e911 board meeting agenda sandestin luau hotel destin€¦ · sandestin luau hotel . destin...

Page - 1 - of 2

E911 Board Meeting Agenda Sandestin Luau Hotel

Destin

*Special Note: Telephone conferencing will be available to allow county participation in meeting and to allow some Board members to participate telephonically when they cannot attend the meetings.

Reservationless Conference Number (888) 670-3525

Conference Code 2323004133 Wednesday, August 14, 2013 through Thursday, August 15, 2013 Beginning Time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business 1. Call to Order 2. Approve Meeting Minutes for the July 10-11, 2013 E911 Board Meetings 3. Old Business -Board Member Appointments - Discuss Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposal Updates 4. Discuss confidential data related to provider revenues by county, discrepancies,

disbursements and provider invoices 5. Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data 6. E911 Board Rules, Rule Development and Status Report 7. Discuss Potential 2013 State Grant Program Application and Rule 8. Discuss Rural County and State Grant Program Quarterly Reports and Change

Requests 9. Discuss Fee Allocation Percentages and the Emergency Communications Number E911 System Fund (E911 Trust Fund) 10. Service Provider Text-to-911 Presentations *AT&T Mobility Text-to-911 12. Discuss Strategic Initiatives – E911 Board Mission Statement 13. Other Business -Public Comments -Staff Reports

Page - 2 - of 2

14. Adjourn Chairman’s Statement: The E911 Board welcomes comments from citizens and interested parties about any 911 issue(s) or concern(s). Your opinions are valued in terms of providing input to the E911 Board members.

The E911 Board reviews Public Comments at the end of the meeting agenda. However, the E911 Board may elect to receive Public Comments on any scheduled agenda item. Individuals wishing to speak before the E911 Board during the Public Comments portion of the meeting, or on scheduled agenda items, should register the issue on the “Issues List” provided at the sign-up table inside the meeting room. Telephone conference attendees should send an email request to [email protected].

When addressing the Board, please state your name and organization for the record and speak clearly into the microphone. Time permitting, five minutes may be allowed for each speaker.

mailto:[email protected]

E911BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Dates:

E911 Board Meetings July 10-11, 2013

Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel Orlando Wednesday, July 10, 2013 and Thursday, July 11, 2013 beginning time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business

Board Members in meeting attendance: John Ford, Interim Chairman – Bureau Chief, DMS - Division of Telecommunications Carolyn Dill-Collier, 911 Coordinator, St. Lucie County Charles “Chuck” Freeman, 911 Coordinator, Pinellas County Stan Greer, Area Manager – External Affairs, AT&T Benjamin “Ben” Guthrie, 911 Coordinator, Gulf County Marilyn Haroutunian, Industry Consultant, TracFone Wireless Sandra “Sandy” Khazraee, Regulatory Affairs Director, Southern Region, Century Link David “Dave” Konuch, Attorney, Florida Cable Telecommunications Association Tom Nadler, Manager, Sprint Ira Pyles, 911 Coordinator, Hillsborough County Staff in meeting attendance: Wink Infinger, Statewide 911 Coordinator, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Clark Jennings, Legal Counsel, Office of the Attorney General Penney Taylor, Administrative Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications

Public in meeting attendance: Laurie Anderson, Charlotte County Steve Bosak, EM Solutions Silas Daniel, Sumter County Tricia Davis, Volusia County Ford Frey, CenturyLink Kevin Gardner, TCS Bob Gojanovich, TCS Tom Gross, Motorola Solutions Eddie Guererri, Replay Systems

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Two

Public in meeting attendance (continued): Tim Gundlach, TGRA Greg Holcomb, Lake County Todd Jones, CenturyLink Darren Light, AT&T Susan Nelson, Cassidian Lizette Resto, Osceola County James Robinson, AK Associates Annette Rodgers, Orange County Cindy Rolland, CenturyLink John Snapp, Intrado Chuck Spalding, Palm Beach County Dina Walker, Seminole County Alan Woods, Intrado Staff and Public Members participating via telephone conference: Kimberly Bickley, Administrative Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Christine Cooper, Okaloosa County Delia Fernandez, Accountant, Law, Redd, Crona & Munroe, P.A. Adrienne Jones, Administrative Support, Manpower Donald Lamb, Technical Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Rachel Love, Wakulla County Jennifer Payne, Suwannee County Kent Raheb, Technical Support, DMS-Division of

Telecommunications Jennifer Wilson, Martin County

(Some telephone conference participants may not be listed as no email was received acknowledging their participation.)

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Three 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. The meeting started with Mr. Ford informing the Board that due to management changes he has been assigned Interim Chairman at this time. Mr. For requested that staff conduct roll call. All current Board members were in attendance for this meeting. Roll call for staff members was conducted. Public members attending this meeting and participating in the telephone conference were requested to acknowledge their participation by signing the sign in sheet or by sending an email to staff to assure that they would be properly noted in the meeting minutes. Public members with issue(s) to be presented to the Board for consideration were requested to either list it on the issue(s) list provided or to send the issue(s) via electronic mail to staff. 2. Approve Meeting Minutes for the June 12-13, 2013 E911 Board Meetings Meeting minutes from the June 12-13, 2013 E911 Board meetings were reviewed by the Board. There were no significant changes or updates received from the Board members or staff after the initial draft was circulated. All updates were incorporated in the draft meeting minutes as presented. Ms. Dill-Collier made a motion to adopt the June 12-13, 2013 meeting minutes as received. Mr. Freeman seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). 3. Old Business Board Member Replacement Mr. Infinger informed the Board that 911 Coordinators ballots were tabulated and the top four candidates from Charlotte, Liberty, Marion County and St. Johns Counties would be submitted to the Florida Association of County for consideration and forwarding to the Governor’s Appointment Office for appointment. Mr. Ford informed the Board that Ms. Haroutunian’s appointment would end in October 2013 and that if no replacement is named; December 2013 Board meeting would be her last meeting.

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Four 4. Discuss confidential data related to provider revenues by county, discrepancies,

disbursements and provider invoices.

All confidential information discussed in a manner as not to disclose any confidential information and/or trade secrets.

In the interest of saving time while allowing Ms. Fernandez to connect to the meeting via telephone conference; Mr. Ford suggested that the Board review the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery invoices. Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda The following wireless service provider cost reimbursement invoices were reviewed for payment authorization approval to be paid from 2012/2013 Certification Forward funds: Mr. Freeman made a motion that payment authorization for Item 1, as listed on the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda in the total amount of $262,229.43 be approved. Ms. Dill-Collier seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Mr. Freeman made a motion that payment authorization for Item 2, as listed on the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda in the total amount of $25,440.16 be approved. Mr. Pyles seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Mr. Freeman made a motion that payment authorization for Item 3, as listed on the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda in the total amount of $24,198.98 be approved. Mr. Guthrie seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Mr. Freeman made a motion that payment authorization for Item 4, as listed on the Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Consent Agenda in the total amount of $1,044,035.02 be approved. Ms. Khazraee seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Mr. Greer and Mr. Nadler filed Form 8A. Ms. Fernandez reviewed confidential data related to the wireless and non-wireless April 30, 2013 monthly disbursements to counties and financial statements.

The Board was informed that issues continue to be encountered with remittance reports from some companies and with fluctuations of subscribers from some companies.

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Five 5. Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data Wireless Wireless financial reports for the period ending April 30, 2013 were reviewed and discussed by the Board. Mr. Ford instructed Ms. Fernandez that the wireless financial statement for the period ending April 30, 2013 should be modified to deduct the interest disbursement. The Board decided in the June 2013 meeting that the interest would not be disbursed. Mr. Freeman made a motion to authorize distribution of wireless revenues in the amount of $3,956,397.67. Ms. Haroutunian seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Nonwireless Nonwireless financial reports for the period ending April 30, 2013 were reviewed and discussed by the Board. Ms. Khazraee made a motion to authorize distribution of nonwireless revenues in the amount of $3,437,324.05. Mr. Greer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Provider Reimbursement Ms. Fernandez gave an overview of the Provider Reimbursement. This statement included a report of year-to-date reimbursements to wireless service providers for actual costs incurred to provide 911 or E911 service. Financial Statement Ms. Fernandez gave an overview of the financial statement for the period ending April 30, 2013 which included a summary of liabilities, trust fund balance, revenues, expenditures and subsequent events.

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Six 6. Discuss 2014/2015 Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposals The following Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposals for the 2014/2015 fiscal year were scheduled and reviewed face-to-face or by telephone with the Board. Some service providers provided updates to the 2013/2014 Cost Recovery Proposals. Each service provider provided an update on Text-to-911. Each presenter was informed before reviewing the cost proposals that all information should be discussed in a manner as not to disclose any confidential or proprietary information as this is a public meeting. Cellular South Candice Miller Sprint – Nextel Peggy Clattenburg 7. Discuss Rural County and State Grant Program Quarterly Reports and Change

Requests Mr. Raheb informed the Board that there were two (2) change requests to be presented to the Board for consideration. The following change requests were present to the Board: Okaloosa County S2-09-1-16 and Walton County S2-09-01-19 Okaloosa County and Walton County grant projects are linked and require an additional three month period extension for project completion of the Walton County project. Walton County is completing testing and invoicing with the anticipation if requiring no more than three months to complete. Ms. Khazraee made a motion to accept the Okaloosa County and Walton County grant change requests for an additional time extension of three months. Mr. Greer seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Charlotte County Petition for Variance from Rule 60FF-5.003 Charlotte County submitted a Petition for Variance from Rule 60FF-5.003 due to extension of time required over the two year project time. Mr. Ford informed the Board that the Petition was presented as informational as it is the right of the County to seek the extension. Detailed discussions will be held in the August Board meeting. Mr. Ford also informed the Board that until Petition is considered and approved by the Board the county should not expend any funds until approval is granted.

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Seven Discuss 2014/2015 Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposals (continued) The following Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposal(s) for the 2014/2015 fiscal year were scheduled and reviewed by telephone with the Board. Southern LINC Jean Martin Other issue(s) discussed:

Text-to-911 Mr. Freeman suggested that the Board schedule an open meeting in the next six-month period to allow service providers the opportunity to come before the Board to discuss Text-to-911 issues. Mr. Ford suggested that the subcommittee work with the counties regarding their plan related to Text-to-911 and a potential training curriculum.

Lunch Recess Discuss 2014/2015 Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposals (continued) The following Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposal(s) for the 2014/2015 fiscal year were scheduled and reviewed by telephone with the Board. AT&T Anne Schmidt 8. Discuss Board Rules, Rule Development and Status Report Mr. Infinger informed the Board that any concerns related to the State Grant Program would be discussed as a separate agenda item. However, if the Board was considering a potential State Grant Program with a sufficient date of November 1st the approved application would need to be received by the close of this meeting. Mr. Infinger informed the Board that a report of county immediate needs was included in the meeting package as information.

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Eight Discuss the recommendation(s) and vote on items from confidential data (continued) Other issue(s) discussed:

Service Provider letter(s) sent to provider(s) with remittance reports in arrears Prepaid Moratorium Sunset Informational Letter

Mr. Ford informed the Board that there was no rule activity around the sunset of the prepaid moratorium. Ms. Taylor informed the Board that the Prepaid Moratorium Sunset Informational Letter and the list of service providers in which the letter was sent was included in the meeting package for review and information. Mr. Ford stated that no responses had been received related to the Moratorium Sunset Information letter and suggested that the letter also be sent to Magic Jack and Ymax companies.

Discuss 2014/2015 Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposals (continued) The following Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposal(s) for the 2014/2015 fiscal year were scheduled and reviewed by telephone with the Board. Metro PCS Jarred Hill and David McCall Metro PCS representatives informed the Board that their company would not seek cost reimbursements for the 2013/2014 fiscal year. 9. Discuss Potential 2013 E911 State Grant Program Application and Rule The following issue(s) were discussed related to the E911 Board Grant Program:

Reimbursable Grants State Grant Program for current fiscal year Rule Development

Ms. Khazraee made a motion to direct Board counsel to proceed with rule making process for the State Grant Program to be presented at the August meeting for review and potential vote. Ms. Dill-Collier seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0) Other issue(s) discussed:

State Grant Program Priorities

Ms. Khazraee made a motion to leave all seven priorities in-place with the understanding that grant needs would be granted in accordance to the current priorities. Mr. Nadler seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Other issue(s) discussed:

Carry Forward Excess

E911 Board Meeting 071013 Page Nine Discuss 2014/2015 Wireless Service Providers Cost Recovery Proposals (continued) 2013/2014 Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposals Mr. Freeman made a motion to accept the modified 2013/2014 Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposals as presented in the amount of $9,235,949.89. Ms. Haroutunian seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). 2014/2015 Cost Recovery Ms. Dill-Collier made a motion to accept the modified 2014/2015 Wireless Service Provider Cost Recovery Proposals as presented in the amount of $10,407,414.86. Ms. Haroutunian seconded the motion which carried unanimously (10-0). Meeting Recess

E911 Board Meeting 071113 Page Ten Thursday, July 11, 2013 beginning time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business Call to Order Meeting called to order at approximately 9:00 a.m. The meeting started with staff announcing that all current ten (10) Board members were present for this meeting. 10. Discuss Fee Allocation Percentages and the Emergency Communications Number

E911 System Fund (E911 Trust Fund) There were no issues to discuss related to Fee Allocation Percentages at this time as this item is placed on the agenda each month as a place holder to allow conversation, if needed. Mr. Ford provided an overview of the remaining agenda items. 11. Text-to-911 Presentations (beginning at 9:00 a.m.) The following Text-to-911 Presentations were presented to the Board by PowerPoint presentations:

Intrado John Snapp, Presenter

TCS

Bob Gojanovich, Presenter

E911 Board Meeting 071113 Page Eleven Discuss Potential 2013 E911 State Grant Program Application and Rule (continued) The Board discussed some general conditions for the State Grant Program with some updates. Some condition(s) discussed:

5.1.3 Funding request will only be considered for actual 911 systems in production and delivery, systems in beta testing are not fundable

6.3.2 Number of fundable PSAPs – limited to one per county Cost reimbursement funds (staff to review with legal for rule making discussions) HB1309 – new legislation affects on grant disbursement Grant application quote submission relative to State Plan

(issues discussed related to county quotes from companies with no presence in Florida and certification for uptime and services provided – staff agreed to research issue)

12. Discuss E911 Board Strategic Initiative Issues Issues related to the Strategic Initiatives and Mission Statement tabled. 13. Meeting Adjourn Next scheduled meeting: August 14 – August 15, 2013 beginning time 9:00 a.m. until conclusion of business

LOCATION: Sandestin Luau Hotel 9300 Emerald Coast Parkway Sandestin (850) 267-8000

PWT/pwt

APPLICATION FOR

THE E911 STATE GRANT PROGRAM

W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 60FF1-5.003 E911 State Grant Program - Application

effective 98/1/20132

Markup Color Legend Red – General changes Blue – Reimbursement type Grant changes

E911 State County Grant Application, effective 89/1/20132 Page 2 W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Fla. Admin. Code R. 60FF1-5.003 E911 State Grants

1.0 Purpose The E911 State Grant Program is to assist counties with the installation of Enhanced 911 (E911) systems and to provide “seamless” E911 throughout the State of Florida. 2.0 Eligibility

The Board of County Commissioners in any county in the State of Florida is eligible to apply for this grant program. Funding priorities are established in Addendum I.The amount and availability of funds in the Trust Fund for allocation each year is subject to the annual appropriations by the Legislature. Grants shall be prioritized based on the funding priorities established in Addendum I and awarded based on the availability of funds. 3.0 Definitions A. Enhanced 911 (E911): As defined by Section 365.172(3)(i), Florida Statutes, and as referenced

in the State E911 Plan under Section 365.171, Florida Statutes. B. E911 Maintenance: Means the preventative, routine and emergency maintenance required by the

State E911 Plan, in order to maintain the E911 Systems in operable working condition. C. E911 System: Means the Public Safety Answering Point equipment, in accordance with the State

E911 Plan, including 911 call routing, processing, mapping and call answering communications equipment.

D. Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB): Means the independent organization that

establishes and improves standards of accounting and financial reporting for U.S. state and local governments.

E. Next Generation 911 (NG-911): Means the designation for an advanced 911 emergency

communications system or service that provides a communications service subscriber with 911 service and, in addition, directs 911 emergency requests for assistance to appropriate public safety answering points based on the geographical location from which the request originated, or as otherwise provided in the State E911 Plan under Section 365.171, Florida Statutes, and that provides for automatic number identification and automatic location identification features and emergency data information through managed IP-based networks.

F. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): As defined by Section 365.172(3)(a), Florida Statutes,

and as referenced in the State E911 Plan under Section 365.171, Florida Statutes.


4.0 E911 State Grant Program Calendar Schedule

Counties submit Application by November 1As published in the Florida Administrative Register

E911 Board Members evaluate applications November Within two months of the submission date- December

E911 Board votes on applications to fund at regularly scheduled meeting

Within three months of the submission date November – December

E911 Board sends notification of funding and issues check to counties approved for funding

Within four months of the submission date before January 30

Implementation period One year from receipt of award and funds. Expiration of the right to incur costs Two years from receipt of award and funds.

5.0 General Conditions 5.1 Applications must be delivered to the following address:

State of Florida E911 Board ATTN: E911 Board Administrative Staff 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 160135 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950

5.2 The applicant must provide one original of the pages for Application Form items 1 through 14

and the associated quotes. The grant application package must be postmarked or delivered on or before November the submission date specified in the E911 Board notification of a State E911 Program as published in the Florida Administrative Register1, of each year. Failure to provide these documents will result in automatic rejection of the grant application. One scanned copy of the entire submitted package should also be provided on a CD-ROM, to ensure quality of the documents to be reviewed.

5.3 The E911 Board will not consider leasing of equipment unless the applicant can show that

leasing rather than purchase will reduce total costs. Leasing costs should be calculated to account for only the first year warranty and maintenance costs and should not include upfront maintenance costs to reduce the lease amount.

5.4 All grant applications shall be accompanied by at least one complete quote for equipment or

services. Grant applications totaling $35,000.00 or more must be accompanied by at least three written substantiated competitive complete quotes from different vendors. Complete quote submittals shall include a detailed scope of work, all pages included in the vendor proposal, breakdown of all costs including equipment and service deliverables. The E911 Board will compare the three quotes to any existing state contract in order to determine appropriate funding. Any county that has made a good faith effort to obtain at least three competitive quotes and has not been able to obtain the quotes can request E911 Board review based on substantiated proof of request for quotes or posting of the request with documentation of the limited responses.

5.5 If the grant application does not exceed the threshold amount of $195,000, the county can initiate

a request for approval for sole source funding. These will be considered on a case-by-case basis.


Justification for sole source funding shall be provided with the application. Sole source will be approved if provided in accordance with Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, or with provision of a letter from the county’s purchasing department that the project is a sole source procurement based on the county’s purchasing requirements, which shall be provided with this grant application.

5.6 Applicants requesting items from different funding priorities should complete a separate

application for each priority. See Addendum I - Funding Priorities for the E911 State Grant Program for a listing of funding priorities. Items from the same funding priorities should be combined in the same application and shall comply with General Conditions items 5.4 and 5.5.

5.7 Should two or more counties jointly apply for a grant, each county will be required to complete

and submit a grant application detailing the funds requested and the county responsible for the funds. I, in addition to one combined grant application detailing the entire project and a memorandum of understanding of all counties involved shall be submitted. The combined grant application shall comply with General Conditions items 5.4 and 5.5.

5.8 Procurement shall be based on the county’s purchasing requirements and the applicable State

purchasing requirements, including Section 112.061, Florida Statutes. All travel and associated per diem costs proposed shall be in compliance with General Conditions item 6.3.5.

5.9 Funding application requests must include a scope of work that clearly establishes the tasks to be

performed. The applications shall include all tasks that are required for successful completion of the project. The project shall be divided into quantifiable units of deliverables that shall be received and accepted in writing by the county before payment. Each deliverable must be directly related to the scope of work and must specify the required minimum level of service to be performed and the criteria for evaluating the successful completion of each deliverable.

5.109 Funding requests must include all necessary costs required for full implementation of the

proposed solution including that of any third party. Should the county grant application request or grant award be less than the projected cost of the equipment or service, the county should provide verification of the ability to fund the difference. Pricing submitted cannot be contingent upon “yet to be” determined fees for products and services by the proposer or any other third party required for implementation.

5.11 The county shall provide information on the county’s preceding year E911 fee revenue amount,

the preceding year carry forward funding amount and the total carry forward balance amount in the county E911 fund. The amount of grant funding award is limited based on the total amount of carry forward funding in the county E911 fund in excess of an amount calculated based on the allowable 30% carry forward amount for a two year basis. The county shall include the amount of their county carry forward funding being utilized for this grant in the Applied County Carry Forward or other Funding (if applicable) line in the Application Form item #12. Budget/Expenditure Report.

5.12 Detailed information is required for any grant application requesting funding for systems that

require immediate system replacement for provisioning of enhanced 911 in the county. Include


detailed justification and explanation for any E911 system with an expected remaining life of less than 1 year.

5.13 Funding requests contingent upon “beta testing” or for products and services not in general

production and installation will not be funded. 6.0 Limitation on Use of Funds 6.1 Only eligible expenses for E911 service listed in Section 365.172(9), Florida Statutes, (Appendix

I) that are not specifically excluded in this application will be funded. 6.2 Specifically excluded E911 expenses:

6.2.1 Salaries and associated expenses for 911 coordinators and call takers or other 911 personnel will not be funded.

6.2.2 Wireline database costs from the Local Exchange Carrier, vehicle expenses, consoles,

workstation furniture and aerial photography expenses will not be funded. Interconnecting hardware and network equipment for NG-911 PSAPs is fundable; however, outside plant copper or fiber cabling systems and building entrance build out costs areis not fundable.

6.3 Funding limitations are specified on the following items:

6.3.1 Recurring network and circuit costs, equipment maintenance and warranty costs will not be funded on more than the first year implementation period.

6.3.2 Grant funding shall be limited (per grant cycle) to eligible expenditures for two one

PSAPs per county; either two one primary or two one secondary PSAPs or one primary and one secondary PSAP. Counties with only one consolidated PSAP in the county, with no other primary or secondary PSAPs, may be eligible for grant funding for one backup PSAP.

6.3.3 Selective router equipment costs are limited to the primary PSAP system and are limited

to one per county.

6.3.4 Training cost funding is limited to new system & equipment training. 6.3.5 The allowable grant funding for travel expenses is limited to the authorized amounts

established in Section 112.061, Florida Statutes, and the Department of Financial Services Guidelines for State Expenditures. Allowable costs for daily per diem shall not exceed $186.00.

7.0 Approval and Award 7.1 The E911 Board will review each application for compliance with the requirements of terms and

conditions.


7.2 Grant awards will be withheld for any county that has a grant with a past-due quarterly report or

past-due final documentation and closeout, of previous E911 Board grant awards. 7.3 Applications will be awarded based upon the priorities set by the E911 Board as listed in

Addendum I - Funding Priorities for the E911 State Grant Program. 7.4 The E911 Board will adjust the amount awarded to a county based upon the availability of funds,

eligibility of requested items, published quotes, increased effectiveness of grant funds, minimum system requirements for performing the needed E911 function as specified in the State E911 Plan, or documented factors provided in the grant application submission. NG-911 network systems should include a comparative presentation of network alternatives, including applicable LEC, CLEC, County and State alternatives. All stepped pricing should be thoroughly explained including the corresponding benefits for the County and the E911 Board.

7.5 Any county that requires Board of County Commissioner approval of the grant program funding,

prior to commencement of the project, shall notify the E911 Board in Application Form item #10. Grant funds for approved grant applications will be held until the county provides written notification to the E911 Board of the Board of County Commissioners approval of the project prior to the funds being disbursed from the E911 Trust Fund.

7.6 Any conditional hold, for documentation submittal referenced in 7.2 and 7.5, is limited to the last

regularly scheduled E911 Board meeting application vote established in the grant program calendar.

8.0 Financial and Administrative Requirements 8.1 Grant funds shall be provided on a cost reimbursement basis. All funds shall be deposited in an

interest bearing account maintained by the grantee, and each grant shall be tracked using a unique accounting code designator for deposits, disbursements and expenditures assigned by the county. All grant funds in the account maintained by the grantee shall be accounted for separately from all other funds. Accounting shall be consistent with GASB 31 financial reporting.

8.2 Each grantee may submit reimbursement claims to the E911 Board as needed; however claims

are limited to one request per month. Receipt of reimbursement funds from the E911 Board is contingent on the timely and accurate submittal of funding requests. Requests for reimbursement of expenditures must be submitted on the approved E911 Board financial reporting forms. Incomplete claims forms or claims not submitted on the correct form cannot be processed and will be returned for corrections. Submit only those forms for budget categories in which you have incurred expenditures. Upon written request and accompanying documentation justifying the need, a county may receive advancement of funding within a 90-day timeframe of actual disbursement to the vendor.

8.3 Reimbursement claims shall include only expenditures claimed against the specific grant number awarded and shall include copies of purchase orders and paid vouchers, paid invoices, copies of


checks, journal transfers, etc. To assure prompt processing, complete reimbursement claims should be e-mailed to:

[email protected] 8.24 Grant funds, including accrued interest, can only be used between the beginning and ending dates

of the grant term, unless the E911 Board authorizes an extension. 8.3 The right to incur costs under this grant expires two years from receipt of award and funds. The

grantee may not incur costs for payment with grant funds past the expiration date. 8.3 Grant funds provided in excess of the amount to which the actual cost incurred to meet the terms

and conditions of the grant agreement must be refunded to the E911 Board and sent to the Florida E911 Board’s Post Office Box address:

Florida E911 Board Post Office Box 7117 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

The refund shall include transmittal information detailing the amount of returned funds that are excess grant funding and/or returned interest and shall include the number of the associated grant.

8.45 Responsibility for grant funding and any failure to perform the minimum level of service

required by the grant application and the application scope of work cannot be transferred under any circumstances from the County. Failure to perform the scope of work or expenditure of funds for other than allowable 911 costs as stated in the grant application shall require the county to return the awarded funds to the E911 Board.

8.54 On grant awards of $25,000.00 or more, any interest generated must be spent as part of this

project or the earned interest shall be returned to the E911 Board. Utilization of the earned interest funds shall be authorized through an approved Request for Change Form and expenditure documentation shall be included in the final report. On grant awards of $25,000.00 or less, any interest generated can be spent as part of this project or used for other allowable E911 expenditures listed in Section 365.172(9), Florida Statutes.

8.5 Responsibility for property and equipment obtained under a grant cannot be transferred under

any circumstances. If a sale or transfer of such property or equipment occurs within five years after a grant ends, funds must be returned to the E911 Board on a pro rata basis.

8.6 The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or

part by grant funds will be maintained for a minimum of five years or thereafter until the effective replacement date of the system.

8.7 If a grantee materially fails to comply with any term of an award, the Board shall take one or

more of the following actions, as appropriate in the circumstances:

Temporarily withhold grant payments pending correction of the deficiency by the grantee, Disapprove all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance,



Suspend or terminate the current award for the grantee’s project, Suspend or deny future grant awards.

The Board will provide the grantee an opportunity for a hearing, appeal, or other administrative proceeding to which the grantee is entitled under Florida Statute or regulation applicable to the action involved.

8.8 Grant awards may be terminated in whole or in part by the Board, with the consent of the

grantee, in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination conditions, including the effective date and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be terminated. Grant awards may be terminated by the grantee upon written notification to the Board, detailing the reasons for such termination, the effective date, and return of all funding.

8.9 Grant funds provided in excess of the amount to which the actual cost incurred to meet the terms

and conditions of the grant agreement must be refunded to the E911 Board and sent to the Florida E911 Board’s Post Office Box address:

Florida E911 Board Post Office Box 7117 Tallahassee, Florida 32314

The refund shall include transmittal information detailing the amount of returned funds that are excess grant funding and/or returned interest and shall include the number of the associated grant.

9.0 Grant Reporting Procedures 9.1 Grantees will be required to submit quarterly reports summarizing all expenditures and status of

the grant project. Quarterly reports shall include an updated Application Form item #12 Budget/Expenditure Report and a completed Appendix III Quarterly Report Form.

9.1.1 Reporting will begin at the conclusion of the first full quarter after the award. The report

periods will end on March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year. Reports are due within 30 days of the ending report period.

9.1.2 Earned interest shall be reported cumulatively and included with each quarterly report. 9.1.3 Updated reports and associated information should be e-mailed to [email protected].

9.2 At project completion, a final report shall be submitted based on the same reporting requirements

described in grant reporting item 9.1. The county shall determine the final completion date based on the final payment date, or the initiation date of the warranty period. Final documentation including copies of all expenditures and corresponding invoices shall be submitted within 90 days of the final report.

9.3 No changes or departures from the original request are authorized unless approved in writing by

the E911 Board. Such requests shall be submitted using the form attached in Appendix II,



Request for Change Form. Any unauthorized change shall require the return of grant funds, plus any interest accrued. 9.3.1 Time extension requests will not be granted unless the county has executed a contract for

the grant equipment and/or services, or demonstrates good cause for failure to execute a contract within twelve months of award. Good cause documentation shall include a new project timeline schedule.

9.3.2 Time extensions shall be limited to a maximum of one additional year when approved by

the E911 Board. 9.3.3 Request for Change forms and associated information should be e-mailed to [email protected].

9.4 The Appendix III Quarterly Report Form shall inform the E911 Board of significant impacts to

grant supported activities. Significant impacts include project status developments affecting time schedules and objectives, anticipated lower costs or producing beneficial results in addition to those originally planned. Additionally, problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will materially impair the ability to meet the timely completion of the award must be reported. The disclosure must include a statement of the action taken, or contemplated, and any assistance needed to resolve the situation.

9.5 The cCounty’s Board of County Commission chairperson shall be notified when overdue

quarterly reports or, final reports and final documentation is are not received before the next E911 Board meeting following the month after the end of the quarter in which they are due.

9.6 Funding continuance will be based on timely submission of quarterly reports. 9.7 Final document submission and close-out of a grant does not affect the E911 Board’s right to

disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of an audit or financial review. The county shall remain obligated to return any funds expended that do not comply with the terms and conditions of the grant award.



County

STATE OF FLORIDA E911 BOARD E911 STATE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM

Total Amount Requested:

Project Title: 1. Board of County Commissioners Chair:

Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: - Phone: ( ) Fax: Email Address:

2. County 911 Coordinator:

Mailing Address:

City: State: Zip: - Phone: ( ) Fax: Email Address:

3. Federal Tax ID Number:


County

COUNTY INFORMATION USE 12 POINT FONT OR LEGIBLE HAND PRINTING

4. County Fact Information

A. County B. Population C. Total Number of Incoming Nonwireless Trunks D. Total Number of Incoming Wireless Trunks E. Number of PSAP’s F. Number of Call Taker Positions per PSAP G. Total Volume of 911 Calls H. What equipment is needed to provision the Enhanced 911 system?

I. What equipment is requested in this grant application?

J. Financial Information:

1.) What are the current annual costs for your E911 system (circuits, customer records hardware and software, etc.) not including maintenance?

2.) What are the current annual costs for maintenance of items included in 1.)?

3.) Total amount of E911 fee revenue received in the preceding year?

4.) Total amount of county carry forward funding retained in the preceding year?

5.) Current total amount of county carry forward funding?

6.) Two year maximum calculated amount for Applied Carry Forward Funding Calculation (multiply amount in J.3.) by 30% and then multiply by 2))

7.) Minimum calculated amount for Applied Carry Forward Funding Calculation (amount in J.5.) subtracted by amount in J.6.)) Insert in Item 12. Budget Expenditure Report


5. Describe your county’s existing E911 system. Include specific information on existing system equipment upgrades and when the installation of this equipment was completed..

6. Describe the scope of work for the proposed project including any

goal(s) and objectives. Include the tasks to be performed as part of the project. Provide scope of work in quantifiable units of deliverables that shall be received and accepted. For each deliverable specify the required minimum level of service to be performed and the criteria for evaluating the successful completion of each deliverable.

7. Justification of the need for the proposed project. Provide detailed

information on the existing system’s condition including a detailed justification for any system with an expected remaining life of less than 1 year.

8. Describe why your county will not be able to complete this project

without this grant funding.


9. Briefly describe how this grant project would be in concurrence with the State E911 Plan.

10. Describe the required steps withand an anticipated time schedule or

time frame with procurement and payment milestones and a total project completion date.

11. Sole source justification (if applicable).


12. Budget/Expenditure Report Prepare an itemized Grant Budget (“Line Item” breakdown should include separated systems, i.e.; E911 System, logging recorder, centerline mapping, etc. and services items). The completed form shall be used to complete quarterly report requirements, listing expenditures and revisions {if any} in appropriate columns. If there is insufficient space, please include details in an attachment. Budget costs should match requested vendor quote. County: Grant Number: Report Date: For Grant Period Ending: March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31 Year: FINAL Proposed Budget USE FOR QUARTERLY REPORTS

Line Item Unit Price ($) Quantity Total Cost ($) Revised Budget

Total Expenditure for Grant Period ($)

A. Systems (Hardware, Software, Equipment & Labor)

Total System Items B. Services (Training, Maintenance and Warranty Items)

Total Service Items $ Less any Applied County Carry Forward or other Funding (if applicable) $

Grant Request Total $

USE FOR ALL REPORTS Total Amount of Grant Awarded $ Total Interest for Grant Period $ Final Completion Date: Signature, County 911 Coordinator


County 13. Assurances

ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The grantee accepts all grant terms and conditions. Grantee understands that grants are contingent upon the availability of funds. DISCLAIMER: The grantee certifies that the facts and information contained in this application and any attached documents are true and correct. A violation of this requirement may result in revocation of the grant and return of all grant funds and interest accrued (if any), pursuant to the E911 Board authority and any other remedy provided by law. NOTIFICATION OF AWARDS: The grantee understands and accepts that the notice of award will be advertised on the Florida E911 website. MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION: The grantee agrees that any improvement, expansion or other effect brought about in whole or part by grant funds, will be maintained. No substantial changes or departures from the original proposal shall be permitted unless the E911 Board gives prior written authorization. Any unauthorized change will necessitate the return of grant funds, and accrued interest (if any) to the E911 Board. Failure to utilize grant funds as represented may jeopardize eligibility to be considered for future funding. 14. Authority I hereby affirm my authority and responsibility for the use of funds requested. _________________________________________________ ______________ SIGNATURE – CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE _________________________________________________ Printed Name _________________________________________________ ______________ ATTESTED TO WITNESS DATE


Appendix I

NO requests for funding will be acknowledged for any items not specified in Section 365.172, Florida Statutes, Emergency communication number “E911”; paragraph (9) (shown below).

Section 365.172 (9), Florida Statutes

AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES OF E911 FEE.— (a) For purposes of this section, E911 service includes the functions of database management, call taking, dispatching, location verification, and call transfer. (b) All costs directly attributable to the establishment or provision of E911 service and contracting for E911 services are eligible for expenditure of moneys derived from imposition of the fee authorized by this section. These costs include the acquisition, implementation, and maintenance of Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) equipment and E911 service features, as defined in the Public Service Commission's lawfully approved 911 and E911 and related tariffs or the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of other E911 equipment, including call answering equipment, call transfer equipment, ANI controllers, ALI controllers, ANI displays, ALI displays, station instruments, E911 telecommunications systems, visual call information and storage devices, recording equipment, telephone devices and other equipment for the hearing impaired used in the E911 system, PSAP backup power systems, consoles, automatic call distributors, and interfaces, including hardware and software, for computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, integrated CAD systems for that portion of the systems used for E911 call taking, network clocks, salary and associated expenses for E911 call takers for that portion of their time spent taking and transferring E911 calls, salary and associated expenses for a county to employ a full-time equivalent E911 coordinator position and a full-time equivalent mapping or geographical data position and a staff assistant position per county for the portion of their time spent administrating the E911 system, training costs for PSAP call takers, supervisors, and managers in the proper methods and techniques used in taking and transferring E911 calls, costs to train and educate PSAP employees regarding E911 service or E911 equipment, including fees collected by the Department of Health for the certification and recertification of 911 public safety telecommunicators as required under s. 401.465, and expenses required to develop and maintain all information, including ALI and ANI databases and other information source repositories, necessary to properly inform call takers as to location address, type of emergency, and other information directly relevant to the E911 call taking and transferring function. Moneys derived from the fee may also be used for next-generation E911 network services, next-generation E911 database services, next generation E911 equipment, and wireless E911 routing systems. (c) The moneys may not be used to pay for any item not listed in this subsection, including, but not limited to, any capital or operational costs for emergency responses which occur after the call transfer to the responding public safety entity and the costs for constructing, leasing, maintaining, or renovating buildings, except for those building modifications necessary to maintain the security and environmental integrity of the PSAP and E911 equipment rooms.


Request for Change Name of County:

BUDGET LINE ITEM CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO

TOTAL $ $

Justification For Change:

____________________________________ ______________ Signature of Authorized Official Date

For E911 Board use only.

Approved: Yes No _____________________________________ _____________________ E911 Board’s Authorized Representative Date

Appendix II


Quarterly Report County:

Grant Number:

Report Date:

Project Status Update:

Problems/Delays:

____________________________________ ______________ Signature of Authorized Official Date

Appendix III


Addendum I

Funding Priorities for the E911 State Grant Program The criteria for determining acceptability for disbursement of funds from the State of Florida E911 State Grant Program will be made on a PRIORITY basis. There will be seven (7) priorities as identified below: PRIORITY 1: Counties with E911 Phase II Primary and/or Secondary PSAP systems that require immediate system replacement to provision enhanced 911 status or when the expected remaining life of the system is less than 1 year. PRIORITY 2: Counties with E911 Phase II Primary and/or Secondary PSAP systems that require new or replacement of critical or necessary hardware or software for provisioning E911 Phase II status. This may include the following, listed in order of funding priority a through h:

a: Hardware and software for Customer Premise Equipment b: Lightning Protection Equipment c: Uninterruptible Power Supply Equipment d: E911 Voice Recording Equipment e: County E911 Standalone ALI Database Equipment f: E911 Map Display Equipment g: New additional 911 Call Taker Position Equipment h: Net clock

PRIORITY 3: Counties with E911 Phase II Systems requesting consolidation of E911 PSAPs, which decreases the number of Primary or Secondary PSAPs in the county by a minimum of one. This may include regional consolidated backup systems for counties consolidating backup systems for two or more counties. PRIORITY 4: Counties with E911 Phase II Systems that require mapping services necessary for provisioning E911 Phase II Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This may include the following, listed in order of funding priority a through b:

a: E911 Map System Equipment - E911 map generation hardware and software licensing is limited to components for two stations

b: GIS Centerline, point generation and map accuracy systems PRIORITY 5: Counties with E911 Phase II Systems requesting new NG-911 network funding for county or regional NG-911 IP transport equipment and services. PRIORITY 6: Counties with E911 Phase II Systems requesting new management information call monitoring system funding. PRIORITY 7: Counties with E911 Phase II Systems that require allowable E911 capital expense items that are not defined in Priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 to provision a complete E911 system. This may include E911 backup system equipment (pertaining exclusively to items listed in Priorities 2a-h only) in compliance with General Conditions item 6.3.2.


Regional E911 system project requests related to systems and equipment will be considered the highest priority within each priority category. Grants awards will be funded in order of priority assigned. As provided in Section 365.172(6)(a)3.b., Florida Statutes, “The counties must use the funds only for capital expenditures directly attributable to establishing and provisioning E911 services, which may include next-generation deployment.” Total funding for any priority may be adjusted based on the remaining funds available, the number of applications and the anticipated requests in the next funding cycle. The acceptability for disbursement of funds from the State of Florida E911 State Grant Program for any E911 expense items not expressly provided for in Priorities above shall be determined at the discretion of the E911 Board pursuant to its authority under Sections 365.172 and 365.173, Florida Statutes.

General changes are shown in Red. Reimbursement changes are shown in Blue

60FF1-5.003 E911 State Grant Programs. The E911 State Grant program is a grant program provided for the purpose of assisting State of Florida counties, as defined by Section 365.172(6)(a)3.b., F.S., with the installation of Enhanced 911 (E911), Phase II and Next Generation 911 systems.

(1) Eligibility. Any Board of County Commissioners in the State of Florida. (2) Definitions. (a) “Enhanced 911” (E911): As defined by Section 365.172(3)(i), F.S., and as referenced in the State E911 Plan under Section

365.171, F.S. (b) “E911 Maintenance”: Means the preventative, routine and emergency maintenance required by the State E911 Plan, in order

to maintain the E911 System in operable working condition. (c) “E911 System”: Means the Public Safety Answering Point equipment, in accordance with the State E911 Plan, including

911 call routing, processing, mapping and call answering communications equipment. (d) “Government Accounting Standards Board” (GASB): Means the independent organization that establishes and improves

standards of accounting and financial reporting for U.S. state and local governments. (e) “Next Generation 911” (NG-911): Means the designation for an advanced 911 emergency communications system or service

that provides a communications service subscriber with 911 service and, in addition, directs 911 emergency requests for assistance to appropriate public safety answering points based on the geographical location from which the request originated, or as otherwise provided in the State E911 Plan under Section 365.171, F.S., and that provides for automatic number identification and automatic location identification features and emergency data information through managed IP-based networks.

(f) “Public Safety Answering Point” (PSAP): As defined by Section 365.172(3)(a), F.S., and as referenced in the State E911 Plan under Section 365.171, F.S.

(3) General conditions. (a) Each county applying for E911 State Grant funds shall complete and submit W Form 3A, “Application for the E911 State

Grant Program,” effective 89/1/20132, which is incorporated herein by reference and which may be obtained from the E911 Board office at the following address:

http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-00514 or State of Florida E911 Board ATTN: Administrative Staff 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 160135 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950

The applicant must provide one original of the pages for Application Form items 1 through 14 and the associated quotes for the grant application postmarked or delivered on or before the submission date specified in the E911 Board notification of a State E911 Program as published in the Florida Administrative RegisterNovember 1 of each year.

(b) The E911 Board will approve grants for leased equipment only if the applicant county can demonstrate that a lease agreement would be financially beneficial to the grant program as a whole.

(c) Procurement shall be based on the county’s purchasing requirements and the applicable State purchasing requirements, including Section 112.061, F.S. All travel and associated per diem costs proposed shall be in accordance with paragraph (3)(u).

(d) All grant applications shall be accompanied by at least one complete quote for equipment or services. Grant applications totaling $35,000.00 or more must be accompanied by at least three written substantiated competitive complete quotes from different vendors. Complete quote submittals shall include a detailed scope of work, all pages included in the vendor proposal, breakdown of all costs including equipment and service deliverables. The E911 Board will compare the three quotes to any existing state contract in order to determine appropriate funding. Any county that has made a good faith effort to obtain at least three competitive quotes and has not been able to obtain the quotes can request E911 Board review based on substantiated proof of request for quotes or posting of the request with documentation of the limited responses.

(e) If the grant application does not exceed the threshold amount of $195,000, the county can initiate a request for sole source funding. Sole source funding will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Justification for sole source funding shall be provided with the application. Sole source funding will be approved if provided in accordance with Chapter 287, F.S., or with provision of a letter from the county’s purchasing department that the project is a sole source procurement based on the county’s purchasing requirements, which should be provided with the grant application.

http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-00514%20


(f) Priorities for awarding of grants will be determined by the E911 Board. Grant priorities may be adjusted by the E911 Board and published with the grant application package three (3) months prior to the application submission date. The grant priority list is available as an addendum with the grant application at the start of each grant cycle at the address shown in paragraph (3)(a).

(g) Recurring network and circuit costs, equipment maintenance and warranty costs will not be funded on more than the first year implementation period.

(h) No grant money will be awarded to be used for the purpose of paying 911 coordinators and call takers or other 911 personnel salaries and associated expenses.

(i) Two or more counties may apply for a joint grant, but each county must complete and submit W Form 3A as requested and indicated.

(j) Grant funding shall be limited (per grant cycle) to eligible expenditures for two one PSAPs per county; either onetwo primary or onetwo secondary PSAPs or one primary and one secondary PSAP. Counties with only one consolidated PSAP in the county, with no other primary or secondary PSAPs, may be eligible for grant funding for one backup PSAP.

(k) Selective router equipment costs are limited to the primary PSAP system and are limited to one per county. (l) Any county that requires Board of County Commissioner approval of the grant program funding, prior to commencement of

the project, shall notify the E911 Board in Application Form item #10. Grant funds for approved grant applications will be held until the county provides written notification to the E911 Board of the Board of County Commissioners approval of the project prior to the funds being disbursed from the E911 Trust Fund.

(m) Grant funds shall be provided on a cost reimbursement basis. Grant funds shall be deposited in an interest bearing account maintained by the grantee county, and each grant shall be assigned a unique accounting code designation for deposits, disbursements, and expenditures. All E911 State Grant funds in the account shall be accounted for separately from other grantee funds. Accounting shall be consistent with GASB 31 financial reporting. Utilization of the earned interest funds shall be authorized through an approved Request for Change Form and expenditure documentation shall be included in the final report. Grant funds including accrued interest may be used only between the beginning and ending dates of the grant, unless an extension is authorized by the E911 Board. Extension of time will not be granted unless the county has executed a contract for the grant equipment and/or services, or demonstrates good cause for failure to execute a contract within twelve months of award. Good cause documentation shall include a new project timeline schedule. Grant extensions shall be limited to a maximum of one additional year when approved by the E911 Board.

(n) Grantee counties must submit quarterly reports to the E911 Board, summarizing the expenditures and status of the grant project. Quarterly reports shall include an updated Application Form item #12 Budget/Expenditure Report and a completed Appendix III Quarterly Report Form. The reports are due 30 days after the end of the reporting period, which ends March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31. Earned interest shall be reported cumulatively and included with each quarterly report. Updated Grant Budget/Expenditure, Quarterly Report Forms, Request for Change Forms, and Final Report Forms and associated information should be e-mailed to [email protected]. The quarterly and final reports will be considered late if not received by the E911 Board Staff prior to the next scheduled E911 Board Meeting after the due date. Quarterly reports, change requests and final reports shall be signed by the county 911 coordinator. Emailed reports from the county 911 coordinator shall be considered as meeting this signature requirement.

(o) At project completion, a final report shall be submitted based on the same reporting periods described in paragraph (3)(n). The County shall determine the final completion date based on the final payment date or the initiation date of the warranty period. Final supporting documentation including copies of all expenditures and corresponding invoices shall be submitted within 90 days of the final report.

(p) The County’s Board of County Commission Chairperson shall be notified when overdue quarterly reports, final document and or final reports are not received before the next E911 Board meeting following the month after the end of the quarter in which they are due.

(q) Funding continuance will be based on timely submission of quarterly reports. The county shall remain obligated to return any funds expended that do not comply with the terms and conditions of the grant award.

(r) Grant awards will be withheld for any county that has a grant with a past-due quarterly report or past-due final documentation and closeout, of previous E911 Board grant awards.



(s) Responsibility for property and equipment obtained under a grant cannot be transferred under any circumstances. If a sale or transfer of such property or equipment occurs within five years after a grant ends, funds must be returned to the E911 Board on a pro rata basis.

(t) The amount and availability of funds in the Trust Fund for allocation each year is subject to an annual appropriation by the Legislature. The E911 Board will adjust the funds awarded to a county based upon the availability of funds, eligibility of requested items, published quotes, increased effectiveness of grant funds, minimum system requirements for performing the needed E911 function as specified in the State E911 plan, or documented factors provided in the grant application submission.

(u) The allowable grant funding for travel expenses is limited to the authorized amounts established in Section 112.061, F.S., and the Department of Financial Services Guidelines for State Expenditures. Allowable costs for daily per diem shall not exceed $186.00.

(v) Funding requests must include all necessary costs required for full implementation of the proposed solution including that of any third party. Should the county grant application request or grant award be less than the projected cost of the equipment or service, the county should provide verification of the ability to fund the difference. Pricing submitted cannot be contingent upon “yet to be” determined fees for products and services by the proposer or any other third party required for implementation.

(w) Funding application requests must include a scope of work that clearly establishes the tasks to be performed. The applications shall include all tasks that are required for successful completion of the project. The project shall be divided into quantifiable units of deliverables that shall be received and accepted in writing by the county before payment. Each deliverable must be directly related to the scope of work and must specify the required minimum level of service to be performed and the criteria for evaluating the successful completion of each deliverable.

(x) Responsibility for grant funding and any failure to perform the minimum level of service required by the grant application and the application scope of work cannot be transferred under any circumstances from the County. Failure to perform the scope of work or expenditure of funds for other than allowable 911 costs as stated in the grant application shall require the county to return the awarded funds to the E911 Board.

(4)(a) The E911 State Grant program will operate on the following schedule: (b) Schedule: 1. Counties submit applications: by November 1; 2. E911 Board evaluates applications: November – December; 3. E911 Board votes on applications at regularly scheduled meetings November – December; 4. E911 Board sends notification of award and issues checks to counties approved for funding: before January 30; 5. Implementation period: One year from receipt of award and funds; 6. Expiration of the right to incur costs: Two years from receipt of award and funds.

Rulemaking Authority 365.172(6)(a)11. FS. Law implemented 365.172(6)(a)3.b., 365.173(2)(i), 365.172(9)(a), (b), (c) FS. History–New 12-7-08, Amended 10-27-10, Formerly 60FF-5.003, Amended 8-25-11, 9-2-12.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD OF E911 RULE TITLE: RULE NO.: E911 State Grant Program 60FF1-5.003 PURPOSE AND EFFECT: This modification is an update to the existing E911 State Grant Program rule and application and includes changes required by 2013 Legislation Action (HB1309). Any Board of County Commissioners in the State of Florida is eligible to apply. The E911 State Grant Program will help maintain current private-sector employment level and investment for maintaining Florida's E911 system. SUBJECT AREA TO BE ADDRESSED: Required update RULEMAKING AUTHORITY: 365.172(6)(a)11. FS LAW IMPLEMENTED: 365.172(6)(a)3.b, 365.173(2)(i), 365.172(9)(a), (b), (c) FS IF REQUESTED IN WRITING AND NOT DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY THE AGENCY HEAD, A RULE DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP WILL BE SCHEDULED AND ANNOUNCED IN THE F.A.R. THE PERSON TO BE CONTACTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT AND A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY DRAFT, IF AVAILABLE IS: Wink Infinger, Statewide 911 Coordinator, Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Telecommunications, 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 135C, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 THE PRELIMINARY TEXT OF THE PROPOSED RULE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE.

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) E911 State Grant Program -2013 SERC Required Checklist, Draft 7-10-13.docx Revised: 05/11/2012

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Proposed Rule: Is a SERC Required Division (choose from drop-down list): E911 Board Rule (number & description):60FF1-5.003, E911 State Grant Program

Please remember to analyze the impact of the rule, NOT the statute, when completing this form.

I. Adverse Impact Determination a. Economic? (Check all that apply.)

Increased fees to be paid by licensee, applicant, registrant, etc. Increased costs of doing business (equipment, software, etc.) Increased personnel costs (additional employees, insurance, overtime, training, etc.) Decreased opportunity for profit (limits on fees, scope of business/practice, ability to

partner with others, etc.) b. Non-economic? (Check all that apply.)

Increased time and effort to comply (forms, tests, etc.) Increased need for specialized knowledge (legal, technical, etc.)

If any of the above boxes are checked, answer “Yes,” then continue to the next section. If no boxes are checked, answer “No,” and skip to Section III below. Yes No

II. Small Business Determination a. Are any of the affected entities a “small business?” (Check all that apply.)

200 or less permanent full-time employees; Net worth less than $5 million (including value of affiliates); Independently owned and operated (NOT a subsidiary of another entity); AND, Engaged in a commercial enterprise?

If ALL of the preceding boxes are checked, answer “Yes,” and skip to Section III below. If you did not check ALL of the above boxes, check “No,” then continue to the next qualification.

Yes No b. Small Business Certification

Does any affected entity have Small Business Administration 8(a) certification? Yes (see, www.ccr.gov) No

If the answers to I and II are “Yes,” the agency must prepare a SERC.

III. Regulatory Cost Increase Determination Direct: a. Increased Regulatory Cost: N/A b. Number of Entities Impacted: N/A c. Multiply a. times b.: N/A d. Is c. greater than $200,000? Yes No Indirect: e. Any ascertainable indirect costs? Yes No f. Amount of Indirect Cost: N/A g. Number of Entities Impacted: N/A h. Multiply g. times f.: N/A i. Is h. greater than $200,000? Yes No j. Is h. plus c. greater than $200,000? Yes No

http://www.ccr.gov/

Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) E911 State Grant Program -2013 SERC Required Checklist, Draft 7-10-13.docx Revised: 05/11/2012

If the answer to d., i., or j. is “Yes,” the agency must prepare a SERC.

Prepared By (type name): Wink Infinger Date (type date): July 10. 2013

To be certified by the agency head, if the agency is within the purview of the Governor; otherwise, certified by the agency’s legal counsel or other appropriate person.

Is a SERC required? Yes No

Name: __________________________________ __________________________________ (Print Name) (Signature)

Title: __________________________________ Date: _____________________________ Phone: __________________________________

Department of Management Services

Statement Of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC)

Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 1

Division: E911 Board

Board: E911 Board

Rule Number: 60FF1-5.003

Rule Description: E911 State Grant Program

Contact Person: Wink Infinger

Please remember to analyze the impact of the rule, NOT the statute, when

completing this form. A. Is the rule likely to, directly or indirectly, have an adverse impact on economic growth, private-sector job creation or employment, or private-sector investment in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule? 1. Is the rule likely to reduce personal income? Yes No

2. Is the rule likely to reduce total non-farm employment? Yes No

3. Is the rule likely to reduce private housing starts? Yes No 4. Is the rule likely to reduce visitors to Florida? Yes No 5. Is the rule likely to reduce wages or salaries? Yes No 6. Is the rule likely to reduce property income? Yes No

Explanation: This is a modification to the rule for the E911 Board E911 State Grant Program which should have no increase in

regulatory or transactional costs. Costs are limited to the

grant application submission costs for printing and shipping and

grant reporting costs, which have remained similar. Application

modifications were to simplify the application requirements.

If any of these questions are answered “Yes,” presume that there is a likely and adverse impact in excess of $1 million, and the rule must be submitted to the legislature for ratification. B. Is the rule likely to, directly or indirectly, have an adverse impact on business competitiveness, including the ability of persons doing business in the state to compete with persons doing business in other states or domestic markets, productivity, or innovation in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule?



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 2

1. Is the rule likely to raise the price of goods or services provided by Florida business?

Yes No 2. Is the rule likely to add regulation that is not present in other states or markets?

Yes No 3. Is the rule likely to reduce the quantity of goods or services Florida businesses are able to produce, i.e. will goods or services become too expensive to produce? Yes No 4. Is the rule likely to cause Florida businesses to reduce workforces? Yes No 5. Is the rule likely to increase regulatory costs to the extent that Florida businesses will be unable to invest in product development or other innovation? Yes No 6. Is the rule likely to make illegal any product or service that is currently legal? Yes No

Explanation: The E911 State Grant Program should not have an impact on business competitiveness. The E911 State Grant Program will

help maintain current private-sector employment level and

investment for maintaining Florida’s E911 system.

If any of these questions are answered “Yes,” presume that there is a likely and adverse impact in excess of $1 million, and the rule must be submitted to the legislature for ratification. C. Is the rule likely, directly or indirectly, to increase regulatory costs, including any transactional costs (see F below for examples of transactional costs), in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of this rule? 1. Current one-time costs N/A

2. New one-time costs N/A 3. Subtract 1 from 2 N/A 4. Current recurring costs N/A 5. New recurring costs N/A



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 3

6. Subtract 4 from 5 N/A 7. Number of times costs will recur in 5 years N/A 8. Multiply 6 times 7 N/A 9. Add 3 to 8 N/A If 9. is greater than $1 million, there is likely an increase of regulatory costs in excess of $1 million, and the rule must be submitted to the legislature for ratification. D. Good faith estimates (numbers/types):

1. The number of individuals and entities likely to be required to comply with the rule. (Please provide a reasonable explanation for the estimate used for the number of individuals and

methodology used for deriving the estimate). Large Counties 7

Medium Counties 29

Rural Counties 31

Total 67

2. A general description of the types of individuals likely to be affected by the rule.

The E911 State Grant Program is a grant program provided

for the purpose of assisting Florida counties, as defined

by Section 365.172(6)(a)3.b., Florida Statutes, with the

installation of Enhanced 911 (E911), Phase II and Next

Generation 911 (NG-911) systems. Any Board of County

Commissioners in the State of Florida is eligible to apply.

This modification is an update of the existing E911 State

Grant Program rule and application. The E911 Board

provides this State grant program utilizing E911 trust

funds to provide all counties the opportunity to update,

upgrade and enhance the 911 equipment.

E. Good faith estimates (costs):

1. Cost to the department of implementing the proposed rule:

None. The department intends to implement the proposed rule within its current workload, with existing staff.



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 4

Minimal. (Provide a brief explanation).

Other. (Please provide a reasonable explanation for the estimate used and methodology used for

deriving the estimate).

2. Cost to any other state and local government entities of implementing the proposed rule:

None. This proposed rule will only affect the department.



deriving the estimate). Each county is the fiscal responsible agent for all emergency 911 communications requirements for each

entity of local government in the county. All counties

currently have established Enhanced 911 systems and the

costs for compliance vary and depend on the counties’ E911

fee revenue and on the number of Public Safety Answering

Points (PSAP) established in the county. The grant program

provides additional funding opportunities for allowable

expenditures for the E911 emergency communication service

in Section 365.172(9), Florida Statutes. The costs

associated with this rule are minimal and limited to the

grant application submission costs for printing and

shipping and grant reporting costs.

3. Cost to the department of enforcing the proposed rule:

None. The department intends to enforce the proposed rule within its current workload with existing staff.




4. Cost to any other state and local government of enforcing the proposed rule: None. This proposed rule will only affect the department.

Minimal. (Provide a brief explanation). Each county is the fiscal

responsible agent for all emergency 911 communications

requirements for each entity of local government in the

county. The costs for enforcing the proposed rule within



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 5

the county will depend on whether a grant is submitted for

a local agency PSAP which is designated by the county as

part of the County 911 system. The costs associated with

this proposed rule are minimal and limited to the grant

application submission costs for printing and shipping and

grant reporting costs.



F. Good faith estimates (transactional costs) likely to be incurred by individuals and entities, including local government entities, required to comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. (Includes filing fees, cost of obtaining a license, cost of equipment

required to be installed or used, cost of implementing processes and procedures, cost of modifying existing processes and procedures, additional operating costs incurred, cost of monitoring, and cost of reporting, or any other costs necessary to comply with the rule).

None. This proposed rule will only affect the department.


Other. (Please provide a reasonable explanation for the estimate used and methodology used for deriving

the estimate). There are no filing or grant fees. The costs for grant application submission and reporting have been minimized

by using an electronic reporting process and with minimal

application submission paperwork requirements. Legislation

provides for a capped $0.50 fee on wireless and non-wireless

communications services, that is collected and disbursed to

the counties by the E911 Board, to offset the costs for E911

emergency communication service in Section 365.172(8), Florida

Statutes. The allowable expenditures all for a County 911

Coordinator and assistant, two FTE positions, that can

generate the paperwork required for the grant program.

G. An analysis of the impact on small business as defined by s. 288.703, F.S., and an analysis of the impact on small counties and small cities as defined by s. 120.52, F.S. (Includes:

Why the regulation is needed [e.g., How will the regulation make the regulatory process more efficient? Required to meet changes in federal law? Required to meet changes in state law?];

The type of small businesses that would be subject to the rule; The probable impact on affected small businesses [e.g., increased reporting requirements; increased

staffing; increased legal or accounting fees?]; The likely per-firm regulatory cost increase, if any).



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 6

A small business is defined in Section 288.703, F.S., as “…an independently owned and operated business concern that employs 200 or fewer permanent full-time employees and that, together with its affiliates, has a net worth of not more than $5 million or any firm based in this state which has a Small Business Administration 8(a) certification. As applicable to sole proprietorships, the $5 million net worth requirement shall include both personal and business investments.” A small county is defined in Section 120.52(19), F.S., as “any county that has an unincarcerated population of 75,000 or less according to the most recent decennial census.” And, a small city is defined in Section 120.52(18), F.S., as “any municipality that has an unincarcerated population of 10,000 or less according to the most recent decennial census.” The estimated number of small businesses that would be subject to the rule: 1-99 100-499 500-999 1,000-4,999 More than 5,000

Unknown, please explain:

Analysis of the impact on small business:

There is no small county or small city that will be impacted by this proposed rule.

A small county or small city will be impacted. Analysis: Only the counties that are applying for the grant program will be impacted.

Funding is provided through the E911 fee authorized and

imposed under Section 365.172, Florida Statutes, and disbursed

under Section 365.173, Florida Statutes. Additionally, rural

counties are provided special funding through the E911 Board

Rural County Grant Program, including additional fee revenue

to provide a minimum of $7,000 per month regardless of the fee

revenue generated by the fee collection from wireless

subscribers in their county.

Lower impact alternatives were not implemented? Describe the alternatives and

the basis for not implementing them.

H. Any additional information that the agency determines may be useful.

None.

Additional.

I. A description of any good faith written proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative to the proposed rule which substantially accomplishes the objectives of the law



Last printed 7/8/2013 6:25:00 AM 7

being implemented and either a statement adopting the alternative or a statement of the reasons rejecting the alternative in favor of the proposed rule.

No good faith written proposals for a lower cost regulatory alternative to the proposed rule were received.

See attachment “A”.

Adopted in entirety. Adopted / rejected in part. (Provide a description of the parts adopted or rejected, and provide

a brief statement of the reasons adopting or rejecting this alternative in part).

Rejected in entirety. (Provide a brief statement of the reasons rejecting this alternative).

Grant Carry Forward Calculation Example.

5.11 The county shall provide information on the county’s preceding year E911 fee revenue amount,

the preceding year carry forward funding amount and the total carry forward balance amount in the county E911 fund. The amount of grant funding award is limited based on the total amount of carry forward funding in the county E911 fund in excess of an amount calculated based on the allowable 30% carry forward amount for a two year basis. The county shall include the amount of their county carry forward funding being utilized for this grant in the Applied County Carry Forward or other Funding (if applicable) line in the Application Form item #12. Budget/Expenditure Report.

J. Financial Information:

3.) Total amount of E911 fee revenue received in the preceding year?

$ 396,671 4.) Total amount of county carry forward funding retained in the preceding year?

$ 39,667 5.) Current total amount of county carry forward funding?

$ 436,318 6.) Two year maximum calculated amount for Applied Carry Forward Funding

Calculation (multiply amount in J3 by 30% and then multiply by 2)

$ 238, 000

7.) Minimum calculated amount for Applied Carry Forward Funding Calculation (amount in J5 subtracted by amount in J6) Insert in Item 12. Budget Expenditure Report

$ 198,315

infingw

Callout

$396,671 x 2 x 30%

infingw

Callout

$436,318 - $238,002


12. Budget/Expenditure Report Prepare an itemized Grant Budget (“Line Item” breakdown should include separated systems, i.e.; E911 System, logging recorder, centerline mapping, etc. and services items). The completed form shall be used to complete quarterly report requirements, listing expenditures and revisions {if any} in appropriate columns. If there is insufficient space, please include details in an attachment. Budget costs should match requested vendor quote. County: Example Grant Number: Report Date: For Grant Period Ending: March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31 Year: FINAL Proposed Budget USE FOR QUARTERLY REPORTS

Line Item Unit Price ($) Quantity Total Cost ($) Revised Budget

Total Expenditure for Grant Period ($)

A. Systems (Hardware, Software, Equipment & Labor) New 911 System

422,000

Total System Items 422,000 B. Services (Training, Maintenance and Warranty Items) New 911 System

63,000

Total Service Items $ 63,000 Total $ 485,355

Less any Applied County Carry Forward or other Funding (if applicable) $ 198,315 Grant Request Total $ 287,040

USE FOR ALL REPORTS

Total Amount of Grant Awarded Total Interest for Grant Period Final Completion Date Signature, County 911 Coordinator

Sheriff of Charlotte County

7474 Utilities Road

Punta Gorda, Florida 33982

(941) 639-2101

Re: Charlotte County E911

Grant S4-11-06-03 ESI Net Install

I am writing this letter to request a grant extension by the E911 State Board. My spending authority for this

grant ends on June 30, 2013. I have been working with Cassidian to get this project accomplished by the

deadline date however; we are down to the week before the deadline date and while we are so close to

having it installed, it will not be possible to have it complete by June 30th.

When the grant was requested, the Cassidian ESI Net was in beta testing in Catawba, NC. It was expected to

be finished soon after our grant was applied for however there were delays in the beta testing. Our agency

was awarded the grant while the product was still in beta testing. When I took this position as the E911

Administrator, I followed up on the status of the ESI Net beta test several times.

I was concerned about having this grant but being unable to spend the money before the one year mark. (End

of the grant cycle) As the year mark approached, I requested a grant extension as I was being advised that

they were still in beta testing. As more time passed, I agreed with Cassidian to be a beta test site in order to

move forward on this project. Once I agreed and a PO was issued, the equipment was received and is

currently in my possession. Cassidian and Intrado began working on the technical specifications to be able to

deliver the calls through the Cassidian equipment. Due to the diverse nature of our ESInet (County fiber,

microwave network and Intrado IEN network) and the PSAP setups that we cannot afford to lose; the

engineers have had to consider various technical options to make it work. These technical issues are complex

and have taken more time than projected and scheduled. I have spoken with Intrado and they are close to

having a solution but will not be able to have it ready by June 30th. Cassidian can install their equipment in the

mean time until Intrado is ready to connect and deliver calls to it but they don’t have engineers available until

July 29th. This has left me with no choice but to request for another grant extension or return the money to

the board and reapply for the grant again at the next grant cycle in hopes that they have a state grant program

and that the money is awarded back to this organization.

At this time, local funds are not available to fund this project and will require grant funding to complete. Our

organization is ready to take the next step and move forward with Next Generation technologies. We

currently have 9-1-1 calls being delivered to our agency via IP but converted to CAMA and converted back to

IP. It is our goal to remove all legacy technology and remove the CAMA trunks and have fully functional IP to IP

connectivity. Installing this ESI Net Interface Module will allow this to occur. With a dedicated public safety

grade IP network to an IP enabled CPE – a whole host of next generation services are possible, Text messaging,

A9-1-1 Media, and A9-1-1 data applications and it becomes possible for policy based routing.

We would be grateful to have the opportunity to begin receiving text messaging as well as other next

generation information as soon it is provided by the cellular companies which to my understanding is in the

very near future. Not only do we want to be leaders in the industry by being able to deliver next generation

services to our community but having this technology in place will result in a time savings for the caller from

when the call is placed to the time it is received in the PSAP. By reducing the hardware that the calls have to

pass through will ultimately reduce the time taken before the call is answered in the dispatch center. In

addition to time reduction, it will also reduce chances for a single point of failure due to additional hardware

required to convert IP to CAMA back to IP.

I am asking for E911 Board direction on if and how this project funding can be extended. If an extension is

approved, we would need three months from the date of approval in order to schedule the engineers and

install the interface. Any assistance in the continuation of this project is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Laurene J. Anderson Laurene J. Anderson E911 Administrator Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office 7474 Utilities Rd. Punta Gorda, FL 33982 Office: 941-6369-0013 Cell: 941-628-9044 Email: [email protected]


E911 State Grant Program Application, effective 3/1/2011 Page 1

W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Fla. Admin. Code R. 60FF - 5.003 E911 State Grant Program

Request for Change

Name of County: Charlotte County E911 (S4-11-06-03)

BUDGET LINE ITEM CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO ESI Net interface module 103,216.00 No change in cost

TOTAL $ $

Justification For Change: I am not requesting a change in the amount of money but an extension for spending authority on this

grant. Please see the attached letter with explanation of details regarding this matter.

___Laurene J. Anderson________________ 06/20/2013________

______________

Signature of Authorized Official Date

For E911 Board use only.

Approved: Yes No _____________________________________ _____________________ E911 Board’s Authorized Representative Date

Appendix II

E911 State Grant Program Application, effective 3/1/2011 Page 2

W Form 3A, incorporated by reference in Fla. Admin. Code R. 60FF - 5.003 E911 State Grant Program

December 6, 2012 Chairman Julius Genachowski Commissioner McDowell Commissioner Clyburn

Commissioner Rosenworcel

Commissioner Pai

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th

Street S.W.

Washington, DC 20554 Re: In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next

Generation 911 Applications, PS Docket No. 11-153; and In the Matter of

Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 10-255.

Dear Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel and Pai:

The undersigned signatory text-message service providers have agreed to voluntarily

offer their subscribers text-based emergency communication services, in accordance with the

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (“ATIS”) industry standard solution

(currently expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2013), to requesting public safety

answering points (“PSAPs”). As a step towards a comprehensive Next Generation 9-1-1

(“NG9-1-1”) system, this voluntary framework for a text-to-9-1-1 solution provides near-

term opportunities to meet the emergency communications needs of wireless subscribers who

(currently) rely on SMS for everyday communications and individuals who are deaf, hard of

hearing or speech impaired. This framework also accommodates the service providers’ need

to respond to the rapid evolution of the telecommunications marketplace by deploying

whatever successor technologies are deemed appropriate by the service provider to satisfy

current and future requirements of the text-to-9-1-1 service.

This voluntary commitment reflects discussion with the signatories and public safety

stakeholders, and is intended to reflect and incorporate much of the important work

undertaken by public safety, disabilities and industry stakeholders through the Emergency

Access Advisory Committee (“EAAC”). As the wireless provider signatories have advised

the Commission and the EAAC, SMS is a store-and-forward messaging technology that was

never designed nor deployed to provide any time-sensitive, mission-critical service.1

1 Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation Applications, Framework for Next Generation 911

Deployment, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-134 ¶ 53 (Sept. 22, 2011); see also, Text Messages in a PSAP

Environment, APCO Emerging Technologies (rel July 30, 2012) available at http://psc.apcointl.org/wp-

content/uploads/APCO-Emerging-Tech-Text-to-911-Final1.pdf and Texting to 9-1-1: Examining the Design and

Limitations of SMS, 4G Americas (October 2010) available at

http://www.4gamericas.org/documents/SMS%20to%20911%20White%20Paper%20Final%20October%202010.pdf, but

see, FCC EAAC, Resolution regarding Text Messaging to 911 (adopted March 30 2012) (recommending Text Messaging to

9-1-1, at a minimum, via SMS); and Presentation of EAAC Working Group 1, Text-to-911 Solutions to 911 Interim to

NG911 (Sept. 14, 2012) (outlining key assumptions about Pre-NG911 Interim Text to 911).

http://r.smartbrief.com/resp/ebrDCzkvvIeVbpakfDdaesfCABQM

http://psc.apcointl.org/wp-content/uploads/APCO-Emerging-Tech-Text-to-911-Final1.pdf

http://psc.apcointl.org/wp-content/uploads/APCO-Emerging-Tech-Text-to-911-Final1.pdf

http://www.4gamericas.org/documents/SMS%20to%20911%20White%20Paper%20Final%20October%202010.pdf

2

Consistent with these parameters, this commitment is being offered through the

provision of an interim “best-efforts service” to meet the near term objective of providing a

text-based emergency communications until the comprehensive NG9-1-1 system (e.g.

ESINet) is developed, deployed and adopted by the wireless industry, public safety

community and public.

The terms of this commitment cover only the text-messaging services provided by the

signatories. They do not extend to text-messaging applications provided by third parties..

The signatories make the following voluntary commitments: 1) Text-to-9-1-1service would be made available by May 15, 2014, although carriers

may choose to implement such a service prior to that date. Once a carrier begins

offering a Text-to-9-1-1 solution, valid PSAP requests for Text-to-9-1-1 service will

be implemented within a reasonable amount of time of receiving such request, not to

exceed six months. A request for service will be considered valid if, at the time the

request is made: a) the requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to

receive 9-1-1 text messages in the format requested; and b) the appropriate local or

State 9-1-1 service governing authority has specifically authorized the PSAP to

accept and, by extension, the signatory service provider to provide, text-to-9-1-1

service (and such authorization is not subject to dispute).

2) Beginning no later than July 1, 2013, the four signatory service providers will

voluntarily provide quarterly progress reports to the FCC, NENA, and APCO

summarizing the status of the deployment of a national Text-to-9-1-1 service

capability. Once a service provider is able to deploy service for capable PSAPs on a

national basis, it would no longer be required to provide these status reports.

3) Consistent with the draft ATIS Standard for Interim Text-to-9-1-1 service, the PSAPs

will select the format for how messages are to be delivered. Incremental costs for

delivery of text messages (e.g. additional trunk groups to the PSAP’s premises

required to support TTY delivery) will be the responsibility of the PSAP, as

determined by individual analysis.

4) The signatory service providers will implement a ‘9-1-1’ short code that can be used

by customers to send text messages to 9-1-1.

5) Before the deployment of Text-to-9-1-1, the signatory service providers will

implement a bounce-back (auto-reply) message to alert subscribers attempting to text

3

an emergency message to instead dial 9-1-1 when Text-to-9-1-1 is unavailable in that

area. The signatory service providers will implement the bounce-back (auto-reply)

message by June 30, 2013.

6) The signatory service providers will meet these commitments independent of their

ability to recover these associated costs from state or local governments.

7) The signatory service providers (whether individually or through a third party) will

work with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to develop an outreach effort to set and

manage consumer expectations regarding the availability/limitations of the Text-to-9-

1-1 service (including when roaming) and the benefits of using voice calls to 9-1-1

whenever possible, and support APCO and NENA’s effort to educate PSAPs on

Text-to-9-1-1 generally.

8) A voluntary SMS-to-9-1-1 solution will be limited to the capabilities of the existing

SMS service offered by a participating wireless service provider on the home wireless

network to which a wireless subscriber originates an SMS message. SMS-to-9-1-1

will not be available to wireless subscribers roaming outside of their home wireless

network. Each implementation of SMS-to-9-1-1 will be unique to the capabilities of

each signatory service provider or it’s Gateway Service Provider. Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206, this letter

is being electronically filed via ECFS with your office and a copy of this submission is being

provided to the meeting attendees. Please direct any questions to the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Terry Hall /s/ Charles W. McKee

APCO International Sprint Nextel

/s/ Robert W. Quinn, Jr. /s/ Kathleen O’Brien Ham

AT&T T-Mobile USA

/s/ Barbara Jaeger /s/ Kathleen Grillo

NENA- The 9-1-1 Association Verizon

Destin, Florida August, 2013

NG-911 - Basic Building Blocks

Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet)

NG-911 Functions and Interface Standards

Databases, (GIS), and Data Management

Security

Human and System Operations Procedures

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Networking Model – Layers

• APPLICATION

• PRESENTATION

• SESSION

• TRANSPORT

• NETWORK

• DATA LINK

• PHYSICAL

International Standards Organization/Open System Interconnection (ISO/OSI) Model

Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Architecture

NG-911 (i3) Network of Network Elements - ESInet

SECURITY – Tech. Spec. Information

Domain Name System (DNS) Converts URN names into URI addresses.

infingw

Cross-Out

infingw

Line

NG-911 Cost Items

Cost Projections using FCC NG-911 Cost Study

54%

46%

Rural County E911 Grants$1,532,133

E911 BoardSupplemental Disbursements

$1,135,577

Rural County Programs Calendar Year 2012

$ 2,667,710

46%

54%

31.3%

4.5%

7.9%

56.3%

2012 WSP Cost Recovery and E911 Trust Fund Programs

$ 17,105,551

Special Disbursements

$6,117,098

E911 State Grant Program

$1,356,102

Wireless Provider Reimbursements

$9,632,351

Existing Trust Funds

$767,354

56.3%

7.9%

35.8%

Revenue$16,338,197

Excess$6,705,846

Total$7,473,200

CountyE911 Systems

Wireless Service Provider Phase I and II

Cost Recovery

E911 Rural CountyProgram

Florida E911 Nonwireless Revenue Usage

Wireless ServiceProvider Certified

Invoice

E911 Board Trust Fund Programs

1%

25%

3%

71%

2%1%

97%

Boa

rdA

ppro

val

Exc

ess

Boa

rd A

ppro

val

Florida E911 Wireless Revenue Usage

E911 Board Administration

Total Wireless & Nonwireless

1% of Fee Revenue

Rural CountyE911 System Grants

SupplementalDisbursements

71%25%

97%

3%

2%

E911 Board Calendar Year 2010 Revenue Disbursements

Note: 2013 Special

Disbursement $7,123,547

E911 Trust Fund Projection

Historical - Wireless Cost Recovery

36%

64%

E911 Trust Fund Programs since 2007

$ 100,846,540

E911 BoardSpecial

Disbursements $36,361,054

E911 State Grant Program

$64,485,486

E911 Board Grants & Special Disbursements

E911 State Grant Program Status Report

2008 Program Award $ 50,000,000

2010 Fall Program Award $ 3,408,912

2011 Summer Program Award $ 9,720,472 2012 Fall Program $ 1,356,102

Total Program Award $ 64,485,486

E911 Board Special Disbursements Transition 9/19/07 $ 4,595,466 Transition 10/17/07 $ 4,593,466 June 17, 2009 $ 4,000,000 June 16, 2010 $ 8,143,061 January 12, 2011 $ 1,788,416 February 15, 2012 $ 6,117,098 December 12, 2012 $ 7,123,547

Total Program Award $ 36,361,054

PROPOSED

3%

35%61%

35%

61 percent distributed each month to counties for the purposes of providing E911 service (payments are based on total number of sales in each county).

3 percent used to provide assistance to rural counties for providing 911 or E911 service.

1 percent of the fund is retained by the E911 Board for administrative and operational purposes.

35 percent available for distribution for the provision of:

A. For the purpose of upgrading and replacing E911 systems; B. For the purpose of developing and maintain statewide 911 routing, geographic and management information systems; C. For the purpose of developing and maintain next generation 911 services and equipment.

PREPAID WIRELESS 911 FEE REVENUE DISBURSEMENT

3%1%

96%

96 percent distributed each month to counties for the purposes of providing E911 service (payments are based on the number of nonwireless subscribers in each county).



2%1%

97%

97 percent distributed each month to counties for the purposes of providing E911 service (payments are based on the number of nonwireless subscribers in each county).



CURRENT

PROPOSED

97%

96%

NONWIRELESS E911 FEE REVENUE DISBURSEMENT

WIRELESS E911 FEE REVENUE DISBURSEMENT

3%1% 1 percent of the fund is retained by the E911 Board for administrative and operational purposes.

71% 25%

71 percent distributed each month to counties for the purposes of providing E911 service (payments are based on the number of wireless subscribers in each county).


25 percent available for distribution to wireless service providers in response to sworn invoices for the actual costs incurred in providing E911 service.

3%1% 1 percent of the fund is retained by the E911 Board for administrative and operational purposes.

76% 20%

76 percent distributed each month to counties for the purposes of providing E911 service (payments are based on the number of wireless subscribers in each county).


20 percent available for distribution to wireless service providers in response to sworn invoices for the actual costs incurred in providing E911 service.

CURRENT

PROPOSED

E911 Board NG-911 and Statewide Routing White Paper 8/14/2013 Page 1

Next Generation 911 and Statewide Routing

Why is Next Generation 911 needed and who will utilize this system?

Since 1973, the State of Florida has been updating and building advanced technology statewide

emergency number 911 systems, implemented by the counties, to serve its citizens and visitors in

emergency situations. Florida’s 911 systems have been and are being maintained at the highest

level of enhanced 911 (E911) system capabilities available to 911 callers for rapid direct response

by law enforcement, fire and medical services. E911 caller location information (the call back

number and the location information, latitude and longitude, provided for the cellular caller) from

the service providers is delivered and received by the 911 call takers in the Public Safety Answering

Points. Currently some of the existing system limitations include:

• The existing legacy E911 system was not designed or intended to handle new and emerging

communication technologies and devices.

• Equal access for special needs citizens and visitors is limited. Antiquated communication

devices previously used for the hearing and speech impaired are being replaced by these

communities and the new communication devices are not capable of providing E911 services to

the PSAPs.

• 911 requests for emergency assistance are not available from individuals in situations where

they would endanger themselves making a voice call.

• The location of the 911 callers from wireless devices can be difficult to determine and the calls

are not always routed to the correct PSAP for the responding units. While transferring the 911

voice call alone is not a problem, re-routing the 911 voice call with the caller’s location

information to other counties is problematic.

• As the state currently does not have a statewide IP 911 routing network contract; counties,

cities, and local municipalities must negotiate individual contracts with multiple vendors. A

state contract is needed to achieve savings, efficiencies, and effectiveness for the entire state.

• Alternatives are needed for delivery failures caused by congestion in the 911 systems. Next

Generation 911 will increase the routing alternatives and the information available to the 911

call takers and the responders.

The users of the new system will be the citizens and visitors of Florida that need to call, text and

send information to obtain emergency assistance utilizing the only advertized emergency number

in Florida, “911”. The legislature, state agencies and businesses throughout Florida will also use the

system to provide 911 services through their new Internet Protocol (IP) telephone systems. Service


providers will use it to provide the 911 calls from their subscribers, eliminating the need for

individual service provider connectivity for provisioning 911 to PSAPs throughout Florida. Law

enforcement, fire and emergency medical responding agencies will use the system to accelerate

emergency response, improve responder safety and have better situation awareness through the

data and information provided by the 911 callers including text, video and photos.

In Florida, the county E911 systems are under the direct individual control of the 67 Boards of

County Commissioners. The counties and their public safety agencies will be the Next Generation

911 Routing System contract clients utilizing the system to procure the services to receive the calls,

and transfer or re-route the calls for PSAP emergencies when required.

What are stakeholders and users needs and wants and how should NG-911 be implemented to

deliver these services?

Citizens, including the hearing and speech impaired, and the public safety agencies have requested

the capability to send and receive text messaging and pictures when there is a need for emergency

assistance. Florida’s PSAPs and county 911 coordinators are experiencing increasing citizen, carrier

and vendor requests, and public safety professional direction, to provide a 911 system to receive

and share emergency call data. Migration to an IP-enabled emergency network system is required

to keep pace with the evolution of the communication devices and enhanced 911 services.

Each county board designates a county 911 coordinator to act as the single point of contact for the

Department of Management Services (DMS), the Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and for

coordinating effective delivery of E911 services. In 2009 the counties were polled to determine the

needs referencing a Federal ENHANCE 911 Act grant application which was coordinated with the

local governments, tribal organizations, and PSAPs within Florida, through the county 911

coordinators. A survey of the counties’ needs was distributed and utilized to determine the county

and PSAP needs and application initiatives. The major initiative requested was statewide next

generation inclusive of routing and geographic information systems. The Department’s grant

application was submitted for specification development of a Statewide NG-911 Routing system.

The E911 Board provides unified leadership for all E911 issues through planning and coordination.

The E911 Board advocates E911 issues related to system functions, features, and operations to

enhance 911 services in Florida and considers emerging technology and related cost savings for the

benefit and safety of our residents and visitors. The E911 Board’s top strategic initiative as evident

in their 2012 Annual Report is Statewide NG-911 routing utilizing a state contract and the


Department’s MyFloridaNet circuits. At the June 2013 Board meeting, they reaffirmed their

selection of NG-911 statewide routing as the number one long term strategic initiative.

The Federal Communication Commission in their February 27, 2013, Report to Congress “Legal and

Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911 Services” recommended State action on NG-911.

“Local and state public safety authorities should retain their primary responsibility for the

deployment and configuration of 911 and NG911 services, but Congress should encourage

states to establish or empower state 911 boards or similar state-level governance entities

to provide technical and operational expertise necessary for the development and

deployment of NG911.”

What are the proposed system’s capabilities and the value of these services?

NG-911 is the next progression in 911 systems that are designed to handle voice, data, and video

developed on a standardized IP-based platform. The design can handle new communication

devices such as text messaging and telematics as well as resolve interoperability issues to provide

the capability of an emergency communications network. Given the rapid development and

implementation of these communication devices, there is a national focus on the development of

the NG-911 systems and the technical, operational, and policy issues involved with these systems.

This development will involve a multi-year transition and progression of Florida’s E911 system. The

E911 Board and Florida’s public safety agencies are currently planning, designing, and

implementing Emergency Services Internet Protocol networks (ESInet) and system replacements.

The new system requires various new technology devices, along with the legacy equipment, to

provide location-based routing to the public safety answering points, as well as E911 information

including the location and call back number. The system will eventually provide new capabilities

with features and functions designed to handle text, data, images, and video. National standards

developed and tested by national 911 associations and standards bodies are used to enable

standardized access to the NG-911 systems by these new technologies. Counties are making

enhancements to their E911 system in preparations for receipt from a NG-911 IP routing system.

A Department Contract for Statewide Next Generation 911 Routing System will assist state, city,

county, and other law enforcement agencies in the protection, health and welfare of state citizens

in life-threatening situations and emergencies. The value of these services relates to public access

of the 911 system to save lives and provide the public with a better chance to get the response

needed for any emergency situation.

Federal Communications Commission445 12th Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20554

White Paper:

A Next Generation 911 Cost Study:

A Basis for Public Funding Essential to

Bringing a Nationwide Next Generation 911 Network

to America’s Communications Users

and First Responders

Public Safety and Homeland Security BureauSeptember 2011

2

Executive Summary

The nationwide 911 system enables the public to place voice calls requesting emergency assistance. This is an important and reliable service that saves lives, but it has serious limitations. The “voice-centric” legacy 911 system does not support more diverse technologies such as text messaging and streaming video, which Americans increasingly rely on to communicate. A nationwide Next Generation 911 (NG911) network will bridge this gap by providing the technical capability for Americans to contact public safety authorities using the advanced telecommunications platforms of today and tomorrow. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) is dedicated to working closely with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth and cost-effective transition to NG911.

In this White Paper, the Federal Communications Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau presents a cost study on the network connectivity and call routing portion of the nationwide NG911 network.1 This paper will guide the Commission in its NG911 policymaking, and it is offered as a resource for other federal policymakers as well as state and local governments and other stakeholders.

Introduction

To remain effective, the nation’s 911 system must evolve to accommodate the ways people communicate. Although broadband technologies are now central to how Americans communicate, a number of the public safety answering points (PSAPs) or 911 call centers that handle 911 calls still lack broadband connectivity to a service provider network, which is necessary to support the evolution to NG911.2 Providing this connectivity on a nationwide scale will require substantial funding. This White Paper presents two models for achieving the required connectivity, the second of which envisions a more cost-effective deployment.

NG911 System Overview

NG911 will capitalize on advances in consumer-based electronics technology to provide a more flexible and robust 911 interface that will improve the speed, accuracy, and preparedness of emergency response. The legacy, circuit-switched model for routing 911 calls and conveying corresponding location information is increasingly obsolete and poorly suited for an environment where non-traditional voice and data communications content proliferates. When a wireless or VoIP user places a 911 call on a legacy network, the service provider handles the call with a complex system of routing, re-routing, and look-up designed to emulate the legacy technology. NG911 networks are able to take advantage of the benefits of IP-based wireless and wireline networks to route calls faster and more efficiently. Similarly, the available mission-critical data capabilities and features can provide first responders an advantage in responding to emergencies. NG911 capitalizes on these new platforms to overcome problems inherent in the legacy system and to take advantage of IP-based telecommunications’ superior bandwidth; accuracy; and flexibility in transmitting audio, video, text and data in a variety of formats.

Instead of relying on standard wireline voice communications with legacy telephone switching, the NG911 system uses digital, packet-switched IP data and voice communications. When a user places a call in a NG911

1 The principal authors of the cost model are Pat Amodio, Dr. Henning Schulzrinne and Jennifer A. Manner. Other contributors include Brian Hurley, Tim May, Jerome Stanshine, John Healy, Genaro Fullano, Michael Ha, Walter Johnston and Bryan Upham. 2 See Detailed Functional and Interface Standards for the NENA i3 Solution at http://www.nena.org/standards/technical/i3-solutionhttp://www.nena.org/standards/technical/i3-solution.

3

system, it uses a standardized set of IP-based technologies and applications to route the call through Internet traffic, providing intelligent routing, location information, and call signaling. Emergency calls are delivered to an Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet),3 which can receive calls from a variety of different networks and types of networks. The ESInet then forwards the call to the appropriate PSAP. The flexibility of NG911 networks allows them to accommodate call handling by multiple entities4 seamlessly, while allowing network service providers to dynamically route calls around congested networks and enabling PSAPs to manage call volume more efficiently. Finally, the transition to NG911 will introduce cost-efficiencies.

Overall, NG911 networks are far more versatile than legacy 911 networks. They support voice as well as data, including streaming video, still images, and text. This flexibility in turn allows NG911 networks to accept and deliver traffic from a wide array of possible end-user devices. While a legacy 911 network can receive only voice calls, an NG911 network can accept video from a smartphone camera, voice over the voice network, VoIP-transmitted voice calls over a 3G or 4G network, or data sent by applications installed on the phone. Where legacy 911 systems are built on the assumption that a call is placed from a fixed point corresponding to a landline telephone, NG911 networks can effectively and efficiently route traffic from mobile user devices and fixed-location devices.

NG911 also has the potential to enhance the ability of PSAPs and first responders to assess and respond to emergencies based on the texts, photos, and videos that consumers send to them, combined with information they gather and correlate from other sources and databases.

Cost Study Overview

Introduction

This cost study examines two cost models for funding the construction and ongoing costs for nationwide NG911 network connectivity and call routing between the public safety answering point (PSAP) and the commercial service provider. It does not address other costs that PSAPs or carriers may incur in migrating to NG911, such as new systems located within the PSAP or upgrades to service provider networks to support NG911. The model calculates both capital or non-recurring costs and ongoing or recurring costs under two cost models validated by experts - a baseline model and a second model that assumes the realization of certain cost-efficiencies from PSAP consolidation and using hosted as opposed to dedicated networks.5 The inputs for both models include the number of PSAPs in the United States, NG911 bandwidth requirements, non-recurring or one-time equipment and installation costs, and recurring or ongoing costs, including operations and maintenance support.

3 An ESInet is designed as an IP-based inter-network (network of networks) shared by all agencies which may be involved in any emergency.

http://www.nena.org/standards/technical/voip/functional-interface-NG911-i3http://www.nena.org/standards/technical/voip/functional-interface-NG911-i34 Unlike modern E911 systems, which are forced to emulate the behaviors of legacy incumbent wireline utility calls to complete calls over wireline facilities, with NG911 the IP traffic access provider, communications service provider, network operator(s), and server-side services may all be handled by different entities without sacrificing efficient IP routing.

5 Cost model assumptions are in Appendix A. The cost model was constructed and its assumptions were validated through a technical analysis that used data acquired from several major commercial service and industry equipment providers, their competitors, and vendors. Costs were based on appropriate comparable Request for Proposal (RFP) responses; actual proposals from service providers for similar network builds and operations; and information obtained directly from service providers, equipment vendors, and integrators. Detailed cost scenarios were also developed and compared with cost scenarios provided by service providers, equipment vendors, integrators, and public safety to further validate costs.

4

Assumptions

To ensure this cost study is measurable, we have divided PSAPs into three size categories, based on the number of seats for call-takers within each PSAP:

• Small PSAPs: PSAPs with 5 or fewer seats.• Medium PSAPs: PSAPs with 6 to 49 seats.• Large PSAPs: PSAPs with 50 or more seats.

The cost study also assumes that each PSAP will provide NG911 service using one of two network architecture solutions - dedicated or hosted.

Under the dedicated solution, the PSAP owns and operates all network, call routing, and call processing equipment and leases network connectivity. The dedicated solution requires more capital expenditures and on-going cost support then the hosted solution, including the costs of operations and maintenance personnel to support the PSAP-specific NG911 infrastructure. The dedicated solution allows for greater PSAP-specific customization. Most current 911 systems are closer to the dedicated solution because most of the equipment for handling calls, such as the switch, is housed in the PSAP.

Under the hosted solution, a PSAP contracts with third party service providers for all network services and associated equipment, which are hosted offsite and are accessible by multiple PSAPs and other public safety entities. Costs are based on administrative and monthly fees. Since this approach permits the sharing of information technology and system administration resources, the hosted solution is likely to be more cost effective than the dedicated solution. However, the hosted solution may not offer as many PSAP-specific customization options.6 For medium PSAPs, the hosted media processing systems, such as IP-PBX and conference bridges,7 are located closer to the PSAP, whereas for small PSAPs, they are regionalized.8 This reduces the initial investment required and allows for cost-sharing among PSAPs but also limits the extent to which services can be customized.

The transition to NG911 may induce organizational as well as technological changes. Local authorities seeking to reduce costs may consolidate PSAPs or rely more extensively on hosted solutions. Since the extent of these changes is impossible to predict, this White Paper presents two deployment models, each of which assumes a particular distribution of hosted and dedicated solutions among PSAPs in the three size categories and provides an estimate of the extent to which PSAPs will consolidate.

Baseline Model (Option A)

The baseline model (Option A) assumes that a significant majority of small PSAPs will choose a hosted NG911 solution; half of medium-sized PSAPs will choose a hosted solution; and given the size and scope of PSAPs in major cities, all large PSAPs will select a dedicated solution. Option A also assumes that no PSAPs will consolidate operations as they transition to NG911.

6 It is possible, though, that some providers may offer the same basic software for either a hosted or dedicated solution.7 Media centers or gateways, will be a distribution center for network providers that will aggregate DS-1s from multiple TDM POPs onto a single DS-3, complete calls directly to PSAPs over an MPLS network, and provide TDM-to-IP conversion and conference bridge services out of regional collocation facilities to the National Data Centers.8 See architectural diagram in Appendix B.

5

Cost-Effective Model (Option B)

The cost-effective model (Option B) assumes that PSAP consolidation will result in a 35% decrease in the number of PSAPs as networks migrate to NG911. This model also assumes a greater reliance on hosted solutions, with 50% of large PSAPS and 75% of medium PSAPs opting for a hosted solution.

Cost Elements9

The core network components for a NG911 network are:

• PSAPs’ access connectivity to, and service providers’10 interconnection with, the ESInet.

• The ESInet itself, which interconnects PSAPs as call-originating service providers.

Each component is discussed below.

PSAP Access

PSAPs need to access the regional ESInet using IP access connectivity. Historical trends indicate that PSAPs must provision at a minimum two, and sometimes three, physically-diverse access links to ensure adequate reliability and resiliency. The cost of providing PSAP access depends significantly on the methods used to provide redundancy and on the availability of commercial broadband access. To account for the particular challenges rural PSAPs face in securing adequate and cost-effective broadband connectivity, this study includes as a cost element special construction charges and non-recurring costs (NRC) for items needed to establish the ESInet or IP facilities.11 These costs are generally incurred only once, but this study also takes into account a single equipment refresh during the projected ten-year period for certain equipment, such as routers.

As an order-of-magnitude estimate and as described in more detail below, a 10 Mbps commercial-grade circuit is likely to be sufficient to support 911 traffic for all but the largest PSAPs. This study assumes that the cost of carrying emergency calls to the boundary of the ESInet is borne by the Telecommunications Service Provider (TSP) and is thus beyond the scope of this report. If the ESInet interconnects at major interexchange points (IXPs), the costs to both the TSP and the ESInet are likely de minimis. Currently, there are about 85 IXPs in the United States, but they are not distributed evenly geographically, so it is likely that TSPs would have to peer privately with some ESInets. This also depends on whether the ESInet is using shared or dedicated facilities, as discussed below.

9 The cost elements included in this paper include everything exclusive of equipment, software, and service within the PSAP.10 These service providers could include Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) operators or Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 11 Special construction charges may apply to the installation of certain fiber-based products. Companies typically determine whether special construction and associated charges are applicable on a case-by-case basis depending on the customer’s geographic location, such as the distance to the nearest wire center or point of presence. Special types of construction may include underground service connections; aerial drop wires, underground conduit; trenching, where armored cable is laid in a trench; trench backfill expenses; cable replacement; and dismantling and removing aerial facilities, where facilities are changed from aerial to underground.

6

ESInet12

NG911 architecture relies on the ESInet to deliver voice, video, text, and data "calls" to the PSAP. There are at least three fundamental approaches to interconnecting PSAPs via an ESInet. First, the ESInet can serve as a dedicated network used solely for 911 calls and related communications, likely using Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)13 facilities offered by commercial service providers.14 Under the second approach, the network can be shared with other governmental or not-for-profit services. Examples of this approach include the use of a statewide IP network or the US-UCAN network that re-uses the Internet2 leased fiber infrastructure currently used to connect universities with each other.15 A third approach is to dispense with the ESInet altogether and interconnect PSAPs via the public Internet, possibly using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). This approach has no additional costs beyond access link charges.

Cost Analysis

This analysis first determines the number of PSAPs in each size category: small, medium, and large. It then calculates non-recurring and recurring costs under each model based on the distribution among PSAPs of the two architectural solutions (dedicated or hosted) and on the total number of PSAPs requiring access to broadband fiber.

For non-recurring access connectivity, the study takes into account the cost to upgrade from time-division multiplexing (TDM) to IP-over-fiber, the percentage of PSAPs that must upgrade to IP-over-fiber, the percentage of PSAPs that upgrade from a single fiber connection to a dual fiber connection for improved reliability, and the percentage of PSAPs requiring special construction charges to connect or upgrade broadband fiber to the PSAP. Special construction charges also vary based on the size of the PSAP and its geographic location. The analysis also includes non-recurring costs for equipment required to connect the PSAP to a hosted or dedicated network solution.16

Recurring costs include the costs of access connectivity for all PSAPs, which typically take the form of monthly fees to subscribe to a certain amount of bandwidth.17 Recurring costs under the hosted solution also include monthly fees for services hosted offsite by a third party service provider. Recurring costs under the dedicated solution also include ongoing maintenance and operations costs. Based on estimates of current costs for 911 trunking (T1 circuits) nationwide, the total yearly recurring cost could be offset by as much as $26 M to $55 M once NG911 networks are fully operational. This is based on a reasonable estimate of the number of trunks each PSAP has today (5 to 7 on average) at a monthly rate of $65 to $100 per trunk.

12 The ESInet includes servers required to obtain and validate location information and to route calls, such as servers; Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF); Border Control Functions (BCF); Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP); Policy Store/Policy Routing Function (PSPRF); Location Validation Function (LVF); and LIS (Location Information Servers).13 Seehttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6557/products_ios_technology_home.htmlhttp://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6557/products_ios_technology_home.html.14 The cost of a statewide dedicated ESInet depends on the geographic distribution and number of PSAPs but is likely to be substantial. Generally, the per-Mbps cost of a network decreases with capacity, so, for example, it is less expensive to build one 1 Gbps network than ten 100 Mbps networks. In addition, the ESInet should be structured to handle any reasonable denial-of-service traffic.15 See http://www.internet2.edu/government/docs/U.S.%20UCAN%20Internet2%20Member%20Community%20FAQ.pdf.16 See Figures 3 and 7.17 See Figures 2 and 6.

7

For the baseline model (Option A) mentioned above, the total ten-year18 cost, including non-recurring costs and recurring costs, is $2.68 billion. Figure 1 depicts non-recurring costs for the three size categories and the projected recurring costs.

All PSAPs Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Small $302 MMedium $776 MLarge $153 M

All PSAPs - Total NRC $1.23 B

All PSAPs - Total Recurring Costs over 10 years $1.45 B

All PSAPs - Total 10 year Recurring Cost + NRC $2.68 B

Figure 1: Baseline Model (Option A), Cost Summary

In Figure 2, the total monthly recurring costs are shown for the three size categories and projected out for a 10-year period. Based on a typical ramp-up schedule, the monthly recurring costs are modest in the first three years, after which the transition to NG911 accelerates.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10Small PSAP $5,957,050 $15,885,465 $31,770,931 $61,556,178 $107,226,892 $163,143,730 $194,120,387 $206,511,050 $206,511,050 $206,511,050Medium PSAP $2,325,930 $6,202,481 $12,404,962 $24,034,615 $41,866,748 $63,699,482 $75,794,321 $80,632,256 $80,632,256 $80,632,256Large PSAP $663,802 $1,770,138 $3,540,276 $6,859,285 $11,948,432 $18,179,317 $21,631,086 $23,011,794 $23,011,794 $23,011,794Total $8,946,782 $23,858,085 $47,716,169 $92,450,078 $161,042,071 $245,022,529 $291,545,794 $310,155,100 $310,155,100 $310,155,100

Net Present Value (NPV) -$1,448,431,006

US 10-Year Treasury Yield rate 3.03%

Total Monthly Recurring Costs (MRC)

Figure 2: Option A, Recurring Costs

18 A theoretical rollout schedule for NG911 and concurrent phase-out of the baseline system spans a 10-year implementation period.

8

Figure 3 summarizes the non-recurring costs for the three PSAP size categories. As an example, the total NRC for small PSAPs is $302.3 M, which includes access connectivity cost ($144 M), hosted cost ($54.9 M), dedicated network cost ($61.7 M), and equipment refresh and replacement costs ($41.7 M).

PSAP Size

Bandwidth (BW) Connection

TDM to IP Install (NRC)

Total % PSAP's

(S, M, L)

Total % Upgraded PSAP's

Total % New

PSAP's

Total % PSAP's for

Special construction

Total NRC Cost

Total NRC (per PSAP)

Total NRC - All PSAPs

Low Dedicated Network Cost NRC - (per PSAP)

High Dedicated Network Cost NRC - (per PSAP)

Dedicated Network Cost NRC - All PSAPs

Equipment Refresh and

Replacement TotalSmall 10 Mb/s $1,100 80% 55% 25% 45% $143,998,668 $10,000 $54,888,000 $500,000 $750,000 $61,749,000 $41,701,707 $302,337,375Medium 10 Mb/s $1,100 19% 75% 25% 40% $41,617,111 $25,000 $16,294,875 $750,000 $1,500,000 $611,057,813 $107,035,168 $776,004,966Large 100 Mb/s $2,800 1% 100% 0% 30% $3,149,199 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $128,643,750 $21,086,872 $152,879,821

Hosted CostAccess Connectivity Cost (NRC)Dedicated Solution (IT infrastructure,

ESInet, etc)

Summary of Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Figure 3: Options A, Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Figure 4 shows a year-by-year spend for all costs over the projected ten-year period under Option A. As mentioned above, Option A assumes that PSAPs would not consolidate operations as they transition to NG911.

Figure 4: Option A, Year-by-Year Spend example

9

The cost effective model (Option B) assumes that PSAPs would consolidate operations as they migrate to NG911 and also rely more on hosted solutions. The total ten-year projected cost under this model, including non-recurring and recurring costs, is $1.44 billion.

Figure 5 depicts non-recurring costs for the three size categories and the projected recurring costs. Because PSAP consolidations would reduce the number of PSAPs by 35% and a higher proportion of medium and large PSAPs would use hosted solutions, the non-recurring costs are lower.

All PSAPs Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Small $203 MMedium $297 MLarge $56 M

All PSAPs - Total NRC $556 M

All PSAPs - Total Recurring Costs over 10 years $888 M

All PSAPs - Total 10 year Recurring Cost + NRC $1.44 B

Figure 5: Option B, Cost-Effective Model, Cost Summary

Figure 6 shows the total monthly recurring costs for the three size categories projected out for a ten-year period. Based on a typical ramp-up schedule, the monthly recurring costs are modest in the first three years, after which the transition to NG911 accelerates.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10Small PSAP $3,872,082 $10,325,553 $20,651,105 $40,011,516 $69,697,479 $106,043,424 $126,178,252 $134,232,183 $134,232,183 $134,232,183Medium PSAP $1,245,898 $3,322,395 $6,644,789 $12,874,279 $22,426,164 $34,120,993 $40,599,663 $43,191,130 $43,191,130 $43,191,130Large PSAP $365,847 $975,593 $1,951,186 $3,780,423 $6,585,253 $10,019,340 $11,921,747 $12,682,709 $12,682,709 $12,682,709Total $5,483,828 $14,623,540 $29,247,080 $56,666,218 $98,708,896 $150,183,758 $178,699,661 $190,106,023 $190,106,023 $190,106,023

Net Present Value (NPV) -$887,799,225

US 10-Year Treasury Yield rate 3.03%

Total Monthly Recurring Costs (MRC)

Figure 6: Option B, Monthly Recurring Costs

10

Figure 7 presents non-recurring costs for the three PSAP size categories under the cost-effective model, Option B. As an example, the total non-recurring costs for small PSAPs is $203.2 M, which includes access connectivity cost ($93.6 M), hosted cost ($35.7 M), dedicated network cost ($40.1 M), and equipment refresh and replacement costs ($33.8 M).

PSAP Size

Bandwidth (BW) Connection

TDM to IP Install (NRC)

Total % PSAP's

(S, M, L)

Total % Upgraded PSAP's

Total % New

PSAP's

Total % PSAP's for

Special construction

Total NRC Cost

Total NRC (per PSAP)

Total NRC - All PSAPs

Low Dedicated Network Cost NRC - (per PSAP)

High Dedicated Network Cost NRC - (per PSAP)

Dedicated Network Cost NRC - All PSAPs

Equipment Refresh and

Replacement TotalSmall 10 Mb/s $1,100 80% 55% 25% 45% $93,599,134 $10,000 $35,677,200 $500,000 $750,000 $40,136,850 $33,778,383 $203,191,567Medium 10 Mb/s $1,100 19% 75% 25% 40% $27,051,122 $25,000 $15,887,503 $750,000 $1,500,000 $198,593,789 $55,770,813 $297,303,227Large 100 Mb/s $2,800 1% 100% 0% 30% $2,046,979 $50,000 $1,114,913 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $41,809,219 $10,569,277 $55,540,388

Hosted CostAccess Connectivity Cost (NRC)Dedicated Solution (IT infrastructure,

ESInet, etc)

Summary of Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Figure 7: Option B, Non-Recurring Costs (NRC)

Figure 8 shows a year-by-year spend for all costs over the ten-year period for Option B. As mentioned above, this option assumes that PSAP consolidations during the transition to NG911 would result in the number of PSAPs decreasing by 35%.

Figure 8: Option B, Year-by-Year Spend example

11

Appendix A – Cost Modeling Assumptions

Key Assumptions

The cost model analysis includes only costs related to connecting the PSAP to the ESInet, and the per-PSAP share of the cost of the ESInet. It intentionally excludes any NG911-related costs for upgrading PSAP facilities to support NG911, such as updating call taker stations, training, or additional technical staff. The model also does not address costs incurred by telecommunications carriers. See Figure 9 for a summary of the assumptions.

Both Option A and Option B share the following core assumptions:

1. As of July 14, 2011, the FCC PSAP registry included a total of 6,861 active PSAPs in the United States.

2. If a physical IP fiber-based access facility is not available and special construction to build fiber to support 10 Mbps or 100 Mbps fiber access is required, the special construction cost estimates are based on an average distance of one mile.

3. Monthly recurring costs (MRC) over 10 years are calculated using Net Present Value (NPV) and the US 10-Year Treasury Yield rate of 3.03% as of July 21, 2011.

4. MRC over 10 years includes an escalation of 4% during year six because contracts for customer network pricing are typically based on 36 or 60 months pricing.

5. The total MRC per PSAP for the hosted solution (call routing, infrastructure, and software) is $1,200, regardless of the PSAP size.

6. Non-recurring costs are included for items needed to establish the ESInet or IP access facilities. These costs are not generally incurred again, but network equipment such as routers typically have life cycles that may require a refreshing of equipment. Telecommunications infrastructure equipment typically has a useful life of seven years. Therefore, the cost model assumes that starting at year eight, the capital equipment purchased in years one to three is replaced, but we assume even distribution of the cost over a five-year period in years six through ten.19

7. Use of microwave is not taken into account in calculating backhaul costs.

8. Operations and maintenance support is included as a MRC for the dedicated solution at a rate of 6% of capital cost.

Baseline Cost Model -- Option A

The baseline model, does not consider PSAP consolidation for the transition to NG911. Percentages and costs are listed below for each PSAP size class.

19 See, http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-035-006.html and http://www.microsoft.com/midsizebusiness/server-replacement-cycle.mspx

12

Cost Effective Model -- Option B

1. Assumes PSAP consolidation during the transition to NG911, resulting in a total of 35% fewer PSAPs at the end of the migration to NG911. We do not try to estimate the consolidation for each of the three size categories. Among large PSAPs, 50% are assumed to choose a dedicated NG911 solution and 50% a hosted solution. The hosted solution for large PSAPs incurs a non-recurring cost of $50,000.

2. Among medium PSAPs, 25% are assumed to choose a dedicated NG911 solution and the other 75% a hosted solution.

Large PSAPs

• Large PSAPs have 50 or more call taker positions; currently, approximately 1% of all PSAPs fall into this category.

• 100% of large PSAPs are assumed to choose dedicated NG911 systems for Option A, and 50% are assumed to choose dedicated NG911 systems for Option B.

• Large PSAPs are assumed to require 100 Mbps IP transport facilities, with a MRC of $8,750.

• 30% of large PSAPs are assumed to require special construction charges for IP facilities averaging $132,000 each.

• NRC per PSAP for dedicated network costs is divided into two classes: $1,500,000 for 75% of the PSAPs and $3,000,000 for 25% of the PSAPs. This division takes into account the range of possible dedicated network costs.

• All of the large PSAPs are assumed to upgrade IP facilities to dual 100 Mbps IP access.

• In Option A, the large PSAPs incur no MRC for the hosted solution because they are assumed to own and operate all of the infrastructure equipment.

Medium PSAPs

• Medium PSAPs are characterized as having between 6 and 49 call taker positions; currently, approximately 19% of all PSAPs fall into this category.

• 50% (Option A) or 75% (Option B) of medium PSAPs are assumed to choose the hosted solution with national data centers for databases (to house the NG911 applications and call routing databases) and regional media gateway deployments, for hosted equipment and services closer to PSAPs. The remaining PSAPs are assumed to choose a dedicated solution.

• Medium PSAPs are assumed to require 10 Mbps IP transport facilities with a MRC of $1,150.

• 75% of the medium PSAPs are assumed to upgrade IP access facilities to dual 10 Mbps connectivity.

• 40% of medium PSAPs are assumed to require special construction charges for IP facilities averaging $75,000 each.

• For the hosted solution, the total NRC and additional equipment cost is assumed to be $25,000.

13

• NRC per PSAP for the dedicated network is $750,000 (for 75% of the PSAPs) to $1,500,000 (for 25% of the PSAPs).

Small PSAPs

• Small PSAPs have between one and five positions; approximately 80% of PSAPs are in this category.

• 98% of small PSAPs are assumed to choose national data centers for databases (to house the application and databases) and regional media gateway deployments (hosted equipment and services regionally located across the US).

• 2% of small PSAPs are assumed to choose a dedicated solution.

• 55% of small PSAPs are assumed to upgrade IP facilities to dual 10 Mbps connectivity; the others are assumed to already have the necessary connectivity. 45% of small PSAPs are assumed to require special construction charges for IP facilities averaging $55,000 each.

• NRC per PSAP for the dedicated network is assumed to be $500,000 (for 75% of the PSAPs) to $750,000 (for 25% of the PSAPs).

• Small PSAPs are assumed to require 10 Mbps IP transport facilities with an MRC of $1,150 for each circuit.

• For the hosted solution, the total NRC and cost of additional equipment is assumed to be $10,000 per month.

14

Parameters Small PSAPs Medium PSAPs Large PSAPs

Seat size 1-5 6-49 50+

Percentage of PSAPs of each size

80 % 19 % 1 %

PSAPs selecting the hosted solution (Option B)

98 % 50 % (75%) 0 % (50%)

Bandwidth required 2 x 10 Mbps 2 x 10 Mbps 2 x 100 Mbps

PSAPs upgraded with dual fiber access

55 % 75 % 100 %

PSAPs that incur special construction costs for installing new or upgrading existing fiber

45 % 40 % 30 %

Non-recurring cost (NRC) for network access ($M)

0.5 … 0.75 0.75…1.5 1.5…3.0

Monthly cost for fiber lease

2 x $1,150 2 x $1,150 2 x $8,750

NRC for hosting services $10,000 $25,000 $50,000

Monthly recurring charge (MRC) for hosting services

$1,200 $1,200 $1,200

Figure 9 – Key Assumptions

Bandwidth Requirements

• Each call taker can be active on one call at a time, for either voice combined with video or standalone surveillance/traffic camera video. All call taker positions should be able to use all network functions simultaneously; thus, we take into account peak usage when all call takers are busy, not average usage.

• We assume that each active voice call needs 80 Kbps, based on a voice bit rate of 64 Kbps with G.711 encoding plus IP packetization overhead. (Unlike with traditional PSAPs, calls that are queued or on hold do not consume bandwidth.)

• Each call taker watches one video stream, at approximately 1.6 Mbps per call taker position.

• The bandwidth needed for text (RTT, SMS, and instant messaging) is generally considered to be negligible compared to the bandwidth needed for audio and video.

15

• Data (e.g., access to location data or maps) for each call taker is small. We assume that each PSAP needs approximately 1 Mbps for data. In both the hosted and dedicated solutions, mapping and similar data will likely be cached within the PSAP.

• Network bandwidth is typically sold in steps, not by the kilobit. Therefore, we assume 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps, even though the needs may fall between those values.

• While bandwidth needs may not be fully symmetric, commercial-grade access at the 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps bandwidth levels are typically symmetrical, so we make no special provisions for asymmetric access.

16

Appendix B – Diagrams

Small Market – Hosted Solution

Regional Media Gateway

National Data Center

PSAP

Note: Interconnection of IP services from PSAP to Local Media Centers, through various point-of-presence (POP), not shown in detail.

Physically Diverse Path for backup center

Figure 9 - Small PSAP Hosted Solution (Example)

17

Medium Market – Hosted Solution

Local Media Center

National Data Center

PSAP

Note: Interconnection of IP services from PSAP to Local Media Centers, through various point -of-presence (POP), not shown in detail.

Physically Diverse Path for backup center

Figure 10 - Medium PSAP Hosted Solution (Example)

18

Large Market – Dedicated Solution

PSAP

ESInet

ECRFESRP

LIS

LVF

BCFSubscriberDatabase

Multimedia

Carrier Network point -of -presence (POP)

ESInet

ECRFESRP

LIS

LVF

BCFSubscriberDatabase

Multimedia

Physically Diverse Path

Regional or Texas ESInet

Houston PSAP

Houston ESInet

Figure 11 - Large PSAP Dedicated Solution (Example)

19

Appendix C – Network Cost Elements

Figure 12 - Network Cost Elements

• NENA i3 Core Components – Border Control Functions (BCF) for IP connectivity from call originators (either dedicated to 911 or shared with other emergency services)

– Emergency Call Routing Function (ECRF)– Location Validation Function (LVF)– Emergency Services Routing Proxy (ESRP)– Policy Store/Policy Routing Function (PSPRF)– Location Information Servers (LIS)

• Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network (Could be LEC-supplied or State owned/operated)

– Fiber access connectivity – 10 Mbps and 100 Mbps

• Software external to the PSAP – Data collection, security, identity management,aggregation, GIS functionality (largely re-used, but new to PSAPs), DBMS and ALI equivalent software (transitional)

• Gateways – Legacy 911 tandems and/or gateways from originating trunk (911 tandems not used) (May include location database store if ALI equivalent not used)

• Other included elements – Firewall, offsite backup data, Uninterrupted Power Systems (UPS), power supplies, power cords and cables

8/14/2013 Worksheet - Ira Pyles; Mission Statements - various

E911 Board Mission Statement Worksheet 365.172 Emergency communications number “E911.”— (5)THE E911 BOARD.— (a)The E911 Board is established to administer, with oversight by the office, the fee … the board, … has the powers enumerated in subsection (6). (6)AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD; ANNUAL REPORT.— (a)The board shall: 1.Administer the E911 fee. 2.Implement, maintain, and oversee the fund. 3.Review and oversee the disbursement of the revenues … 4.Review documentation submitted by wireless providers which reflects current and projected funds derived from the fee, and the expenses incurred and expected to be incurred in order to comply with the E911 service requirements … 5.Meet monthly … 6.Hire and retain employees … 7.Make and enter into contracts … 8.Sue and be sued … 9.Adopt, use, and alter a common corporate seal. 10.Elect or appoint the officers and agents … 11.The board may adopt rules … 12.Provide coordination, support, and technical assistance to counties to promote the deployment of advanced 911 and E911 systems in the state. 13.Provide coordination and support for educational opportunities related to E911 issues for the E911 community in this state. 14.Act as an advocate for issues related to E911 system functions, features, and operations to improve the delivery of E911 services to the residents of and visitors to this state. 15.Coordinate input from this state at national forums and associations … 16.Work cooperatively with the system director … 17.Do all acts … to carry out the powers granted … 18.Have the authority to secure the services of an independent, private attorney

Mission Statement Suggestions: (in order of receipt)

1. Assist Florida counties in the advancement of 911 services through educational funding and technological guidance and provide a road map for Next Generation 911.

2. Dedicated to serving the vital link between the public and public safety

organization through responsiveness and technical excellence while in partnership with the users and employees.

3. Provide statewide emergency telecommunications systems accessible to

everyone and to administer and oversee its operation.

8/14/2013 Worksheet - Ira Pyles; Mission Statements - various

4. Work in partnership with Florida counties to promote the deployment of advanced 911 systems statewide and champion educational opportunities to the 911 community in support of the delivery of exceptional 911 services to the residents and visitors of the State of Florida.

5. Partner with Florida counties in the advancement of 911 services

statewide and advocate educational opportunities to the 911 community in support of the delivery of outstanding 911 services to the residents and visitors of the state of Florida.

6. Collaborate with Florida counties to implement Next Generation 911

systems statewide and promote educational opportunities to the 911 community in support of the delivery of unsurpassed 911 services to the residents and visitors of Florida.

7. To act as an advocate for issues related to the 911 system functions, features and operations, to improve the delivery of services and oversee the distribution of funding for 911 services to the residents of and visitors to the state.

BOARDE 9 11

BOARDE 9 1 1

APCO FLORIDA CHAPTER PO BOX 20555 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33416

August 8, 2013 Director, Division of Telecommunications Designee of Secretary for the Department of Management Services Florida E‐911 Board Chairman 4030 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, FL 32399‐0950 Dear Chairman of the E911 Board, The Florida APCO Training Committee has scheduled Active Shooter class to be facilitated by APCO International on October 31st, 2013 and we are hereby requesting funding at the rate of $5000.00 for the training course. This course helps to educate telecommunicators about the many intricate issues and challenges posed by active shooter incidents and their response and the role the telecommunicator plays in each. The course will be held at the annual Florida APCO/NENA Training Symposium and Conference located at The Tampa Hilton, 211 N. Tampa St, Tampa and is open to any interested students. The class will be posted on our website at www.apco‐florida.org along with registration instructions. The presenter and training facility will accommodate a maximum of 45 students and will be cancelled if a minimum attendance of 10 is not met. We agree to reserve two seats per class for E911 board members or staff, to offer first opportunity to the county 9‐1‐1 coordinator and agency personnel, and to furnish an attendance roster and invoice at the conclusion of the classes. The Florida APCO Chapter greatly appreciates your support in the training of our State’s Public Safety Telecommunicators and appreciates your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Joann Brown Florida APCO President

Past President Robert Jeffrey Jr., ENP , RPL

Orange County Sheriff’s Office PO Box 5879

Winter Park, FL 32793-5879 407.836.3905 Office 407.836.3913 FAX

[email protected] Executive Council Representative

Ricky Rowell Nassau County Sheriff’s Office

76001 Bobby Moore Circle Yulee, FL 32097

904.548.4022 Office 904.548.4122 FAX

[email protected]

Chapter Commercial Advisory Member Eddie Williams, ENP

Replay Systems 6555 NW 9th Ave., Suite 105

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 954.267.9199 Office

954.267.9184 Fax [email protected]

Secretary

Secretary Lynn Burnside

Margate Police Department 5790 Margate Blvd. Margate, FL. 33063 954.935.5427 Office 954.935-5436 FAX

[email protected]

Treasurer Robin Schmidt

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office

3228 Gun Club Rd West Palm Beach, FL 33406

561.688.3443 Office [email protected]

President Joann Brown

Coral Springs Police Dept. 2801 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, FL 33065

954.346.1358 Office 954.346.1357 FAX

[email protected]

President-Elect Christine Hodges

Lee County Sheriff’s Office 3705 Kemper Street

Fort Myers, FL 33905 239-477-1213 Office 239-477-1207 FAX

[email protected]

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials

Sixty‐five Years of Service

Not‐ for‐ Profit Corporation 501(C) (3)

Board of Officers Nancy Morris, ,RPL

Punta Gorda Police Dept. 1410 Tamiami Trail

Punta Gorda, FL. 33950 941-575-5511 Office 941-575-5516 FAX

[email protected]

Board of Officers Debbie Gailbreath

Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office PO Box 4115

Sarasota, FL 34230 941.861.4055 Office 941.861.4069 FAX [email protected]

Board of Officers Fran Self

Palm Bay Police Dept. 130 Malabar Rd. S.E. Palm Bay, FL 32908

321-953-8963 321-952-3409 [email protected]

APCO FLORIDA CHAPTER PO BOX 20555 WEST PALM BEACH FL 33416

August 8, 2013 Director, Division of Telecommunications Designee of Secretary for the Department of Management Services Florida E‐911 Board Chairman 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 135 Tallahassee, FL 32399‐0950 Dear Chairman of the E911 Board, The Florida APCO Training Committee has scheduled Telecommunicator Liability class to be facilitated by Tony Harrison on October 27th, 2013 and we are hereby requesting funding at the rate of $2500.00 for the training course. The Telecommunicator Liability class is an 8‐hour course. This course introduces students to the basics of a lawsuit, liability for the dispatcher, liability for the trainer, liability for the supervisor, five common areas of communications lawsuits, and case studies. The course will be held at the annual Florida APCO/NENA Training Symposium and Conference located at The Tampa Hilton, 211 N. Tampa St, Tampa and is open to any interested students. The class will be posted on our website at www.apco‐florida.org along with registration instructions. The presenter and training facility will accommodate a maximum of 40 students and will be cancelled if a minimum attendance of 10 is not met. We agree to reserve two seats per class for E911 board members or staff, to offer first opportunity to the county 9‐1‐1 coordinator and agency personnel, and to furnish an attendance roster and invoice at the conclusion of the classes. The Florida APCO Chapter greatly appreciates your support in the training of our State’s Public Safety Telecommunicators and appreciates your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Joann Brown Florida APCO President

Past President Robert Jeffrey Jr., ENP , RPL

Orange County Sheriff’s Office PO Box 5879

Winter Park, FL 32793-5879 407.836.3905 Office 407.836.3913 FAX

[email protected] Executive Council Representative

Ricky Rowell Nassau County Sheriff’s Office

76001 Bobby Moore Circle Yulee, FL 32097

904.548.4022 Office 904.548.4122 FAX

[email protected]

Chapter Commercial Advisory Member Eddie Williams, ENP

Replay Systems 6555 NW 9th Ave., Suite 105

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 954.267.9199 Office

954.267.9184 Fax [email protected]

Secretary

Secretary Lynn Burnside

Margate Police Department 5790 Margate Blvd. Margate, FL. 33063 954.935.5427 Office 954.935-5436 FAX

[email protected]

Treasurer Robin Schmidt

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office

3228 Gun Club Rd West Palm Beach, FL 33406

561.688.3443 Office [email protected]

President Joann Brown

Coral Springs Police Dept. 2801 Coral Springs Drive Coral Springs, FL 33065

954.346.1358 Office 954.346.1357 FAX

[email protected]

President-Elect Christine Hodges

Lee County Sheriff’s Office 3705 Kemper Street

Fort Myers, FL 33905 239-477-1213 Office 239-477-1207 FAX

[email protected]

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials

Sixty‐five Years of Service

Not‐ for‐ Profit Corporation 501(C) (3)

Board of Officers Nancy Morris, ,RPL

Punta Gorda Police Dept. 1410 Tamiami Trail

Punta Gorda, FL. 33950 941-575-5511 Office 941-575-5516 FAX

[email protected]

Board of Officers Debbie Gailbreath

Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office PO Box 4115

Sarasota, FL 34230 941.861.4055 Office 941.861.4069 FAX [email protected]

Board of Officers Fran Self

Palm Bay Police Dept. 130 Malabar Rd. S.E. Palm Bay, FL 32908

321-953-8963 321-952-3409 [email protected]

NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1: THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO

GETTING STARTED

An Introduction to Next-Generation 9-1-1 Terminology, Concepts and Considerations

V O L U M E O N E

www.intrado.com

© 2013, Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. The content of this guidebook may not be reproduced or otherwise exploited in any form without the express written permission of Intrado Inc.; however, reasonable excerpts may be reproduced by public safety personnel acting in an official capacity for educational, non-commercial purposes. This restricted license is non-exclusive and revocable.

V O L U M E O N E

NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1: THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO

GETTING STARTED

An Introduction to Next-Generation 9-1-1 Terminology, Concepts and Considerations

This document contains materials developed from various sources committed to deploying NextGen 9-1-1 services. This document is intended for use as reference

material and may be modified to fit the needs of the user.

Next-Generation 9-1-1 (NextGen 9-1-1) is one of the most broadly discussed yet narrowly understood subjects within the public safety community. It is a topic that elicits both excitement and trepidation among emergency communications professionals. While there is a significant amount of valuable work being done within the industry to define what the end-state architecture will look like, many decision makers are unclear about how to get started.

Given the current 9-1-1 environment, the demands on the legacy system, the expectations of the public and the overwhelming departure from analog technology in modern communications, the migration to NextGen 9-1-1 technology is essential. It is so critical that in 2008 the federal government passed The New and Emerging Technologies 9-1-1 Improvement Act calling for “a national plan for migrating to a national IP-enabled network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen-activated emergency communication and improving information sharing among all emergency response entities.” 1 While the legislation does not mandate the migration, it does encourage public safety answering points (PSAPs) to begin the process.

Preface

1 New and Emerging Technologies 9-1-1 Improvement Act, HR 3403, House, 110th Cong., 1st sess., sec. 102.

Even though the federal government is calling for action at the national level, Next-Generation 9-1-1 is not a federal initiative, and aside from some high-level guidelines developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the federal government is not responsible for providing detailed guidance or setting standards. While industry efforts, such as the National Emergency Number Association’s (NENA) i3 architectural framework, are working to establish standards, the transition to an IP-based 9-1-1 emergency communications system will be driven, overseen and managed by state and local 9-1-1 authorities.

For many, the idea of a nationwide next-generation architecture has been a future consideration. The reality is that first steps are possible today, and the sooner that local entities begin the process, the sooner they will achieve the benefits. Emergency communications jurisdictions and PSAPs that do not prioritize this effort will eventually find themselves left behind and unable to interoperate with local and state agencies as other PSAPs move forward with this essential transition. The difficulty is in knowing how to successfully begin the migration.

This guide is designed to educate you on the next-generation migration process, show you how to get started and demonstrate that the path to NextGen 9-1-1 does not have to happen as one monumental and overwhelming project. It can be an evolutionary road that is approached in manageable phases in order to control the operational, as well as the financial, impact of the transition.

By understanding your political landscape, your operational needs, your constituency and the scope of your project, you can successfully launch a NextGen 9-1-1 initiative now. Getting started is easier than you think, and, if managed appropriately, each step of the journey will bring added value to your citizens as well as to every area of public safety that is impacted by the 9-1-1 system.

Table of Contents

C O N T E N T: D I A G R A M S :

C H A P T E R 2

C H A P T E R 3

C H A P T E R 4

C O N C L U S I O N

C H A P T E R 1 1.1 A Network of Networks 1

2.1 Stakeholder Ecosystem 7

3.1 Transition from Legacy to NG9-1-1 14

3.2 Legacy Flat File vs. GIS Layered File 17

3.3 Convergence of Screens 19

3.4 The Power of the Cloud 22

4.1 NextGen 9-1-1 Starting Points 23

4.2 ESInet 24

4.3 IP-Enabled PSAP 25

4.4 GIS 29

4.5 Enhanced Data 30

THE WHAT AND WHY OF 1 NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1

Why Next-Generation 9-1-1 2

Should Be Implemented

The Advantages of 3

Next-Generation 9-1-1

NENA i3 4

FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 5

The Cost of Next-Generation 9-1-1 5

Planning 6

Stakeholder Groups 7

Project Management 8

Options for Implementation 9

Operational Impacts 10

Regulatory Concerns and Funding 12

NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1 IMPACT 14

ON LEGACY COMPONENTS

Location Information 15

Geographic Information Systems 16

Customer Premises Equipment 18

Computer-Assisted Dispatch and Radio 20

The Cloud 21

WHERE TO BEGIN 23

Emergency Services IP Network 24

IP-Enabled PSAP 25

Geographic Information Systems 28

Enhanced Data 30

33

Additional References

Checklist to Get Started

R E S O U R C E S

Today, the key underpinnings of the legacy 9-1-1 framework are based on the same wireline, analog, circuit-switched technology that was the foundation of the original 9-1-1 architecture in 1968. Aside from an enhanced data environment and the ability to support wireless and Internet telephony, the system has not significantly changed in more than 40 years. The truth is that 9-1-1 has not evolved as quickly as modern, digital communications, and the gap is quickly becoming a chasm that broadens every day. In order to close this gap and benefit from the monumental advancements that are taking place in commercial communications, the public safety community must begin planning for the transition to a next-generation IP-based model.

Next-Generation 9-1-1 (NextGen 9-1-1) reflects an industry vision that defines advanced services and collaboration capabilities across emergency response entities employing a nationwide network of interconnected IP-based networks. During a citizen-initiated call for help, typical NextGen 9-1-1 processing activities include call handling, emergency response dispatch, the coordination of necessary services and the correlation of events that may be related to the 9-1-1 call as well as a wide variety of post-event activities ranging from log review and data sharing to evidence inquiries and forensics.

ENHANCEDDATA

INTEROPERABILITY WITH OUT-OF-STATE

PSAP

BACKUP EVACUATION SITE

GISDATA

PSAP

NEIGHBORINGPSAP

DATABACKUP

1.1 A NETWORK OF NETWORKS

THE WHAT AND WHY OF NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1 1

1

Why Next-Generation 9-1-1 Should Be Implemented

Fundamentally, the Next-Generation 9-1-1 migration is focused on transitioning the current legacy operating environment to an operational model based on secure IP transport, geographic information systems (GIS), modern network functional elements and changing responsibilities between a telecommunications service provider and a local 9-1-1 authority. Tactically, NextGen 9-1-1 will replace analog, circuit-switched and point-to-point technology with digital broadband technology using packet switching facilities to support voice, data, text, image, video and multimedia applications on a secure, robust multipurpose network. These technology changes will allow for vast improvements to the current analog system, including:

more robust feature functionality

enhanced survivability and resiliency

increased quality of service

faster call set-up time

improved alignment with public expectation for text and data

immense information sharing across PSAP and public safety jurisdictions

seamless evolution with the technological advancements in modern communications

significant adaptability to the unique needs of individual PSAPs and public safety jurisdictions

In basic terms, a NextGen 9-1-1 network will provide a modern technology platform that will deliver more effective communication between the public and public safety agencies while allowing for dynamic communication between interconnected public safety agencies. But the advantages do not end there. The authors of The 9-1-1 Industry Alliance 2008 Study on the Health of the United States 9-1-1 Emergency Network: A Call to Action on 9-1-1 outline three motivating reasons why NextGen 9-1-1 supported by an IP-based protocol should be embraced:

1 Since the various technologies used today to access 9-1-1 have or will soon be utilizing an IP network, the 9-1-1 system must follow suit in order to ensure compatibility with the public.

2 It will become increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain traditional circuit-switched infrastructures because the technology is being abandoned across commercial communications.

3 The decentralized control provided by a digital technology, IP-based, open network allows network packets to be rerouted around network failures creating greater reliability and redundancy.1

It is important to note that the lack of such reliability and redundancy in the legacy architecture was a compounding factor in the failure of 9-1-1 systems during major catastrophes such as 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Joplin, Missouri, tornado and Hurricane Sandy.

21 The 9-1-1 Industry Alliance 2008 Study on the Health of the United States 9-1-1 Emergency Network: A Call to Action on 9-1-1, pp. 38-39.

The Advantages of Next-Generation 9-1-1

T H E W H AT A N D W H Y O F N E X T- G E N E R AT I O N 9 - 1 - 1

As more attention is paid to the migration to a next-generation IP-based architecture, it will be easy to get distracted by the challenges that will inevitably arise. The task will demand a significant amount of work, and it will bring change to the industry as well as to individual PSAPs. However, Next-Generation 9-1-1 is certainly a case in which the result justifies the effort.

NextGen 9-1-1 will introduce a broad array of robust new feature functionality that will significantly expand public safety capabilities and bring enhanced value to an increasing number of stakeholders. The broad systemic advancements will be a significant victory as well. If implemented properly, the resulting benefits of this shift will bring improvements to the resiliency, reliability and overall performance of the emergency communications network.

NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1 BENEFITS

Diverse IP paths will make 9-1-1 service more resilient and survivable.

Static emergency service numbers (ESNs) for call provisioning and routing will be replaced with methods that better accommodate modern communications devices with dynamic location information and no fixed service address.

The ability to connect to remote PSAPs and command centers will improve operational continuity.

Platform flexibility will improve interoperability with technologies and service providers and open the door to future advancements in functionality.

Geographically distributed PSAPs and consolidated infrastructures will allow for remote call takers and expanded service.

Cloud-based services, including correlation of events across many information sources, will improve incident intelligence and advanced services options to all stakeholders, including call takers, dispatchers and responders.

The viability of multiple types of requests for assistance will give emergency callers greater access to 9-1-1 emergency response services.

The implementation of smart applications will protect public safety personnel, assist with emergency response and enhance situational awareness.

The adaptability of solutions will allow for local and timely customization of 9-1-1 services.

Increased modular change capacity will allow for faster deployment of solutions to meet public safety needs while reducing associated risks.

In a nutshell, Next-Generation 9-1-1 will create an environment conducive to interoperability, flexibility and innovation that will significantly enhance public safety agencies’ ability to communicate with each other and with the public and to effectively respond to emergency situations.

3

NENA i3 Architectural Framework for NextGen 9-1-1

The proposed next-generation improvements to the legacy 9-1-1 network are the most sweeping changes the emergency communications industry has ever seen, dwarfing the work done to implement wireless Phase I and Phase II functionality. In order to provide industry-wide guidance to this significant and necessary task, in 2011, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) approved the i3 architectural framework, which is designed to provide key technical guidelines for the implementation of NextGen 9-1-1 systems. The adoption of this document was one of the key milestones on the road to nationwide Next-Generation 9-1-1 implementation. While the framework is not a “build-to” specification for a complete NextGen 9-1-1 system, it does carefully define an end-state vision for this important architecture.2 Using a Long-Term Definition (LTD) approach, the i3 framework outlines an architecture designed as an IP-based network of networks utilized by all agencies that may be involved in an emergency. In conjunction with the proposed architecture, NENA has also issued a recommended set of technical requirements to guide the functions and interfaces between the various elements involved with an IP-based 9-1-1 public safety emergency services architecture. While NENA states that there remains significant work to be done to provide end-to-end migration standards, the adopted document “establishes a clear vision for the future and a foundation on which successful transitions to Next-Generation 9-1-1 service can be built.”3

Please note that all information provided in Next Generation 9-1-1: The Essential Guide to Getting Started aligns with NENA i3 standards.

T H E W H AT A N D W H Y O F N E X T- G E N E R AT I O N 9 - 1 - 1

2 Understanding NENA’s i3 Architectural Standard for NG911, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.nena.org/resource/collection/ 2851c951-69ff-40f0-a6b8-36a714cb085d/NENA_08-003_Detailed_Functional_&_Interface_Specification_for_the_NENA_i3_ Solution-Stage_3.pdf?hhSearchTerms=i3

3 http://urgentcomm.com/psap-news/nena-approves-i3-standard

4

One of the most beneficial aspects of the road to a Next-Generation 9-1-1 system is that it is not a singular linear path. Every local initiative will be different because it will reflect the unique circumstances surrounding that PSAP or jurisdiction. Because of this flexibility, however, there is no singular linear way to describe the necessary steps to getting there. Despite the variances that will arise as public safety agencies across the country begin this journey, there are important common fundamental issues that every next-generation initiative will need to explore in order to make the transition as successful and as smooth as possible.

The Cost of Next-Generation 9-1-1

The cost of the Next-Generation 9-1-1 migration will vary depending on the individual migration strategy and level of next-generation functionality that a PSAP implements. However, it is important to understand that the figure may be significant. A next-generation architecture will require upgrades to key technical components, and there will be additional components and ongoing costs as the technology continues to evolve. Furthermore, agencies must be prepared to fund two parallel systems—legacy and next-generation—during the migration process.

The reality is that the cost of operating and maintaining NextGen 9-1-1 will be more than that of legacy 9-1-1, but cost need not be a deterrent to implementation. The transition is inevitable, and the costs can be managed by implementing a phased approach to migration. Additionally, there are strategies available that can allow for cost sharing among PSAPs as well as methods for stabilizing cash flow while minimizing upgrade and maintenance costs that add to the overall NextGen 9-1-1 value proposition.

FUNDAMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 2

5

Planning

An important aspect to remember about the migration to a next-generation model is that it is not going to happen overnight. In fact, agencies should understand that NextGen 9-1-1 is not a final destination; it is an ongoing journey of phased projects that will carry on as technology continues to evolve and innovative new features are introduced to help public safety agencies.

As with any long-term venture, there will be challenges along the way, and they will differ as widely as the circumstances surrounding individual PSAPs and emergency communications jurisdictions. In order to achieve a NextGen 9-1-1 system that can function as envisioned, it is essential that next-generation decision makers do not simply seek the path of least resistance, but instead, plot a course that leads toward a long-term solution focusing on the real needs of the public and public safety. To successfully build a robust, interoperable, nationwide Next-Generation 9-1-1 system, detailed planning will be essential at the core of every local initiative.

A deep understanding of the public safety landscape is a foundational element to a sound strategy. Project drivers should take into consideration:

political realities

regulatory and funding environment

ongoing PSAP pain points

legacy network weaknesses

geographic vulnerabilities

projected population trends

public expectations

future needs and expectations

realistic and prioritized use cases

By structuring a long-term strategy based on a comprehensive knowledge of the current and future public safety environment, agencies will be prepared to take on the inevitable challenges that are inherent in any project of this magnitude.

A Checklist to Get Started is included at the end of this book to help guide you through the planning phase of your migration.

6

Stakeholder Groups

One distinct difference between legacy 9-1-1 and Next-Generation 9-1-1 is the increased number of stakeholders. Because NextGen 9-1-1 allows for expanded information gathering and sharing as well as greater public safety agency interoperability, there are more constituents impacted by the implementation of a next-generation system. A tremendous amount of NextGen 9-1-1 value will be experienced outside the PSAP or emergency communications center due to the introduction of robust feature functionality that will directly support first responders in the field. It is important that each 9-1-1 authority carefully considers who will benefit from and be impacted by its unique next-generation system and include these groups in the planning and management of the transition.

Next-Generation 9-1-1 will have a growing and significant impact on law enforcement and fire agencies, EMS, specialized rescue and state and local departments of transportation. It is imperative that all these groups have a voice in the migration process. If a jurisdiction includes a large educational or corporate campus, campus police should be considered. If an agency is in a rural area, wildlife agencies as well as search and rescue operations may need to be included. If an area is impacted by geographic or geologic circumstances or chemical or nuclear plants, specialists from those areas should be considered. Every region of the country faces its own unique circumstances that can impact crisis situations. Those factors have constituency groups that should influence how a next-generation architecture is developed if this essential migration is to succeed.

F U N D A M E N TA L C O N S I D E R AT I O N S

INTERNAL TEAM

FIRE

POLICE

EMT

GOV’T

NUCLEARPLANTS

CHEMICALPLANTS

PARKS &RECREATION

FOREST &WILDLIFE

CAMPUSPOLICE

CORPORATESECURITY

CONNECTEDPSAPS

TRANSDPRT

2.1 STAKEHOLDER ECOSYSTEM

7

Project Management

Effective project management is the cornerstone of any successful next-generation migration strategy. This effort cannot be an additional task given to public safety staff members who have other areas of ongoing responsibility. A dedicated project management team should be created to oversee any next-generation initiative. Finding the right team is critical. The primary oversight group should include experienced professionals who understand the day-to-day demands of a project of this scope. As discussed earlier, there will also be a larger constituency group involved at a higher level that represents the entire emergency communications ecosystem. These two teams must work together to establish the long-term vision as well as proactively manage the details of the migration.

Once the project management team has been identified, a strategic plan should be created that divides the migration into manageable phases that can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. The transition to a next-generation network is going to be a long-term, ongoing project. Again, NextGen 9-1-1 is an evolutionary path, not a final destination. The network will continue to change and transition as long as new applications and capabilities continue to be added. Because of this, every phase needs to be managed in a way that will introduce some quantifiable benefit for as many of the constituency groups as possible or the project may lose support over time.

One of the most important things to understand about NextGen 9-1-1 is that this is not a plug-and-play project. It is not a question of purchasing a next-generation kit and simply turning off the old and turning on the new. In fact, for a time, agencies should be prepared to manage and fund two parallel but interoperating systems while elements of the network are transitioned from analog to next-generation technology under the guidance of an overall transition plan and architecture.

8

Options for Implementation

As agencies develop a strategic plan, there are multiple paths for moving forward with implementation of a Next-Generation 9-1-1 system. The best option depends on your specific goals, circumstances, staff and budget.

PSAPs may choose to design and manage their NextGen 9-1-1 migration in house. Using this strategy, internal personnel can purchase and integrate network elements and engineer the overall network from within. This approach provides a high degree of control over every aspect of the next-generation architecture, deployment and system maintenance. It also allows you to determine the overall design in a phased approach and more closely monitor the cost structure of the migration. However, next-generation network solutions are constantly changing as advancements are made. This deployment and management strategy must be able to financially accommodate a high rate of change and recognize that the agency is responsible for complete system operation.

PSAPs that do not have the appropriate staff to manage the design and implementation process independently may choose to work with a consultant. With this option, PSAPs can benefit from the expertise of a specialist, while having significant input to the final configuration and maintenance strategy. Before choosing to work with a consultant, however, it is important to explore the financial implications, including ongoing consultation fees and the impact to your operational budget.

PSAPs can also choose to work with a 9-1-1 service provider that has a fully integrated solution offering. With this option, all major network elements are inherently structured to work together. For PSAPs starting with a complete legacy system or that have some next-generation elements in place, an integrated offering allows you to purchase a system that incorporates the existing environment into the overall solution. Typically, with the purchase of an integrated solution, the 9-1-1 services provider will be responsible for the overall network design, implementation, maintenance and ongoing operational updates.

Regardless of the option, it is important to consider not just the implementation or conversion issues, but ongoing impacts to personnel, systems, operations and costs as well.

.


9

Operational Impacts

Next-Generation 9-1-1 will provide call takers and dispatchers with the most comprehensive data-gathering possible. It will revolutionize the way they extract, manage, correlate, interpret and dispatch essential information in an emergency. Future next-generation capabilities will allow 9-1-1 communication center staff and field personnel to access shared event information, photos, videos, building schematics and personal medical information, all of which will lead to better situational awareness for responders.

While the benefits of these new capabilities are immeasurable, they will definitely impact operations, possibly in ways that cannot yet be predicted. Despite the fact that operations will change, PSAP directors and call takers will remain in control of every emergency call as well as the decisions surrounding how and when the new information will be made available to their personnel. Careful planning and the development of a NextGen 9-1-1 operations training program will help manage the changes that result from next-generation data.

In many ways, the operational impacts that are inherent in a next-generation transition are not changes as much as extensions of what is already taking place within a PSAP today. Data has always been an essential element in emergency communication, and there are workflow processes and rules in place to handle that information. In a next-generation environment, there will be more data and computerized services to allow for the effective use of the data, thus the existing processes and rules will need to be expanded to accommodate the additional information. In order to ensure that call takers do not get inundated with information during an emergency, PSAP directors can establish the boundaries of what data is available to whom, when they have access to it and where it is used. Moreover, the solutions being developed and offered by 9-1-1 service providers today seamlessly correlate and display information in a way that can streamline the manner in which call takers manage the information. In many cases, the additional data can be delivered directly to the appropriate first responders, eliminating the need for the PSAP to be involved with information that does not directly impact their operations.

Training will play a key role in ensuring that call takers, dispatchers and responders are at ease with the increasing amount of data as well as how to interface with it. Interacting with next-generation call screens will be similar to the graphical user interface (GUI) that is common on many modern digital devices. Formal training will need to be organized to teach call takers how to interpret some of the data and will need to include instruction on newly established workflow processes and procedures. With the introduction of NextGen 9-1-1, individual PSAPs should customize their training to match their next-generation environment as well as their operational needs.

10

The procedures and processes guiding the use of data, however, should not be limited to the time of a call. One of the most beneficial aspects of a next-generation environment is the opportunity for improved resiliency and redundancy. If a PSAP’s operation is compromised for any reason or if call volume suddenly spikes, calls can seamlessly be transferred to another PSAP as defined by the affected PSAP’s policies. With the increase in data, guidelines must be established to ensure that this valuable information follows the transferred call in order to protect operational continuity. This level of interconnectivity will require agreements between the connected agencies to determine the procedures, workflows and rules governing call handling, the associated data and emergency services response. There must be regional collaboration with documented processes to ensure effective interoperability.

Data retention rules should also be considered. While all PSAPs have established guidelines for the archiving of call logs and other 9-1-1 information, those procedures should be reviewed and potentially expanded to include various other sorts of data. As part of the records retention process, PSAPs should also consider:

Who is in charge of this information?

Who has access to the information in the future for situations such as criminal or arson investigations?

Will legal documentation such as a subpoena be required to access the information?

Where will the data be housed?

How long will the data be retained?

Because the deployment of nationwide NextGen 9-1-1 is still in its infancy, operational procedures and training programs are still under development, and no uniform standards exist to guide PSAPs on the management of next-generation data. Despite the lack of precedence, however, as PSAPs begin to implement NextGen 9-1-1 capabilities, it will be extremely important to create customized operational procedures and training programs, including the detailed development of use cases, that reflect the unique environment and specific needs of individual emergency communication centers. It is important to remember that as the transition takes place, PSAPs will be functioning in an interim state with both legacy and next-generation characteristics. Workflow processes, procedures, planning and training must accommodate that dual system and be flexible enough to evolve with the environment. While this may sound intimidating, if an agency uses the base legacy environment as a starting point and begins to think of operations in regional terms, policies can be expanded to minimize and manage the operational impacts of NextGen 9-1-1 on emergency communications.


11

Regulatory Concerns and Funding

Regulatory and funding issues are two of the most complex, interrelated and, at times, murky topics surrounding the transition to NextGen 9-1-1. To complicate matters, it is difficult to discuss any other aspect of the transition without at least a basic understanding of these subjects because they impact so many elements of this national initiative. Any meaningful discussion of regulatory and funding issues needs to consider the boundaries of federal, state and local governments, varying technology platforms, as well as disparate implementation costs, cost recovery methods and funding mechanisms. The difficulty is that these are rapidly evolving issues that require comprehensive and ongoing analysis. This guide does not provide such an analysis, but rather offers a high-level summary at this point in time. In order to give you the most accurate and in-depth insight into NextGen 9-1-1 regulatory and funding issues, subsequent volumes of this guide will be released to provide focused information as it becomes available.

Given the fact that legal and policy changes notoriously lag behind technological advances, it is not surprising that the industry as a whole lacks a coherent strategy for the regulatory and funding modifications necessary for nationwide NextGen 9-1-1 implementation. While some jurisdictions have anticipated the migration and begun to make initial reforms,1 there is activity at the federal level that provides hope for a logical and clear path forward.

After seeking comment on the topic,2 the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau recently made recommendations to Congress on the legal and regulatory framework for Next- Generation 9-1-1 services3 in accordance with the Next-Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012.4 Additionally, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 will have positive implications for how NextGen 9-1-1 will be deployed and governed. This legislation envisions a fully-integrated, emergency services ecosystem centered around a national, interoperable, public safety broadband network (NPSBN), which will be fully integrated with NextGen 9-1-1 networks (ESInets). Although the NPSBN is governed by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)5 which holds the single 700 MHz spectrum license dedicated to public safety users, these two pieces of federal legislation assure that state and local agencies retain authority over NextGen 9-1-1 services. Since FirstNet’s initial meeting in September 2012, it has solicited input from government agencies, first responders, commercial carriers, third-party vendors, consultants and other stakeholders. It has exercised its broad authority to begin designing the NPSBN and to begin negotiating with state and local jurisdictions so they can integrate their emergency communications systems with the NPSBN.6

1 See, “The Now-Generation 9-1-1 … The State of Washington Is Successfully Blazing Trails To Modernize Its Statewide 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Network.” See also, Nebraska Public Service Commission, Order Setting Hearing and Seeking Comment, Discussion of Requirements, Costs and Impacts to Implementation of NG9-1-1 in Nebraska, Application No. 9-1-1-045 / PI-166, October 30, 2012. See also, Nebraska state legislature, NE LB 595 authorizing Next Generation 9-1-1 study and appropriating $650,000 for the PSC to conduct the study.

2 Public Notice DA 12-1831, November 13, 2012, P.S. Docket No. 10-255, P.S. Docket No. 11-153, P.S. Docket No. 12-333, Federal Communications Commission.

3 Federal Communications Commission, “Legal and Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911 Services – Report to Congress and Recommendations,” February 22, 2013. See also, Federal Communications Commission, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan” (NBP), March 16, 2010, section 16 (public safety communications), available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.

4 Included as Title VI within the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub.L. No. 112-96 signed into law February 22, 2012.

5 FirstNet is housed in the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, and is comprised of a 15-person board with broad powers to design, build and operate the NPSBN.6 Id., Subtitle B, Sec 6205(b).

12


In addition to the initial steps to address NextGen 9-1-1 regulation, a funding transition is essential to successfully implement NextGen 9-1-1 on a national scale. This will take time and political guidance and will most likely need to be led by Congress with the support of various federal agencies. To that end, the U.S. Department of Transportation, National 9-1-1 Program office, has convened a blue-ribbon panel on NextGen 9-1-1 funding to examine the current state of 9-1-1 funding nationwide and to identify and promote better ways to finance 9-1-1 and NextGen 9-1-1 into the future.7 However, the importance of state and local participation in the funding dialogue cannot be overstated. Private and public participants in the emergency communications industry have an historic opportunity.8 Lagging behind their federal cousins, state policy makers would be wise to immerse themselves in the topic. The inevitability of NextGen 9-1-1 and its benefits are undisputed. It is clearly time for state and local governments, particularly state legislatures, state regulators and state and local 9-1-1 agencies, to take center stage. In most cases, the transition away from a legacy system calls for revised state statutes and/or rules that:

recognize new technologies without lowering the bar on the high standards for 9-1-1 service that have been gained over time

enable competitive 9-1-1 service providers for the benefit of the public

remove legal and regulatory obstacles to NextGen 9-1-1 deployment

provide for an equitable state funding mechanism that is competitively and technologically neutral in all respects while not interrupting existing funding

Without question, the time to get started is now. There are several actions that state and local officials can take today to better prepare for the migration to Next-Generation 9-1-1:

Just get started … even if it’s “a plan for a plan.”

Consult with all state authorities that have duties surrounding NextGen 9-1-1 activities and the NPSBN. This will vary by state, but as a general rule, these positions are Department of Homeland Security designations, which may include a statewide interoperability coordinator, chief technology officers, chief information officers and, in some instances, dedicated 9-1-1 boards. In many cases, these people will also be involved with the distribution of federal grant money that has been made available to help offset the cost of planning and consultation with FirstNet.

Become familiar with the current 9-1-1 related regulatory and legislative activity— understand what is being proposed and the timelines involved.

7 The panel of approximately 15 subject matter experts recently met in Washington, D.C. on April 2, 2013.

8 See, Opportunity for NG9–1–1 in the States – An Analysis - Pew Center for the States, October, 2011, e.g., “Government leaders and policy makers need education on the current problems with 9-1-1, the benefits of NG9-1-1, and the path forward. Moreover, the education, both in person and with accessible materials, needs to be presented in simple, non-technical language that policy makers can understand without becoming 9-1-1 experts. Therefore, there is a clear opportunity for an advocacy organization to bridge the gap as well as to provide the message and the material in the layperson language needed by [policy makers].” Pew report, page 32.

13

The migration to a Next-Generation 9-1-1 architecture will inevitably introduce new elements to a PSAP’s operational environment and some existing elements will have to evolve in order to reap the greatest benefit from a next-generation system. While this type of change is unavoidable, be assured that it will not happen overnight. With careful planning, the evolution can happen in measured phases that will allow PSAPs to manage the cost and impact to PSAP operations.

NEXT-GENERATION IMPACT ON LEGACY ELEMENTS 3

T R A S I T I O NLEGACY 9-1-1

NEXTGEN 9-1-1

SELECTIVEROUTER

AUTOMATICLOCATION

IDENTIFICATION

N10.000.100.

EMERGENCYSERVICESROUTING

PROXYEMERGENCY

COMMUNICATIONSROUTING

FUNCTION

The migration from legacy 9-1-1 to Next-Generation 9-1-1 will be most effective if handled in a phased approach. PSAPs should be prepared to fund and oversee two parallel systems as the migration takes place and should understand that NextGen 9-1-1 will continue to evolve as new technology and solutions are developed.

3.1 TRANSITION FROM LEGACY TO NEXTGEN 9-1-1

14

Precise location information plays an invaluable role in public safety communications. Today’s PSAP call takers rely on the information provided by automatic location information (ALI) databases and the master street address guide (MSAG) to effectively and efficiently dispatch appropriate emergency services to the correct location when a wireline 9-1-1 call is received. As with most functions within today’s legacy 9-1-1 model, the acquisition and delivery of location information will change in a NextGen 9-1-1 environment. In fact, once NextGen 9-1-1 is fully realized, the essential services provided by ALI and MSAG will be accomplished in significantly different ways.

In the current analog emergency communications network, the established data flow for collecting, validating, verifying and staging accurate caller information is known as provisioning. Individual telecommunication service providers deliver basic information relative to their wireline customers to a 9-1-1 service provider. This data includes the name and service address associated with individual phone numbers. When the information is received, the 9-1-1 service provider utilizes an enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) database management system to confirm the data in a process known as address validation. The validation process runs the data through a set of rules based on the MSAG. Once the data is verified, the telephone number is tagged with the appropriate 9-1-1 attributes called the emergency service number (ESN). This designation identifies the appropriate PSAP to receive the call as well as the responding police department, fire department and ambulance service based on the physical address of the telephone number.

In terms of location information, the current analog-based network and the i3-defined next-gener-ation architecture share one common talking point. They both identify independent data paths for provisioning. While the data flows in each model are designed to accomplish the same outcomes of collecting, verifying, processing, staging and accessing location information, the next-generation model goes about it differently than the existing architecture. Provisioning in the legacy model is comprehensively predetermined and validated by the 9-1-1 service provider before it is used to route a 9-1-1 call or delivered to the PSAP at the time of the call via the ALI database. In NextGen 9-1-1, call routing and some provisioning needs to take place at the time of the call in order to accommodate modern communication devices that have no fixed service address. If done properly, the information received by the PSAP at the time of the call looks the same in both a legacy and a next-generation architecture. However, the transition to NextGen 9-1-1 will significantly impact the distribution of responsibility for provisioning location information. Once the migration has been fully accomplished, this valuable data will fall under the authority of the individual subscriber’s telecommunications service provider rather than the 9-1-1 service provider. In a fully realized next-generation architecture, each individual provider will be required to create and maintain a location information server (LIS). The LIS and its companion, the call information database (CIDB), will eventually replace ALI functionality.

Location Information

15

Geographic Information Systems

In today’s legacy architecture, mapping displays have become a fundamental element of effective public safety emergency response. Maps allow 9-1-1 call takers and dispatchers to accurately identify the location of wireless callers and effectively coordinate response units. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are the data management tools behind map displays as well as many of the advanced services coming with NextGen 9-1-1. The legacy wireline 9-1-1 GIS systems are primarily based on textual (or civic/postal) addresses while newer mobile-based communications provide geographic (or X/Y) coordinates. The introduction of NextGen 9-1-1 systems that require location information is leading to the association of X/Y coordinates with other address information, also known as geocoding. With the increasing focus on nationwide NextGen 9-1-1 deployment, the potential of GIS as a powerful life-saving and decision-making tool is becoming more apparent, though current GIS systems will need to expand in order to reach their full next-generation potential. (For information on GIS as a next-generation starting point, see Chapter 4: Where to Begin/GIS.)

In the context of legacy 9-1-1, public safety agencies have been collecting tabular GIS information for decades in order to populate the information found in automatic location information (ALI) and master street address guide (MSAG) databases and to assign emergency service numbers (ESNs). This data is collected at the street level based on specific boundaries and street ranges with some interpolation to achieve address information. When a wireless emergency call comes into a legacy GIS-equipped PSAP, associated X/Y coordinates are delivered, though the coordinates are meaningless on their own. In order to be valuable, this data must be plotted on a map in either the call-handling or computer-aided dispatch environment. Once plotted, the information can be applied to perform dispatch functions. In this way, GIS is a supplemental tool used solely to verify location.

Next-generation GIS has moved beyond basic coordinate-based capabilities. It is an integral tool used to guide and enhance response strategies, and geographic information is the basis for many advanced service capabilities. In a NextGen 9-1-1 environment, the tabular data, or flat files, of ESNs, ALI and MSAG databases will transition into geospatial intelligence in the form of GIS databases that can render maps and information for sophisticated emergency response services. While the determination of X/Y coordinates will remain a key function, next-generation geographic information systems are designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage, and present a wide variety of geographical data. In this type of geospatial environment, every piece of data about a geographic area can be represented using layers of information on a map or site plan. As more information is collected, additional layers of data can be created. Ultimately, layers of information will correlate with a specific PSAP, police department, fire department, medical response agency, poison response and so on. If a call originates in a specific geographic area, the call will be routed and the response will be dispatched according to the rules assigned within the geographic information database. The big differentiator with NextGen 9-1-1 is that these relationships will be determined dynamically at the time of a 9-1-1 call versus pre-staged in complex data management tools.

16

Moving forward, GIS data will become more and more refined and will correlate with other data sources to support the continuing evolution of next-generation capabilities. The next step in gathering geographic information will involve the geocoding of actual addresses. Some agencies have already completed this level of detail. At some point in the future, next-generation functionality will require the geocoding of property parcels or building envelopes so that PSAPs can determine the exact location of a caller within a structure. With the development of more enhanced data, NextGen 9-1-1 will allow citizens to optionally provide details about a geographic location, such as the number of residents, medical information, floor plans and the presence of hazardous materials or other important information. Next-generation GIS and associated technology will be able to correlate this valuable information with an incoming request for assistance in order to improve response times and provide first responders with better situational awareness.

To make this idea a reality as migration begins to take place, PSAPs will need precise GIS databases that are accurate, up-to-date and synchronized at the local, regional and state level. Typical sources of GIS information must be supplemented with 9-1-1 attributes and modified to support the special needs of public safety applications and processes. Additionally, workflows and processes will need to be created to collect, verify, correlate, maintain and manage the vast amount of data that is associated with these systems.

N E X T- G E N E R AT I O N I M P A C T O N L E G A C Y E L E M E N T S

PHONE NUMBER:

303-555-1212

ADDRESS:

John Doe1234 Main StreetNew City, CO 80503 BASE MAP

FIRE DEPARTMENTS

POLICE DEPARTMENTS

HOSPITALS

LAYERED FILEFLAT FILE

3.2 LEGACY FLAT FILE VS. LAYERED FILE

17

Customer Premises Equipment

Public safety customer premises equipment (9-1-1 CPE) is the epicenter of the PSAP. These essential systems ensure the smooth delivery of a voice-generated request for assistance from a 9-1-1 caller to a call taker or, in some situations, an emergency services dispatcher. The transition to a next-generation environment will alter traditional methods for processing emergency calls in order to take full advantage of the next-generation IP-based capabilities, including the support of multiple types of requests for assistance such as voice, text, alarms, personal devices and crash notification.

Legacy 9-1-1 CPE evolved out of early operator services technology that was modified to meet the unique needs of emergency communications. The majority of these systems were purpose- built hardware and software that utilize analog CAMA1 trunks to deliver 9-1-1 calls from tele-communication service providers to a legacy 9-1-1 call handling system. In the absence of IP technology, legacy 9-1-1 call handling is limited to processing voice calls and requires a call taker to interface between incoming calls and outgoing dispatch of emergency responders. In a legacy environment, the call taker must interpret the caller’s verbally relayed information and make all dispatch decisions based on that information. These legacy systems were designed such that the majority of the equipment resides in the PSAP’s premises. In most of these systems, the primary answering point is determined and may interoperate with secondary PSAPs within a county but cannot interoperate with the larger state and national PSAP community. Some PSAPs have begun to transition to an IP-based infrastructure, but the majority are still using the 50-year-old analog CAMA trunk technology. More recently, PSAPs have started to replace outdated CPE with IP-based equipment, but many of these systems are deployed using CAMA gateways to accept the incoming 9-1-1 call. Only a select few can receive native IP-based calls without the use of outdated CAMA technology, and few can interoperate with text messages to 9-1-1.

1 During setup of a legacy 9-1-1 call, the calling number is transmitted to each selective router via a protocol known as Centralized Automatic Message Accounting (CAMA). CAMA was originally designed as a protocol for long-distance billing, because it provides for carrying both calling and called number using in-band signaling. This allows the telephone system to send a station identification number to the PSAP via multifrequency (MF) signaling through the telephone company’s E911 equipment.

18


With the migration to Next-Generation 9-1-1, call processing takes on a new structure. The Next-Generation solution will evolve over time away from traditional call processing equipment and introduce a combination of a PSAP call-handling user interface, connectivity elements that join the PSAP to the emergency services IP network (ESInet),2 new functional elements that provide choices on how to receive calls and data, and core routing/delivery components to ensure the reliable delivery of calls. Each solution will be highly configurable and NextGen 9-1-1 decision makers can determine how to best balance these components between the PSAP and the ESInet based on their network and operational goals.

Unlike its legacy counterpart, next-generation call handling is a solution that will leverage tech-nology to make emergency call handling more efficient and effective and to interoperate with a larger NextGen 9-1-1 infrastructure. These solutions are designed to evolve with changing technology and industry standards so that technology platforms can expand and adapt into the future rather than requiring a multi-year replacement cycle. Standards are being written, updated and ratified continually based on significant public safety community input. Because next-generation systems are able to accept dynamic updates, PSAPs can quickly and easily move forward as the technology and standards evolve.

MAPPING / GIS

Can be used as aninterface tool and displays

information contextually.

ALARMS

Auto-generated alarms relating to home/business alarms, telematics information and gun shot detection.

INTEGRATED INCIDENT INFORMATION

Voice- and text-generated requests for assistance arrive at call takerdisplay with all relevant information.

ENHANCED DATA

Available supplemental datasuch as video feeds, buildingblueprints, medical records,

hazardous materials, weatheralerts and news feeds.

3.3 CONVERGENCE OF SCREENS

2 The Emergency Services IP Network is a NENA-prescribed element of a Next-Generation i3 network. 19

Computer-Assisted Dispatch and Radio

Historically, 9-1-1 has been a communication system between a caller in need of emergency help and a call taker/dispatcher who will orchestrate a response to that request. With the introduction of Next-Generation 9-1-1 and the increased amount of data that can potentially be available relative to an emergency event, that continuum is extended throughout the 9-1-1 communication center and to the first responders in the field. In this new environment, computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) and mobile radio play an increasingly important role.

Legacy public safety CAD systems are a fundamental work tool within a PSAP. They are vast repos-itories of information relating to the resources and the capabilities of the PSAP, including the who, what and where of your available police, fire and EMS responders. CAD systems can track and prioritize requests for assistance, make recommendations based on PSAP-established rules about the type of response that should be dispatched and display available responders to the dispatcher.

In a next-generation environment, CAD will still be used to coordinate emergency response, but it will play an additional role as well. Enhanced CAD capabilities in conjunction with mobile radio systems will be capable of linking 9-1-1 call processing functionality and vast amounts of enhanced data in order to deliver life-saving information to the field in the most effective way possible. While a PSAP can benefit from NextGen 9-1-1 without the use of a CAD system, the implementation of advanced services tightly integrated between CAD functionality and an IP-based environment has the ability to significantly enhance next-generation capabilities and streamline PSAP workflow. With the introduction of enhanced CAD capabilities, incoming requests for assistance can be automatically linked to various types of enhanced data. The system can innately direct that information to the user who will most benefit from it, whether that is to the dispatcher or directly to first responders in the field.

Beyond enhanced dispatching, enhanced CAD capabilities can be used to document and time stamp every aspect of an emergency response. It can track and record the type and volume of calls for a given time frame as well as the actions of all responders during the course of a shift.

While the CAD system is integral to the correlation of an event with the enhanced data, the public safety radio system plays a significant role in delivering it to the field. In order to accomplish that effectively, it is imperative that agencies have access to sufficient quality bandwidth that is capable of moving appropriate real-time and historical data from a repository—whether that is a camera, video, database, etc.—to first responders.

Significant legislation has recently passed relative to high-quality radio spectrum designated specifically for public safety. While this valuable resource will likely be more readily available in the near future, PSAPs should not wait on this matter. The integration of 9-1-1 call handling equipment, CAD and mobile radio systems should be a focus in next-generation planning, and PSAPs would be wise to explore all options for expanding broadband access as soon as possible.

20

In a NextGen 9-1-1 discussion, it is difficult to talk about The Cloud as an isolated element because it is not a single, tangible component like a GIS system or call-processing equipment. In generic commercial services terms, the idea of The Cloud is a system model in which a collection of shared computing elements, both hardware and software, is centrally housed at one or more remote locations and delivered over a public network—typically the Internet in a commercial environment—to a diverse community of end users. In a commercial setting, cloud-based applications are accessed by a web-browser or mobile app while the software and users’ data are stored on servers at the centralized hub. In a public safety environment, cloud computing is similar to the commercial world except that the network connections are limited to a secure private, dedicated emergency services IP network (ESInet), the hardware and software are focused solely on public safety applications, and end-users are strictly public safety agencies. These constraints create a much more secure and reliable environment than that of commercial services. Because cloud computing does not play a significant role in a legacy environment, it will not necessarily be impacted by the introduction of next-generation capabilities in the same way as location information, GIS, 9-1-1 CPE, and radio. However, cloud computing can significantly enhance next-generation capabilities and, thus, should be considered as a potential element of a NextGen 9-1-1 migration strategy.

Beyond providing access to significant next-generation functionality, the innate and remote redundancy of a cloud-based system offers simplified and improved operational continuity when an emergency event threatens the physical structure of a PSAP. On-premises systems are directly tied to the primary emergency communications center because there are physical connections between the call-taking equipment and the technology infrastructure. Cloud-based solutions are independent of location because the connectivity to the cloud system is IP based and utilizes broadband distributed networks. As long as a PSAP maintains an IP connection to the cloud, whether it is based on terrestrial access, wireless broadband or other access mechanisms, calls can be answered and solutions can be accessed from anywhere, whether it is a neighboring PSAP or a mobile communications vehicle. This provides a virtual replica of PSAP operations without costly static backup locations that are often geographically vulnerable to the same crisis that compromised the primary facility.


The Cloud

21

In next-generation terms, a public safety cloud-based environment means that 9-1-1 calls or emergency requests in a particular jurisdiction are processed by equipment and infrastructure that may or may not be in the PSAP facility. With that in mind, the redundancy and security of a cloud-based 9-1-1 architecture and the data stored in that system are critical. Because of this, all public safety cloud-based architectures should be dedicated infrastructures that have been purpose-built from the ground up to offer emergency communication solutions to public safety agencies exclusively. These systems should be isolated from commercial and public clouds. While a single public safety cloud platform may service multiple PSAPs in numerous states and support multiple public safety systems, each entity should maintain control of their individual features and functionality and have virtual segregation of data and security. In order to guarantee the security of a public safety cloud, solutions should incorporate physical-level security in the types of connections used to deploy solutions to the PSAP. Application-level security should also be implemented as well as personnel access and process security.


ENHANCED DATA

Enhanced data will be available through the cloud to provide relevent information for call takers, dispatchers and first responders.

PSAP

PSAP CPE and software will be managed and updated

by a 3rd-party provider while remaining accessible

through the cloud.

ALTERNATIVE PSAP

The cloud will allow calls to be rerouted

to alternative PSAPs.

DATA BACKUP

CLOUDCreates interoperability between

diverse systems

EQUIPMENT& SOFTWARE

3.4 THE POWER OF THE CLOUD

The Cloud (continued)

22

As mentioned earlier, one of the most beneficial aspects of the Next-Generation 9-1-1 migration is that there are multiple ways to get started, and no matter which entry point you choose, it will introduce immediate improvements to your 9-1-1 emergency communications. This flexibility allows individual PSAPs to address key pain points within legacy systems without making a monumental shift to an entirely different processing environment with one significant and potentially overwhelming effort. There are various entry points that make sense as a first step depending upon the current environment of the individual PSAP. As soon as you have established one of these key foundational elements, additional NextGen 9-1-1 capabilities and value-added functionality can be layered on top.

WHERE TO BEGIN 4

10.000.100.IP-ENABLEDPSAP

ENHANCEDDATA

NEXTGEN 9-1-1

GIS

ESInet

4.1 NEXT-GENERATION 9-1-1 STARTING POINTS

23

Emergency Services IP Network

An Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet) is a flexible communications infrastructure that replaces legacy telecommunications transport technology. An ESInet can be a network of networks that is shared by all agencies involved in any emergency. A modern IP infrastructure that supports multiple public safety agencies to provide high availability, new advanced services and nationwide integration will create the best foundation to realize NextGen 9-1-1 goals. The industry vision is that there will eventually be numerous ESInets across the United States as defined by regional 9-1-1 authorities that are linked together to provide seamless public safety operations.

An ESInet is the foundation for interfacing with external entities, transporting information and implementing advanced capabilities. For PSAPs that list connectivity as a primary concern or who are considering the development of new brick and mortar facilities, this is a logical starting point. For PSAPs using legacy call-processing rules based on the originating telephone number and selective router database (SRDB), the ESInet remains a viable starting point if it is implemented with an IP selective router. This approach provides the IP network foundation until the PSAP is ready to transition to a next-generation model for call processing based on dynamic caller location information. The ability of an ESInet to apply legacy selective routing rules in addition to next-generation processes eliminates the need to make system-wide changes at one time and supports the idea of a phased approach to migration. It is important to understand that a typical regional IP network is not equal to a public safety-grade network. While regional networks may be the starting point for an ESInet, the basic requirements of a 9-1-1 IP network are far more stringent than those of a general IP network. A public safety-grade ESInet must be uniquely managed and is best as a dedicated network that is parallel to regional networks in order to ensure security, resiliency and availability. Various additional benefits can be achieved after the ESInet foundation is established, such as achieving end-to-end IP connectivity between 9-1-1 callers and PSAPs, thereby eliminating legacy CAMA trunks and improving call setup time.

PSAP

ESInet

CAMATDMCARRIERNETWORK

LOCATIONBASED

SERVICES

EMERGENCYSERVICESROUTING

PROXY

SELECTIVEROUTER

AUTOMATICLOCATION

IDENTIFICATION

CALLER

An ESInet establishes the IP network and operating environment with an initial IP Selective Router function.

4.2 START ESInet

24

IP-Enabled PSAP

Next-Generation 9-1-1 call handling introduces alternatives to individual, local customer premise equipment (CPE). In a next-generation environment, PSAPs can transition premises-based call handling to distributed systems in which ESInet connectivity is leveraged to establish a robust single, unified system among numerous PSAPs. This configuration enables a higher level of reliability by allowing for solutions at various interconnected geographic locations. For many IP-enabled PSAPs, the ultimate goal is to move the core systems into redundant hosted locations in order to protect operational continuity from large-scale, regional disasters. Next-generation call handling solutions allow 9-1-1 authorities to share costs, set up regional policy-based overflows and improve call handling capacity by using centralized call handling equipment for multiple 9-1-1 communication centers. For PSAPs that are currently dealing with inadequate or obsolete CPE as a part of their legacy architecture, transitioning to an IP-enabled PSAP is a logical entry point to the next-generation network migration.

IP-capable call handling equipment is essential to receiving emergency calls from an ESInet in IP format with NG 9-1-1 characteristics. However, emergency calls can be delivered from an ESInet and changed to the legacy communications protocol—typically CAMA trunks—expected by legacy call handling equipment. These transitional steps allow for deployment of NextGen 9-1-1 compo-nents in phases that meet the specific needs and readiness of local public safety authorities while allowing public safety agencies to realize some of the advantages inherent to an IP-based system.

An IP environment provides significant flexibility in the ways that calls can be routed, distributed and delivered within an individual PSAP as well as between interconnected IP-based PSAPs. In today’s public safety environment, call volume can be more unpredictable than ever before due to the increase in wireless calls as well as the public’s growing reliance on 9-1-1. PSAPs often experience significant peaks in volume surrounding a single incident due to the number of people with a wireless phone. This can lead to situations in which critical but unrelated 9-1-1 calls in the area cannot access help because of legacy network congestion or simply because a PSAP was not adequately staffed to handle an unexpected influx of calls.

SELECTIVEROUTER

AUTOMATICLOCATION

IDENTIFICATION

PSAP

TDMCARRIERNETWORK

CALLER

CLOUD

LEGACYPSAP

GATEWAY

W H E R E T O B E G I N

4.3 START IP-ENABLED PSAP

IP-enabled call handling creates the PSAP foundation for interacting with IP functions and delivering advanced services.

25

In a legacy environment, there is limited control over how spikes in volume are routed, little recourse if phone lines become clogged, no insight to what happens to a call that cannot be delivered to the appropriate PSAP, and no guarantee that a rerouted call will arrive with basic location information, if it arrives at all. An IP-enabled PSAP has the ability to load share with other local IP-based PSAPs with the assurance that automatic location information (ALI) data will follow every re-routed call. Additionally, IP-enabled PSAPs have visibility to statistics concerning how calls were routed, where they were routed and how they arrived in order to optimize the business rules that govern the transfer of calls.

In the case of a major disaster, an IP environment offers even greater advantages in terms of redundancy and resiliency. In the legacy CAMA world, if a PSAP is rendered inoperable, calls will reroute to a single alternate PSAP. However, it may take time for rerouting to be implemented, and it may require manual intervention to initiate the transfer. If a large PSAP becomes inoperable, the rerouted call volume can overwhelm a neighboring, smaller operation. In an IP environment, however, calls can be rerouted quickly and easily based upon established business rules that are designed to distribute call loads efficiently and effectively across numerous PSAPs as desired by the 9-1-1 authority. Additionally, the time required to provision and restore alternate IP circuits is often much shorter than that needed to repair or divert CAMA trunks.

One of the greatest advantages of implementing IP-enabled call handling is the opportunity for cost sharing across multiple PSAPs. Because next-generation call handling is scalable and relies upon IP connectivity, it is possible for PSAPs within a region to share core system equipment. With this model, jurisdictions can deploy two sets of hardware in separate PSAPs—the second for redundancy and load sharing—with all other 9-1-1 communication centers accessing the technology remotely. This allows multiple PSAPs to share the cost of the deployment as well as the support and maintenance of the shared hardware. As PSAPs move into a NextGen 9-1-1 world, the equipment becomes more sophisticated with greater configurability than in a legacy system. As these investments are made, it is important to deploy a platform that has the ability to evolve with changing technology. By centralizing shared system elements, jurisdictions are able to implement fewer systems that are more robust and have greater capabilities than could be implemented as isolated stand-alone solutions. This model also simplifies and improves maintenance services. Technicians who are specifically trained and certified on the core IP system have fewer locations and less geography to accommodate while more basic equipment installed at the PSAP level will continue to be maintained by more general service technicians.

IP-Enabled PSAP (continued)

26

As PSAPs begin to consider the transition to IP-based call handling, it is important to remember that there is not a single solution that will work for every PSAP or jurisdiction. Like many aspects of next-generation technology implementation, IP-based call handling solutions offer significant flexibility in order to meet the specific needs of each deployment. Moving forward, it is important to assess the operational challenges that you are facing and determine how an IP-based system can minimize them. This next-generation approach offers PSAPs significant advantages in terms of efficiency within the communication center, redundancy, interoperability and fast, easy call transfer that includes data. Because of this, IP-based call handling establishes a solid foundation on which to build a comprehensive next-generation emergency communications environment.

To ensure the most effective Next-Generation 9-1-1 call handling solution for your PSAP, it will be important to first:

determine your unique call-handling needs and goals

research the NENA i3-defined Next-Generation 9-1-1 standards for both current deployment and future vision

explore what next-generation call-handling solutions have already been deployed successfully

discover which vendors are involved with setting and following standards

compare solutions to determine what would be the best fit for your operations

explore creative funding models that avoid large capital outlay and provide predictable budget forecasting


27

The use of geographic information systems (GIS) is not new to public safety. It first became broadly implemented with the introduction of wireless 9-1-1 service when fixed address location information could not be associated with wireless phones and 9-1-1 call takers needed a visual way to understand the geographic coordinates. As PSAPs consider implementing next-generation GIS, it is important to understand that Next-Generation 9-1-1 will introduce more functions that utilize GIS information in new ways, and significant effort will be required to enhance the legacy data to have the required attributes and level of quality. In order to accomplish this, data maintenance and quality programs will be a significant long-term concern.

For decades, PSAPs have relied upon emergency service numbers (ESNs) defined within the master street address guide (MSAG) plus automatic location identification (ALI) databases to route 9-1-1 calls to the appropriate PSAP in order to dispatch help to the correct address. In a NextGen 9-1-1 environment, GIS will play an increasingly significant role combined with caller location information to determine 9-1-1 call routing and emergency response. With the introduction of next-generation GIS, PSAPs should be aware that several data elements and corresponding management responsibilities will change from the legacy environment:

The use of ESNs will be replaced with geospatial data relating to PSAP jurisdictional and first responder boundaries.

The ESN will disappear and the MSAG will be replaced. The address validation information contained within the MSAG will move to the GIS databases.

Legacy ALI will be replaced with location information delivered by the communications service provider at call setup time as well as supplemental databases to provide information about the caller, calling location and communications service provider.

(For information on how GIS changes from legacy 9-1-1 to Next-Generation 9-1-1, see Chapter 3: Next-Generation Impact on Legacy Elements/GIS.)

While there are multiple ways to begin your NextGen 9-1-1 migration, it will be important to implement a program to establish and maintain GIS with the necessary 9-1-1 attributes as soon as possible. If your PSAP already has GIS capabilities, you will need to consider upgrading your system to support specific next-generation tools and understand the necessary modifications. As an example, typical GIS data sets do not include PSAP routing boundaries with the degree of accuracy necessary for call routing and selection of emergency service providers. The GIS tools should also allow comparison with legacy MSAG and ESNs to ensure the level of quality during the migration to Next-Generation 9-1-1.

Geographic Information Systems

28

PSAPs should understand that their next-generation GIS solution will require strategies for managing street address information and geographic coordinates to ensure that call routing can be achieved with the same level of accuracy as it is a legacy environment. The solution must determine if street addresses will be geocoded or if routing will be determined by the address information itself. Additionally, the GIS database will become the foundation for populating the next-generation network functions that allow telephone service providers to dynamically validate street address information. In order to structure an effective GIS solution, it will be important to address these processing models, connectivity from carrier to the next-generation network and the total transaction volume that must be achieved at any given point.

Next-generation GIS plays a vital role in fulfilling the vision of a nationwide IP-based emergency communications network that is capable of immense data sharing across jurisdictional boundaries. As you consider implementing GIS, it will be essential to seek out public safety-grade solutions that are backed by standards-based quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) and:

include enterprise GIS data management with cooperative agreements between the parties that must contribute and maintain the information on an on-going basis

include transitional capabilities from legacy MSAG/ALI data

include map display applications

include intelligence about locations and the ability to add and manipulate information

comply and interoperate based on industry standards

address security concerns

PSAP A

PSAP B

PSAP C

MAIN STREET

BO

UL

EVA

RD

110 112

SELECTIVEROUTER

AUTOMATICLOCATION

IDENTIFICATION

TDMCARRIERNETWORK

CALLER

PSAP

GIS data can be utilized in a legacy PSAP via the CAD system.

GISDATABASE


4.4 START GIS

Next-generation GIS establishes the infrastructure of GIS data with 9-1-1 attributes.

29

In order to reap the greatest benefit from a next-generation architecture, PSAPs need fast, easy access to rich data as well as a reliable way to deliver that data in a useful way to the most appropriate place in the least amount of time. PSAPs that implement enhanced data features will increase situational awareness, improve first responder safety and create valuable operational efficiencies.

In the legacy environment, ALI data is typically transmitted over analog data circuits. Information is limited to around 500 characters that usually includes caller name, originating telephone number, caller location and some basic caller and public safety data. In a next-generation architecture, however, data will travel over a high-capacity emergency services IP network (ESInet). This vast pipeline allows PSAPs to correlate any inbound request for assistance with a large amount of associated data from a variety of sources. That being said, PSAPs that do not yet have access to an ESInet can still benefit from enhanced data. While an ESInet is the future for all next-generation functionality, during the migration process, PSAPs can utilize the ANI/ALI information delivered with the traditional analog 9-1-1 voice call to query additional data sources to determine what, if any, additional information is available and contextually relevant to the situation. While work on a comprehensive ESInet continues, enhanced call data can initially be delivered to the PSAP via secure Internet connectivity or other data paths. These alternative paths should be replaced with the secure, robust ESInet when it becomes available.

Enhanced Data

SELECTIVEROUTER

AUTOMATICLOCATION

IDENTIFICATION

CLOUD

PSAPTDMCARRIERNETWORK

CALLER

ENHANCED DATA

4.5 START ENHANCED DATA

Enhanced Data delivers immediate value so constituents can recognize the long-term potential and value of NextGen 9-1-1.

30

The availability of valuable enhanced data is increasing every day. While some data functionality, such as text-to-9-1-1 and gunshot detection alerts, will be delivered in real time as standards- based alerts sent directly to a PSAP, additional life-saving data is constantly being gathered at the commercial level in vast databases. This historical information can be registered with 9-1-1 service providers or other entities and made available to PSAPs at the time of an incident. While available data varies by service provider, the type of information available today includes:

Medical Information

HAZMAT Services

Telematics

Premises Data and Response

Video Access and Alarm Monitoring

Mobile Device Applications

Private/Public Databases Access

Tracking Technologies

Weather Alerts

News Feeds

Intelligence Searches

Language Services

Some of the enhanced data will be useful to call takers and dispatchers, however, the majority of this new information will provide significant benefit to first responders. With that in mind, when implementing enhanced data capabilities, whether it is as a starting point or later within the migration process, PSAPs may want to consider integrating this data functionality with a computer-aided dispatch system (CAD). This type of data integration will yield significant benefits by allowing information to be delivered directly to the field where it can effectively drive decision making.


31

While the introduction of enhanced data means that more information will be flowing into the PSAP, it is important to keep in mind that if properly implemented, the PSAPs retain complete control of the rules used to process and display the data they encounter at all times. Enhanced data functionality is completely rules based. Public safety agencies can choose to implement only the data that will benefit their PSAP, and it is possible to establish a comprehensive set of rules that will regulate how data flows throughout the call continuum, how it is presented within the system, who has access to it during, as well as after an incident, and how the data func-tions in certain decision-making situations. In a CAD-integrated data environment, for example, tasks such as automatic dispatching can take place based on imbedded calculations when spe-cific rules are met. In the case of an automobile accident, incoming telematics information can determine the number of passengers in the vehicle and whether restraints were being used. The telematics information can be used to calculate a severity level and a PSAP’s dispatch recommendation scheme can dispatch the appropriate number of transport units, thus saving precious time at the scene.

As PSAPs consider the benefits of enhanced data, it is important to remember that the path to implementation will be unique to every environment. To ensure the smoothest migration, you will need to consider ideas such as:

What types of data will be most beneficial to your operations?

What functionality will be required to create a common look and feel within legacy systems?

What data will go to the call taker, be integrated with a legacy CAD system or go directly to the field?

Is the correct infrastructure in place to get meaningful information directly to responders, i.e., cloud services and radio?

With whom will this data be shared?

What intergovernmental agreements will need to be established to regulate the access to and sharing of data?


Enhanced Data (continued)

32

Without question, transitioning the legacy analog 9-1-1 system is one of the most important initiatives that the public safety community has ever taken on. The path forward involves significant new ideas, processes and technologies, but the benefits of Next-Generation 9-1-1 certainly justify the effort. Getting started is easier than you think. With careful planning, a phased approach and an understanding of your emergency communications landscape, needs, constituency and project scope, you can successfully launch your NextGen 9-1-1 initiative now.

CONCLUSION

33

Additional References

For additional reference material on Next-Generation 9-1-1, please visit the following websites:

NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSOCIATION (NENA):

www.nena.org

www.nena.org/?NGPP_TransPolicy

NENA I3 SPECIFICATION:

www.nena.org/resource/collection/2851c951-69ff-40f0-a6b8-36a714cb085d/NENA_08-003_Detailed_Functional_&_Interface_Specification_for_the_NENA_i3_Solution-Stage_3.pdf?hh-SearchTerms=i3

NATIONAL 911 OFFICE:

www.911.gov

THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICIALS (APCO):

www.apco911.org

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION–NG911 INITIATIVE:

www.its.dot.gov/ng911/index.htm

NG9-1-1 SYSTEM PRELIMINARY CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:

www.its.dot.gov/ng911/pdf/ConOps.pdf

ALLIANCE FOR TELECOMMUNICATION AND INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS (ATIS):

www.atis.org

BROADBAND FORUM (FORMERLY THE DSL FORUM):

www.broadband-forum.org

The following checklist can help you get started today by guiding you through the initial phases of planning. This list is designed to be a starting point. It is important to keep in mind that every migration will be unique, and it is important that you carefully consider the unique circumstances and characteristics of your agency as you begin this important journey.

PLANNING: UNDERSTAND YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY LANDSCAPE

Identify legacy network weaknesses

Identify geographic vulnerabilities

Understand population trends

Define public needs and expectations now and for the future

Define political realities

STAKEHOLDERS: CONNECT AND PLAN WITH YOUR EXPANDED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

First responders

Local government

State and local departments of transportation

Campus police, parks and recreation, school districts and corporate security

Chemical and hazardous material organizations

PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM: PLANNING AND DRIVING THE MIGRATION

Identify a team of dedicated experienced professionals that will guide the strategy, planning and execution of the migration

Create an implementation strategy and identify implementation partners

N E X T- G E N E R AT I O N 9 - 1 - 1

CHECKLIST TO GET STARTED

REGULATORY AND FUNDING LANDSCAPE: PREPARING FOR THE LEGAL AND FUNDING REALITIES

Identify current legacy 9-1-1 funding mechanisms

Recognize and contact FirstNet representative

Research available federal funding grants

Work with regional PSAPs for cost-sharing opportunities

OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION: DETERMINE THE ORDER OF IMPLEMENTATION

____ ESInet

____ IP-Enabled PSAP

____ GIS

____ Enhanced Data

OPERATIONAL IMPACT: DEFINING THE WAY EMERGENCY INFORMATION IS DISPATCHED

Identify data resources, workflow processes and rules

Streamline data to ensure the information is effective but not overwhelming

Create training strategy and schedule to ensure staff is effective with next-generation technology and methods

N E X T- G E N E R AT I O N 9 - 1 - 1

CHECKLIST TO GET STARTED

Stephen Meer, ENP, Chief Technology Officer

Craig Donaldson, SVP Regulatory & Government Affairs

Steve Lowe, SVP Government Solutions Division

Mary Boyd, ENP, VP External Affairs

Natalie Baker, Director, Regulatory & Government Affairs

Paul McLaren, ENP, Director, Support Engineering

Michael Nelson, SR Technology Officer

Beth Ozanich, Director of Quality and Compliance

Ray Wendell, SR Director, Marketing Communications

Tim Jenkins, VP, Delivery Operations

Acknowledgments

For additional copies of this document, please email your request to [email protected].

Adjourn

September 11-12, 2013, 9:00 a.m. – until conclusion of business

Embassy Suites at Westshore Tampa

e911 board meeting agenda sandestin luau hotel destin€¦ · sandestin luau hotel . destin...

Documents