Communications of San Diego County. So he's continued to escalate and just advance in his professional development and also serving the county and the region more robustly. He's worked on a number of statewide programs and is presently part of the OES Next Generation Regional Technology Task Force, which I believe reports up to LRPC. So his goal is shared with how to solve some of our staffing issues. He's working towards having our future of 911 professionals to find sustainability in the career. So he particularly, he and I had had a little discussion on retirement and why our dispatchers are just never making it to retirement and how we can remedy that. So I think he'd be a really thoughtful addition and contributor to the LRPC. So I'd like to nominate him. Okay, so we have a nomination for Jeff Logan to join the LRPC. Do we have a second? This is Kurt all second. Okay, thank you. All right, so I think we do have a quorum. So I'm going to go through the vote and hopefully this doesn't get undone by some technical legal thing in the future. All right, so Chief Ellison. I'm Fort. Okay, Communication Manager Wallace. Yes. All right, Communication Analyst Chase. Yes. Chief Ramirez. Yes. Chief White. Yes. All right. Did I miss any board members who may have joined that did not announce themselves? Okay. So the motion carries. So Jeff, congratulations. And I'll actually be traveling with Jeff to Mexico City next week. We are doing a cross-border communication 911 challenges. So I will be sure to welcome him into the committee and let him know when the next meetings are. So congratulations, Jeff. I don't know if you're on the line, but looking forward to you joining that group. Okay. So the next item, I believe, is the next slide. So we do have a nomination before us for a chair to chair the LRPC. I think it was discussed at the last advisory board meeting. I don't think we had quorum at that meeting. We couldn't officially vote. So I don't know if everyone is in a position to move forward again with this, but this is item number 10, I think, on the agenda. Let me look. No, still item number nine. So the nomination for a chair was Alicia Fuller from CHP. So I'm assuming Alicia, that nomination is still valid. So, okay. Chief Ellison, I know you're on. So that nomination was made the last time, but I think we have to redo it, correct, to get it on the record. So Chief Ellison, I don't know if you want to make that nomination. I'm seeing that. So it's your agency. Yeah. What's her last name again? I couldn't hear you. Alicia Fuller. Okay. Yeah. All right. Well, I would like to nominate Alicia Fuller as a new board member. I think she'll do a good job. Coming from our agency, we have a lot going on right now in this, in this, in these programs and this, this type of technology. I think she'd be a good addition. Okay. Thank you, Chief. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Chief White seconds. Okay. So we have a motion to appoint Alicia Fuller as the chair of the LRPC. So Chief Ellison, you're first, sir. Yes, for sure. All right. All right. Communication center manager Wallace. Kurt Wallace, are you still with us? Sorry, I was muted. Yes. All right. Communication analyst Chase. Yes. All right. Chief Ramirez. Yes. And Chief White. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. We will be appropriately indoctrinating you and familiar, making you familiar with the charter and what we're doing moving forward. So congratulations. And thank you for the support. All right. I think that's it for agenda item number nine. Do we have any other comments from board members or from the public on that? Okay. I think we already kind of jumped into this one a little bit, but I think that's it for agenda item number 10 for the LRPC. So really be thinking about what it is that you see as a need for the 911 branch to take a look at strategically for the state of California and also for this board. And obviously the LRPC is an amazing tool that we have in place for that. The other thing we want to talk about is the, how often the LRPC is meeting right now. It's pretty much the day before the advisory board. And we think that's probably still appropriate given, you know, where we are in the process, but want to just see if any of the board members have any, any comments on how often that board should be meeting. Okay. What's the current schedule that they're meeting at right now? What's the current schedule? Yeah. Thanks, chief. Once a quarter. Okay. They meet four times a year. I think that was, wasn't it the last meeting the request was about reducing because of availability or something? Right. So the concern is, you know, we want to make sure that that group is actively working on things right now. As far as long-term strategies, they're pretty much tracking what the board is doing, which is a good thing. But we just want to make sure we're not overly burdening them with meetings. I don't know, Alicia, if you want to have public comment on this, you might be able to add some flavor as to whether quarterly is appropriate, less than quarterly. No problem at all. Quarterly is good at the current clip that we have with agenda items. In the past, if we've needed to meet more frequency or more frequently than quarterly, we'll work with Cal OES to schedule an off rhythm or off cycle meeting that is publicly announced and everything that is required. So a fifth or a sixth meeting in the year is possible if we need it. We just work through Cal OES to do that. Okay. Any other discussion on that item? So I think we'll probably keep it at quarterly unless someone has a motion. All right. And the other one is term limits. So we did take a look at the charter. There are two-year term limits for the, my mic is really giving some feedback. So if you want to turn me down a little. All right. So the term is two years. And I'll just full disclosure, we at the branch have not been managing this very well. It was two years ish, which turned into a decade for some people, one of the members that's not serving anymore, but we will be really looking at two years going forward. We're going to start the clock now. What that means for the board members is start thinking about a year from now a replacement to cycle those people out. And that's been the big challenge before, not that the group that we formed wasn't adequate or performing the function properly they were. It's just replacements were difficult to recruit. So if you have someone a year from now that you want to bring into that fold, make the recommendation. We can get them in early, get them involved in the process, and then have a smoother transition where all the members that are serving now could rotate off that board. If you're wondering who's serving on that board right now, we've got Aaron Riley from the California State Sheriff's Association, Alicia Fuller who we just elected chair from Highway Patrol, Brenda Brunner from APCO, Jodi Pat from the California Police Chiefs Association, Mandy Runnels from Kal Nina, and then we just appointed Jeff Logan from California Fire Chiefs Association. So those are your LRPC members. If you want, there is the ability to bring in more. It's totally possible. And we'd like to bring them in early so we can train them up and get them used to the process. So we just put that out there for information for the board moving forward. So any questions on agenda item number 10? This is something we've been talking about for a while. We want to really make sure that LRPC is properly structured. All right, any questions from the public on this agenda item? All right, seeing, hearing none. We're on agenda item number 11. This is topics for future meetings. So this is the point where we solicit to board members to see if there's anything you want to add to the agenda. If you're wondering when the next meeting is, it's November 15th. If you're wondering what the schedule looks like for 2024. Yes, indeed. We have it up on the board and we've pretty much followed the pattern we've been had put in place for the past few years where the same time during each month we have these meetings. The meetings will are typically here at Sequoia Pacific. Historically, we have been willing to travel. There's some logistics involved. We're still willing. So if you, as a board member, want to think about somewhere well in advance where you might want us to go be in person, we could certainly support that as well. But obviously we're willing to continue to host it here at OES. So I'll solicit the members of the board for any agenda items for future meetings. Board members have anything? Go ahead, Chief. I think it would be great to get a presentation on the data sharing component as shown and tell of kind of what it's going to be able to do or what it can do and where it's going. Thanks. Okay. So we have a data sharing presentation. We could probably work that in November. I think that'd be a good time. All right. Paul's shaking his head. So you're on the hook. We're adding it to the agenda. All right. Any other agenda items? Consulting legal counsel to make sure we didn't need to vote to add that to the agenda. So it's good. We will add that to the agenda, Chief. Thank you. Anyone else have any topics? Board members that you want to add to the meeting agenda. Okay. Please look at your calendars for any conferences, conflicts, anything that you might have that would be, you would think would prevent you from attending these future meeting dates and let us know. Now is the time to make changes. Otherwise we'd like you to lock in your schedules, please. Super important that we have a quorum if we're going to conduct business. All right. One question. Yes, sir. I don't know if it's necessarily an agenda item, but as far as the transition from, I believe after the Tiger teams are done, we're going to be transitioning to, is it referred to as like next gen Annie Alley? Yes. So are there training materials out there for the PSAPs? I know that there are some differences. And if I could just have your staff speak to how that training will go on, where those materials are at, and how PSAPs are going to be educated before they're cut over. Yes, there are training materials. I'm looking at Andrew. He's nodding his head in the room, which you can't see online. And they are available. Is it possible to link them to our website, Andrew? We will check, Mark, if we can link them to our website. They're not materials we developed. That's the only hesitation we have. We have to ADA compliant them and do a whole bunch of other things to get them posted. We'll see if that's possible. If not, we can certainly send them out and refer you to really your CPE vendor is the one who's responsible for that training. Okay. So just want to confirm. So as my understanding is, the plan is to roll these in the next few months. So it would be the current CPE provider of like AT&T or Carousel or whatever your current CPE is to do that education. I'm going to invite Andrew for public comment to help with this. So I don't use microphone number two, not one. So that I don't mess this up because I'm very likely to give away a car or something. I don't want to do that. Not that that happens, right, budge? Mark, no, that'll be the region that is responsible for providing you any alley information specifically. If you're talking about outages or escalation paths or any sort of training, that should be the region for alley. In this case, I'm talking about, right, like the current things that appear on the anti alley screen, right, the different classes of service. If it's BUSX, I think is one or WPH2, W911. I believe we've talked about on the task force meetings that those are going to change and that they're different in next gen. So they are going to, yeah. Yeah, they are going to change that. So that information, I know that Lumen has prepared a package that they're presenting to their PSAPs with the changes in class of service. So what we can do is we can take that information and we can disseminate that to the other vendors. So if they're not presenting it currently to you, we'll get that information for you. Does that work? Yes, I'm just wondering. So if you're on a legacy CPE and then you have not transitioned, you know, by the time Cal OES makes the changes or, you know, whoever makes the changes in the coming months, then on the legacy CPEs, are we going to see those changes as well? Say if you're on a VES or a Viper. You won't see any changes until your alley is transitioned if that makes sense. I don't know if I'm following, Mark. Everybody will migrate alley. So you're not part of the Tiger Team effort because you're on a carousel system. We'll be coming to your site. Yeah, we'll be coming to your site after the Tiger Team's over, right? So that'll be November-ish. We'll do the alley transition there. You'll get the information, but we, you'll still have legacy CPE. You'll see the difference in class of service and we'll get you the, we'll get you the proper educational materials to make sure that that's a smooth transition for you. Okay, so the change in class of service is going to, it'll still be reflected if you're on legacy CPE. You're still going to start seeing things differently once the alley of transit occurs. Absolutely, yes. Okay, and so we should be looking to our regional provider for that, those materials to come out? Yes. Okay, perfect. I just hadn't seen anything yet and I didn't know if I'd missed them or if they were forthcoming, so. No problem, we'll get that to you. Great, thanks, Henry. All right, so thank you, Mark. That's a good example of you helping us make sure you've got the information that's available. So we'll certainly follow up on that. All right, any other future agenda item conversation? Okay, we're now up to the point for public comment. So we'll start with the board. This is your opportunity to discuss anything that was not on the agenda or even potentially anything that was that you want to bring up at this moment for any board members. So any board members have public comment? Okay, any members of the public want to discuss any matters that weren't on the agenda? We see any hands on line. All right, we're not seeing any in the room. Long pause. All right, we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is probably my favorite one, adjourned. So do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. All right, motion from Chief White. Do we have a second? Second. That's second from Chief Ramirez. All right, do we need to take a vote on that one or do we just adjourn? All right, so we are adjourned. Thank you very much. It's 11.36. We appreciate everybody participating. We will post the slides online probably this week. The recording of this should be available within the next month. Thank you very much. And we look forward to talking to you at the next meeting adjourned. Thank you.