Public Safety Wireless Network – State of Wyoming

1. Public Safety Wireless Network – State of Wyoming

2. Objective of Project • Develop a Plan to Create a Shared Public Safety Wireless Network in Wyoming

3. The Project Team • Wyoming Department of Administration & Information (A&I) • Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) • Wyoming State Agency Law Enforcement Communication System Commission (SALECS) • RSM McGladrey, Inc.

4. What We Did • Determined the Reasons for Implementing a New Public Safety Wireless Network in Wyoming

5. What We Did • Gain Conceptual Acceptance of a Shared Public Safety Network from the User Groups • Determine a Technological Direction • Benchmarking • Review Private Sector Participation • Develop an Action Plan

6. Findings

7. Reasons for a New Public Safety Wireless Network • Interoperability • Inter Agency Public Safety Communication • The Importance of Sharing Resources • Inter Governmental Cooperation

8. Reasons for a New Public Safety Wireless Network • Reliability • Congestion and “Dead Areas” • Replacement of Out-dated Equipment • Efficiency • Potential for Shared Dispatch • Purchasing Leverage

9. Gaining Input

10. SALECS DOT A&I WAM WACC Sheriff Departments Police Departments Fire Departments University Others Who We Talked With

11. What they Said • The following is summary of comments from our many conversations with Public Safety Officials: • “Contention is the biggest problem. We just can’t get a channel when we need one.” • “We know we need to do something and interoperability is the answer.”

12. What they Said (cont.) • “A number of States have bought today’s technology, we need to be sure what we buy won’t be obsolete the day after we buy it. We really need technology for the long-term.” • “We’ve spent $150,000 in the last three years on upgrade and replacement. We need a plan before we spend any more.”

13. What they Said (cont.) • “The State is great at covering their costs and leaving the municipalities high and dry. We need to be sure everyone can afford to participate.” • “The State’s losing credibility with Public Safety entities. There’s been talk about a State-wide plan for a long time, but we still haven’t seen it.”

14. What they Said (cont.) • “Law enforcement today requires more than a side arm and a full tank of gas.” • “We’ve got seven radios in our EMT vehicle and in an emergency it can be hard to decide which is for what.”

15. Technology

16. Wide Area Radio Network Repeater

17. Current Mostly 2 GHz Analog Microwave New Design 6 GHz Digital Microwave Network ComponentsBackbone

18. Current DOT has 26 Sites, Counties, Municipalities have many more Myriad of equipment, technologies and frequencies. New Design Consolidation of sites Standardization of equipment, technologies and frequency range. Network ComponentsSites & Equipment

19. Current A little of everything, most of it less than state-of-the-art New Design Standardization, negotiated pricing Network ComponentsPortable and Mobile Devices

20. Current Mostly decentralized Lack of standardization makes sharing & support difficult New Design Flexibility Capability to maintain independence, but the opportunity to share & support Network ComponentsDispatch Centers

21. New DesignPrimary Components • Digital Microwave to Provide the Wide-area Backbone. • Digital, Trunked Radio • Most Likely 800 MHz

22. New DesignPrimary Components • Call Patching on the Emergency Communications Channel • Project 25 Compliant • Industry-wide Standardization • Allows use of Multiple Manufacturers

23. Future Technology • Software Defined Radio • Is a Motorola Program called Wireless Integrated Transmission System (WITS) • Is part of a US Navy Development Program to allow System utilizing different radio frequencies to intercommunicate • Is a Potential solution to interoperability issues faced by most Public Safety organizations

24. Future Technology • Software Defined Radio (cont.) • Is Not a replacement for “trunking” • Is not a replacement for, but is a compatible enhancement to, current technology systems • Is not commercially available and probably won’t be for 4-7 years

25. User Requirements • Migration • Minimum of a 2-5 year “phase-in” period • Individual Counties and Municipalities can join at their discretion • Entities that elect not to participate will have no less “interoperability services” than they have today – the existing Emergency Communications Channel will continue to function

26. Benchmarking

27. Recent Wireless Decisions - Other States

28. Funding & Partners – Other States

29. Involvement by the Private Sector

30. As a Provider • Issues Limiting this Option • Major technology differences between cellular or paging services and Public Safety Radio • Lack of control by the State over the Network and Quality of Service Issues

31. As a Partner • Sharing of Infrastructure • Tower Sites • Transmission Equipment • QWest (USWest) • Rural Electric Association (REA)

32. As a Customer • Purchasers of Service • Federal Agencies • Power Utilities

33. Action Plan

34. Identify Accurate Budgetary Costs • Negotiate with Motorola to conduct an engineering study and spectrum analysis • Define clear expectations of Motorola as to delivery of required cost information • Develop a Plan for a Governing and Control Board

35. Develop Information on Potential Funding Sources • Continue to Pursue Partnership Possibilities • Obtain Participation Commitments

36. Develop a Request-for-Proposal based on the results of the Motorola engineering study • Prepare a Comprehensive Plan for the Legislature, including: • RFP • Anticipated Cost • Funding Alternatives • Potential Partners