Montana Interoperable Communications by mifei


									                             Montana Interoperable Communications
                                     Project Directors Meeting
                             September 22, 2005 ▪ 10:00a.m. – 3:30p.m.
                          Montana Association of Counties, Helena, Montana

Project Directors
Sheriff Cheryl Liedle        Southwest Interoperability Consortium (SWIP)
Wilma Puich                  I 15/90 Consortium (I 15/90)
Chief Al Michaels            Eastern Tier Interoperability Consortium (ETIC)
Frank Ford                   South Central Montana Interoperability Consortium (SCMIC)
Cindy Mullaney               Central Montana Interoperable Communications Consortium (CMICC)
George Gupton                Western Interoperable Communications Consortium (WICC)
Wayne Dusterhoff             Northern Tier Interoperability Consortium (NTIP)
Bob Reid                     Missoula County

Project Representatives
Dave Clouse                  Mobile Data Terminal Consortium (MDT)
Bill Fleiner                 Tri-County Consortium (TIC)
Cheri Kilby                  Big Sky 11

Travis Citrino                              Montana Wireless Connection
Mark Canton                                 Motorola
Frank Smith                                 Park County
Jill Loveless                                Montana Wireless Connection
Chris Christensen                           Public Safety Services Bureau
Christopher Perez                           Montana National Guard
Jason Shrauger                              Gallatin County Emergency Management
Gary Hindoien                               MT Disaster & Emergency Services
Matt Lynde                                  Montana National Guard
John Ilgenfritz                             MT Disaster & Emergency Services
Corey Jensen                                Main Fiber
Leo Dutton                                  Lewis & Clark Sheriff’s Office
Geoff Feiss                                 MT Telecommunications Association
Betsy Allen                                 Senator Conrad Burns Office
Jack Spillman                               Lewis & Clark Sheriff’s Office
Dave McGinnis                               Missoula County Sheriff’s Office
Mike Sheard                                 Mitstel
Mark Adams                                  Northrop Grumman
Joyce Inchauspe                             Public Safety Services Bureau

Sheriff Cheryl Liedle called the 4th Project Directors (PD) meeting to order at 10:05 am. She explained
that the State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) had appointed her Chairperson for the Project
Directors (PD), and she would entertain a motion if the PDs wished to elect someone else. The PD
agreed unanimously to have Sheriff Liedle continue as the chair. She then reviewed the building
layout, the exit procedures in case of an emergency and the meeting rules requiring that the chair
recognize each request to speak from the PDs as well as the audience.

Minutes: The minutes of August 30, 2005 were reviewed. Wayne Dusterhoff moved and Wilma Puich
seconded that the minutes be approved. The motion passed.

                                 2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
Sheriff Cheryl Liedle reviewed the history of the Project Directors noting that the road to this current
point has been a rocky one, but much progress has been made. Cheryl indicated that surely the
project directors would agree that the Public Safety Services Bureau (PSSB) has been invaluable in
helping build the partnerships and coordinating this PD’s collective efforts. The PSSB set up the room
today, but the staff is not present to record the minutes due to comments made at the last meeting.
Frank Ford commented that the intent at the last meeting was to have the Project Directors conduct the
meeting without a facilitator, but not to dismiss the PSSB involvement as support staff. Wilma Puich
agreed and noted that none of this PD had the time or staff to record minutes. Cindy Mullaney moved
and Wilma Puich seconded a motion that passed to have the PSSB provide staff to organize the
meetings, take minutes, and dispense information as appropriate for the Project Directors.

Sheriff Liedle noted that the PDs have a lot of work to do. Montana is on the cusp of doing something
really great. With that, she asked Dave Clouse to review the documents he helped to prepare for the
PD today.

Radio Deployment Strategy:
Dave Clouse began by noting the discussion at the last meeting lead to the draft idea presented today.
The question is “What do we (Project Directors) want to accomplish?” The Draft Radio Deployment
Strategy is a start to defining the answer to that question, and how it will be accomplished. The recent
hurricane has reinforced the need to complete this work. Dave acknowledged that each person’s
background will affect how he or she views this layout, but he asked that everyone be open minded to
working through this.

Dave shared his experiences as a deputy during fire season and a gunfight in which he didn’t have
radio coverage to deal with the problems he faced. These situations and the hurricanes recently prove
that planning needs to be done to handle situations where the system fails and communications is the
highest priority. In times of disasters Disaster and Emergency Services (DES), fire, law enforcement,
Montana Department of Transportation, hospitals, etc are all need communications. The Mobile Data
Terminal (MDT) consortium has a barebones network with about $3,000 radios, and it’s proving itself to
be viable. MDT is receiving more hits than ALL the PSAPs in the areas it’s installed. So this strategy
presented today tries to outline goals and some strategies that need to be addressed to implement and
achieve the goals. This plan is based on funding not on a time frame.

Dave reiterated that the overall system would be a hybrid system and it will comply with the State
Interoperability Executive Council’s (SIEC) definition. Dave reviewed the goals listed and the strategies
to achieve them. As an example of clearly defining the strategies the Field Unit Upgrade Strategy
(Mobile & Portable radios) was discussed. New mobiles/portable radios are required to meet the
Category 1 standard. For example, Sheriff with category 3 radio passes this radio to replace a
Category 4 radio and receives a new Category 1 radio. Using Incident Command Structure (ICS) the
sequence of replacement/reallocation would be determined by local stakeholders. Commanders
should have encrypted radios, but encryption strategy would be determined at the Project Directors
level. Possible Replacement strategy: Agency, discipline, jurisdiction, consortium, other consortiums.
So existing Category 3 radios are redistributed to replace Category 4 radios until all Category 4 radios
are out of service. Then category 3 is phased out and finally category 2 radios phased out.

This “Trickle Down” strategy will allow radios to be redistributed and the 1st milestone to be achieved.
This same strategy can be used with repeaters, base stations and even towers. Each consortium will
set priorities for deployment within ICS structure.

Using the Infrastructure Upgrade Strategy, Dave noted that this would be done as a single project.
Again, the system is a hybrid so not every site will be trunked, but each site may be designed to be
microwave ready. He reviewed the proposed steps and noted that these are the increments that need
to be discussed and agreed to. New Orleans lost a generator, so their lesson points out the need to
address back-up power supply.
                                  2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
The floor was opened to discussion. Frank Ford said he was very impressed with the concept, but he
had several concerns. His first suggestion was to change the terminology on the chart to read
Infrastructure instead of Site Upgrades so that all types of improvements are considered. Frank then
explained their system and shortcomings in place in Madison County. They have very old radios (some
with crystals), and they all need to be replaced. Madison County has investigated replacing these old
radios with a radio type that would appear to be Category 3. He asked for clarification as to whether
this proposed strategy required that Category 1 radios be purchased? Gary Hindoien, DES, responded
that the FY 05 funding criteria is based on the SIEC definition, and so it requires that the funds be used
to buy Category 1 or 2 radios that are P25.

The PD discussed this concern because it affects many other counties not just Madison. Sheriff Liedle
acknowledged the local area needs are a priority for Madison County, and she reassured Frank that the
PDs would work to help Madison and any other county to replace there very old technology. Cheryl
suggested that one of the strongest reasons for the PDs to consider a Central Project Manager (CPM)
would be to handle the reallocation of equipment across the various consortia.

Wayne Dusterhoff suggested that other items like consoles, etc could also be reallocated if Central
Project Management (CPM) was in place to coordinate these types of equipment improvements and
reuse. Dave Clouse expanded on the other areas that CPM might be hired to handle. There were
some members that questioned the who, how, why of the idea that this group needed to use CPM.

Cindy Mullaney clarified that the State Disaster & Emergency Services (DES) Senior Advisory Council
(SAC) Grant Subcommittee had discussed concerns about all the consortia individually pulling the
system together, and the Grant Subcommittee is planning on recommending CPM to the SAC. Frank
Ford questioned whether CPM was really warranted at this time, and whether CPM was justifiable
enough to receive 20% of the funding for FY05?

Wilma Puich sided with the need to have CPM. She stated that nether the I 15/90 consortium nor she
as Project Director, had the expertise to achieve the objectives that a CPM would need to achieve.

Cindy Mullaney noted that FY05 funding criteria is for implementation, and now is the time to select a
CPM when so many consortiums are ready to begin implementation. Northern Tier Interoperability
Project (NTIP) and Southwestern Interoperability Project (SWIP) are beyond these beginning stages,
but Central Montana Interoperability Communication Consortium (CMICC) needs the help.

Cheri Kilby was concerned that CPM would overlook the immediate priorities at the local level that each
consortium has identified in their needs assessment. She suggested that some consortiums are not at
the level that they need CPM. Would CPM be instructed to manage the work that needs to be done
locally first? Or would CPM have the statewide goals as the priority?

Bill Fleiner explained the process by which the Disaster and Emergency Services (DES) and the Senior
Advisory Council (SAC) Grant Subcommittee gathered the funds to allocate for this CPM estimated to
be about $1.2 million. Half of the funding will come from the State’s FY05 funding dollars that would
have gone to other agencies for projects, and the other half or about $600K would come from the FY05
funding designated to be awarded to local/regional consortia. So the $1.2 million is not from the local
funding dollars. CPM is viewed as an 18-month project that involves project management, spectrum
management (that covers licensing, renewals, jurisdictions) and possibly reallocation of used
resources. Bill added a second point stressing that CPM is needed now. He acknowledged the
resistance to CPM, and noted this may be due to the concerns that CPM won’t implement each
individual assessment in a given consortium. In his opinion, many of the individual assessments are
very expensive, and CPM could save thousands of dollars by combining assessments for bulk
purchases. In support of Central Project Management, Bill reminded the PDs that they are responsible
for policy and decisions not sorting through the weeds of project management. Sheriff Liedle agreed
and added that PDs can’t continue to compete for scarce resources.

                                  2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
Dave Clouse asked that the PDs vote to accept the concept of Central Project Management, and then
they can begin to define the goals and the scope of work that will be needed to complete them. All the
assessments need to be put on the table and reviewed together by the PDs and the CPM. It will take
incremental steps to achieve the goals.

George Gupton asked if the decision for CPM had been decided already, stating that he assumed there
was some coordination statewide. Bill Fleiner clarified that the recommendation for CPM was going to
be made to the SAC by the Grant subcommittee, and the recommendation would be that CPM should
be put into place now.

Al Michaels agreed that the time for CPM is now when frequencies need coordination; equipment
purchasing is beginning, etc. There is just way too much work for each PD to handle. The argument
about future funding has always been an issue, but he suggested that the PDs strike while the iron is
hot, not wait till the funding fizzles out.

The PD continued to discuss the Radio System Deployment Strategy. Bill Fleiner reiterated that this
represents the “Big Picture”, and that each of the six strategies needs to be defined. Bill also
suggested that another item be added as #7 Business Practices and a subcategory be Training and
Procedures. Sheriff Liedle added that during the SWIP planning that the Business Practices were
defined with assistance from the vendor, Motorola. But in the testing phases recently these same
Business Practices have been found to be different than the written version. The concept was good,
but in operation they overloaded their system during the most recent Birds’ Eye fire. SWIP provided
coverage where it had not been available before, but the too many operators were assigned to the
Incident #1 talk group. She stressed that Business Practices need to be written towards operational

Sheriff Liedle stressed that Training is an overwhelming issue. SWIP has over 800 radios currently
issued, and all 800+ operators need training. A central training program that is held consistently is

Cheri Kilby noted that she likes the strategy as presented, but she would like to clarify that local officials
need control of what will be updated first. In Big Sky 11 they have repeaters that are currently failing
when it rains. The decision as to whether Field Units are a priority over Towers needs to be a local

Dave Clouse acknowledged these concerns, and explained that each item on the list was important,
and no priority was assigned. Each item needs a strategy defined, and goals to implement the
strategies. Bob Reid needed to leave, but thanked the PDs for a good meeting that was providing
positive results.

Frank Ford moved that the PD revise the agenda so that the PDs could continue the work needed to
define the strategies and goals. Bill Fleiner seconded the motion, and it passed.

Cindy Mullaney moved to adopt the Radio System Deployment Strategy version 1.7 with the addition of
#7 Business Practices and it’s two sub categories (Training & Procedures), and Site Upgrades
renamed to Infrastructure. The motion was seconded and passed.

Dave Clouse began the discussion to thoroughly examine each item in the strategy, noting that the
overall system is a hybrid system with areas that might have one or all three categories of field units. A
question was raised on the current Mutual Aid frequencies migration to narrow band channels? The
current Mutual Aid frequencies will be moved to narrow band, and are under coordination by the PSSB
at this time.

Dave Clouse continued with an example for the Field Unit Upgrade Strategy. The goal would be to get
new Category 1 radios into use at the Controller level in ICS first, then reuse those used radios by
                                    2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
recycling them into the system to replace any Category 4 (OLD) wide band conventional radios. This
approach would continue until all Category 4 radios were replaced and Category 1, 2, 3 radios were in
place as prioritized. Then the next discipline would be outfitted in the same manner. Dave noted that
Tri-County does not plan on putting Fire into the incident, so they would not need Category 1 P25 trunk
capable radios.

Bill Fleiner noted that the PDs need to meet with their respective consortium, discuss this strategy, and
discuss how it will work in regard to their Needs Assessment. Dave Clouse clarified that two things
need to be done today, #1 Adopt the concept of resource allocations, and #2 research the needs and
determine the next step. Bill Fleiner stressed that all the consortiums needed to agree to approve and
accept this Resource Allocation process and why it should be done this way. Dave Clouse added that
each consortium would then need to make this a priority.

Bill Fleiner added that this Field Unit Strategy applied to the movement towards a statewide system that
has a level of interoperability as defined by the SIEC definition. Dave Clouse agreed and stated that
there may be many versions to work through to get the details, but Incident Command Structure needs
to be used as the guide. Sheriff Liedle added that she agreed that every consortium needed to agree
that Category #1 radios would be deployed to the Incident Command level in each project, so that
communication was available at this level statewide.

Frank Ford reiterated his concerns. Currently Madison County has all Category 4 or older radios, some
with crystals. The Forest Service in their area has Category 3 narrow band radios that Madison County
needs to be able communicate with before the next upcoming fire season. If Madison County is forced
to buy the more expensive Category 1 radios they will purchase a lot fewer, and not have any radios to
recycle. They want to purchase 14 Category 2 radios and replace all the old Category 4, so they can
communicate immediately with the entities that help with their local issues. But these radios are not
currently upgradeable to trunked, but this conversion is supposed to be available in the future according
to the vendor.

There was a great deal of discussion about this current state of equipment and future upgradeablility.
The SIEC definition was read aloud for clarity, and the definition clearly states that radios must be P25
trunk capable. The criteria of FY04 funds did not state the SIEC definition as the standard, so how
those funds are spent is not the issue at hand. The current FY05 funding will require that radios
purchased be P25 according to Gary Hindoien, DES. The difference in equipment was discussed and
Motorola representatives added that they currently have programs that offer discounts on P25 radios
that can be upgraded to trunk that might work for Madison County. Most PDs agreed that it is critical to
keep the goal of having all ICS Command Controllers operating on Category 1 radios.

Several possible scenarios were suggested for Madison County: including purchasing fewer radios this
year and then more next year. After much discussion and clarification, Dave Clouse offered that the
strategy could be changed to include purchase of Category 1 or 2 with FY 05 funding. Bill Fleiner
clarified that the SAC will require that any FY05 funds be used for P25 Category 1 or 2, but if Madison
has FY04 funds they could in fact buy Category 3. Frank Ford agreed that Madison County would
proceed towards interoperability within this radio strategy. Sheriff Liedle reassured the PDs that the
concerns of Madison and other small counties would be addressed. The PD agreed to have Dave
Clouse revise the Radio System Deployment Strategy with their suggestions and then it will be sent via

Central Project Management Discussion
The PD focused their discussion on Central Project Management (CPM). Sheriff Liedle shared
information from the Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) who met with Lewis & Clark last week.
During the meeting it was acknowledged that the criteria for awarding future Homeland Security funding
needed to be revised. Sheriff Liedle delivered a very strong message to ODP that the funding is too
hard to manage. She stressed that the PD should push to have funding criteria be based on

                                  2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
performance. She added that by adopting this radio system strategy the PDs might persuade FEMA
and ODP to follow this lead and change the funding criteria.
Sheriff Liedle also stressed that the PDs had the SIEC approvals needed, and that they could proceed
to advanced the shared needs of the consortia by providing a Scope of Work (SOW) for a Central
Project Manage based on the approved radio system strategy. The legal issues and DES funding
involved in contracting for services were discussed. There may be some difficulties on the law
enforcement side, but with the assistance of the PSSB these issues can be addressed. All agreed that
this SOW needed to be on the fast track, and that a smaller group needed to work on preparing a SOW
and to investigate the legal entity needed to contract for such services. It was moved, seconded and
passed to have Dave Clouse and Chris Christensen prepare of draft SOW for Central Project
Management, and to investigate what legal requirements will need to be met before the next Project
Directors meeting. The SOW will cover the strategies listed in the approved radio system strategy. A
draft SOW may be circulated to the Project Directors via email to review before the meeting.

The next meeting will be Friday, October 21, 2005 from 9:00- 2:00 pm at Ft. Harrison.

The meeting adjourned at 2:40 pm.

                                 2005_09_22_Project Directors minutes
                            Adopted - Radio System Deployment Strategy (Expanded Detail)

                                             What do we want to accomplish?

                                                                                                                            Target: HYBRID SYSTEM
                                                                                                                                 - P25 Trunked
 Steps or milestones in the strategy are based on funding, not time                                                              - P25-Conventional
(Note: this graph is not linear in scale)                                                                                        - Color Channels

                 $                       $                                   $                             $                       $

             Narrow Band             P25 Conv.                Infrastructure:                        Microwave                 Next Step
                                    Narrow Band                Based on:                             Connectivity             Determined
                                                                 - Coverage                                                   By Project
                                                                    - Local Needs                                              Directors
                                                                    - System Needs
                                                                 -Microwave Ready

     The foundation to ensure that all of this works together over time, when future funding is in doubt, is:
                  GOAL: Consortiums reach milestones together
                  Centralized Project Management - Frequency Planning, Encryption Key Planning,                        (Concept does not prioritize any project)
                  Coordination - Collaboration – Funding – Governance (including state agency projects)
                  Prioritization of steps, local need is the first priority (within the definition of state interoperability established by the SIEC)
                  Business Practice Review and Training

Strategy would need to include:

             1. Overall System                                                                6. Funding
                   a. Trunking                                                                     a. WMD
                   b. Conventional Repeated                                                        b. DPHHS
                   c. Mutual Aid (Color                                                            c. Fire Grants
                      Channels)                                                                    d. National Guard
             2. Field Units (Mobiles &                                                             e. Highway Traffic Safety
                Portables)                                                                         f. Transportation (MDT)
             3. Sites & Towers                                                                     g. FEMA
             4. Microwave                                                                          h. Legislature
                   a. Voice                                                                        i. Congress
                   b. Data                                                                    7. Business Practices
             5. Frequencies                                                                        a. Training
                   a. System Frequencies                                                           b. Procedures
                   b. Conventional Repeated
                   c. Mutual Aid
                   d. Inter-op Plans
                   e. Encryption Key Plans
           Adopted - Radio System Deployment Strategy (Expanded Detail)

                        What do we want to accomplish?

                                       Field Unit Upgrade Strategy:

 New radio equipment is Category 1 type and each consortium will develop a deployment strategy
 based on the Incident Command Structure. The “Trickle Down” Strategy” is used to re-deploy
 serviceable category 3 or 2 radios until all radios are a Category 1 type.

Field Unit Level                    Description                       Minimum Standard
Category 1: P25 -Trunking           P25 Trunking Capable              Deploy based on the ICS
Capable                                                                          Command Structure
Category 2: P25 Conventional        P25 Conventional (Non-
                                                                                 Phase out third
(Existing)                          Trunking)
Category 3: Newer -                 Narrow band conventional                    Phase out second
Category 4: Old                     Wide band conventional
                                                                                Phase out first
Encryption added to Category 1 Radios for ICS commanders and other users as decided at the
consortium level – Encryption key(s) designated for statewide use carried in all radios.

Trickle Down (Resource Allocation) Strategy
New mobiles/portable radios are required to meet the Category 1 standard.
ICS Command structure determines sequence, Commanders should have encrypted radios. Encryption
strategy determined at Project Directors level.

Existing Category 3 radios are redistributed to replace Category 4 radios until all Category 4 radios are
out of service. Then category 3 is phased out and finally category 2 radios phased out.

Replacement strategy: Agency, discipline, jurisdiction, consortium, other consortiums.

  For example, Sheriff with category 3 radio passes this radio to replace a Category 4 radio and receives
  a new Category 1 radio.
This “Trickle Down” strategy will allow radios to be redistributed and the 1 milestone to be achieved. This
same strategy can be used with repeaters, base stations and even towers.

Each consortium will set priorities for deployment within ICS structure

Note: Field Unit means Mobile & Portable radios
         Adopted - Radio System Deployment Strategy (Expanded Detail)

                       What do we want to accomplish?

                        Infrastructure Upgrade Strategy:

Upgrade statewide as a single project
       coordinated by Project Directors Board
       using a single project manager
           o design review, link verification audits
           o write bids, oversee contractor work
           o frequency planning and licensing
           o encryption key planning
       each consortium sets the priority of deployment within each consortium’s area of

Sites chosen based on coverage and need:
    1 - of local agencies need for portable & mobile coverage and
    2 - of the statewide system

Site upgrades coordinated by project directors to ensure multiple consortiums common
interests are met.
            Grounding
            Building
            Tower
            Backup power
            Repeaters & Controlling Base Stations
            Site sharing/coverage interleaving
            Sites are microwave ready
      (Note: Repeaters - Category 1 type)

Priority conflicts resolved at the __???__ level.

(Site strategies will need further brainstorming)

To top