9-1-1 Advisory Board Meeting 20260218 170318UTC Meeting Recording

001o'clock. It's one or two minutes after the hour, so we'll go ahead and get started with the with the meeting today. Uh good morning everybody. Um welcome to the first state 911 advisory board meeting of 2026. Um, in today's meeting, we're going to be hearing some updates from the program areas, uh, covering some of the continuing activities and discussing, uh, activities and updates for the NextG platform. Uh, again, it's my continuing hope that we'll have a robust, informative discussion here, uh, that leverages all of the expertise that we have sitting here on the board. Um, so, thank you all for for being here. Um, we'll start off with roll call. So, um, I'll start here to my left. Uh, Mark Chase, >> present. >> And, uh, online, Kurt Wallace, >> present. >> Thank you. Rodney

002Ellison, >> present. >> Thank you. Jennifer Gonzalez, >> present. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sydney, >> present. Garrett Huff, >> present. >> Thank you. Robert Johnson, >> present. >> Thank you. Yinia Sanchez, >> present. >> Thank you. And Andrew White, >> present. >> All right. Uh, by my count, we have enough people to establish a quorum. So we will then make note of that in the minutes and uh move on to the next item on our agenda which will be the approval of the previous meetings minutes. Uh the minutes have been distributed to the board in advance and posted. Uh do any of the members uh the of the board have a comment on the meeting minutes from the November meeting that they would like to discuss? All right. Seeing in hearing none, then um I

003would uh entertain a motion to approve the the minutes if there was one. >> So move I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. A second. Um so then we will uh carry that on to the the roll call vote. But before we do that, we'd like to offer an opportunity for any members of the public who would like to comment on that before we take our vote. Now would be a time to do that. Uh do I have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on the meeting minutes. Looking in the room, I'm not seeing any takers for that. Are there any hands up online? All right. Seeing and hearing no public comment for the meeting minutes, we'll move to that roll call

004vote. Uh if you'll verbally indicate your vote, whether I or nay uh as I go through the roll call again. Mark Chase. >> Hi. >> All right. Kurt Wallace. >> Hi. >> Rodney Ellison. >> Hi. >> Jennifer Gonzalez. >> Hi. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sydney. >> I >> Garrett Huff. >> Hi. >> Robert Johnson. >> Hi. >> And And Andrew White. >> I'll abstain since I wasn't here. >> All right. And uh just a note for the record here, the um Yinia Sanchez is remote, but we did not have her down as uh RSVPd remote attendee and therefore will be allowed to continue in the conversation, but not actually cast a vote on the decision-making process this time. So, uh with that being said, we'll mark that down as well. So, um, that leaves it,

005uh, the eyes have it. The meeting minutes are approved as written. They will be posted, uh, in their final form to our website. Um, and we'll move on then uh to the next item on our agenda, which is the legislative update. If I could have uh Mr. Paul McGinness from our legislative affairs desk come make his report. Thank you, Steve. Uh, good morning. I'll be uh giving the legislative update for today. My name is Paul McInness. I'm the legislative coordinator at Callowas. Uh, just a couple um quick uh legislative dates that we're looking at. Uh this Friday of uh the 20th is the last day for the legislature to introduce uh bills. And then um come this June will be the LA uh deadline for uh bills to pass over to the uh second house.

006Um I've got a handful of bills both state and federal uh to report to the board today. Um and then as always this list will be uh made available um after the meeting uh for anyone to reference. So the first bill is AB 1540 uh Assembly Member Gonzalez. Uh this measure requires uh Callowas to ensure 988 call transfer capability between call centers and LGBTQ plus youth suicide prevention providers including a press three uh routing option by July 1st 2027 as well as a text chat interoperability between 988 networks by December uh 2027. Uh the measure also requires uh California HHS to administer a grant program to support qualified suicide prevention providers and help 988 call centers implement these capabilities. And all all of these bills have not yet been set for committee. They've they've all

007been introduced. Uh next is AB 1639. Um, Assembly Member Davies, this measure clarifies that 911 CPR instructions for drowning incidents must include ventilation and chest compressions. Also direct statewide CPR education updates. Next measure is AB1832, Assembly Member Ransom. This bill would um would state intent uh to enact future legislation increasing centralized access to vital 211 response services as part of the statewide emergency resource response and recovery system. Uh next bill is AB1 1863 Assembly Member Deio. This bill would uh prohibit a fire protection district board from charging a fee to any member of the public for use of a 911 emergency telephone number. Next measure is AB um 1872. Assembly member TA. This measure would allow repeat false emergency reporting or 911 harassment violations to be charged as a misdemeanor or felony for repeat offenders.

008um for adult repeat offenders. And the last state bill I will share this morning is SB985. Um Senator Strickland. Uh this bill would require Callowas to provide quarterly reports to the legislature on the development, implementation, and spending of the NG 911 system. Um I'll now move to um just a few federal u pieces of legislation to report to the board. So HR 912 um Representative Obernoli would amend title five of the public health service act to secure the 988 suicide prevention lifeline from cyber security in uh incidents and for other purposes. Next measure is HR 1519 uh Representative Kamak. This bill would establish a permanent office of public safety communications within NTIA to administer NG 911 grant programs and oversee firstn net public safety communication infrastructure. The next measure is HR6505 6505. NextGen 911 act

009would expand uh federal coordination grants, cyber security uh support and governance structures to accelerate nationwide deployment of NG 911 systems and for other purposes. Um HR uh next uh federal bill is HR 7031 uh Representative uh Russ Fulture. This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to upgrade existing emergency communication centers in uh National Park Systems to NG 911 and for other purposes. And two more bills here to share. um S725, Enhancing First Response Act by Senator Globachar, among other things would require um FCC to report on certain activations of the disaster information uh reporting system or DURS. And last federal bill is S2826. Um, Senator uh Baldwin would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to dedicate sufficient resources for the support of LGBTQ plus youth seeking help from the 988 suicide

010prevention hotline and for other purposes. So, that concludes the update um for bills this morning. I'm happy to take any questions. Chief White, I have a question regarding the Fix 911 Act. Is there any wording in there currently regarding this board or the authority of the board? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Thank you. >> But yeah, >> any other questions from the board members? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. McInness. Uh we'll move on then to item number four on our agenda today. This is the uh California 911 branch update here at OES. Uh if you want to Mr. Matson, he'll make your way up to the microphone and provide your report when ready. >> All right. Thank you, Steve. Good morning. Andrew Matson, program management division chief here at the 911 branch.

011Going to give an update on some of the initiatives the uh branch is currently working on. Um Steve, if you can go ahead and uh advance to the next slide for me. I want to start off today talking about statistics. The first uh board me board meeting of every year, we uh gather our statistics for the prior year. So we want to go ahead and lead off with these today so you guys can have a chance to take a look at at at what has transpired for 911 call volume over the past year in California. So for 2025, as you can see, we've uh had a at a reduction in 911 calls that is uh looking fairly consistent with the last couple of years. We're down to 24.6 million calls last year. I think our

012if I remember correctly, our all-time high was probably 2015, uh maybe 2016, it was about 28 million calls. So we're continuing to see a downward trend of total 911 call volume. Um, I can see the the the questions coming of what what's the cause of that? Uh, you know, we don't we don't have the ability to dip in that deeply to to what's going on out there to to cause a reduction in calls. We do uh we do continue to uh analyze wireless routing with CHP, our wireless routing analysis every year. We continue to sharpen up those sectors to make sure that calls are being delivered to the proper location the first time. So, we do know that there are fewer and fewer transfers out there, which does account for some of this number. Um,

013but it is uh it is something that we're seeing year-over-year and a decrease in total call volume. Wireless calls have maintained that that strong presence, 87% of our total volume. Uh the number has gone down, but it's going down commensurate with the rest of the the total volume of calls. Wired line is has now gone below a million calls a year. So, we're now down to uh less than a million calls a year. We're at 3% of our total call volume. Um we we anticipate at some point this will level off. We just, you know, nobody really knows for sure where. We'll we'll find out when that happens. But as you can see, we're continuing to have a dip every year of about a percent uh of total call volume. The voiceover IP uh has

014uh maintained its status 6% uh year-over-year. That stayed pretty steady. That call volume has dropped a little bit as well. Uh again, just an indicator of the overall volume drop. Telmatics, interestingly enough, has has gone up a little bit there and that's where that that extra percentage that that we lost from Wline has been made up. So, Telmatics has increased uh byund about 120,000 calls this year. Uh which is great to see. And then text to 911 had a pretty significant jump for us. Uh typically, you'll see that 10,000, you know, 10,000 texts per year, give or take. Uh and we had a jump of about 80,000 texts this year. So still a very very small percentage of overall calls but uh we are seeing an increase that uh that that uh it represents a

015larger number than than we had seen year-over-year before. So any questions on call statistics for the year. All these numbers are gained out of ECATs out of our call tracking system which PAPS are familiar with. Um you know if you have any questions our staff has experts inhouse who who can utilize this program to to pull numbers that are needed. So let us know. Steve, can you hit the next slide for me, please? >> I think so. There we go. >> All right. So, for call processing, we've shown this slide many times over the over the years. Uh this number does continue to grow. Uh I do have some good news coming on the next slide. Uh but we want to make sure that we are uh pushing this number out to the public. We

016are at threequarters of our PAPs uh past year 7 on our call handling systems. I I you know, I'm probably sounding like a broken record up here. This is an OB this is a great concern to us. I mean this is something that we the office are working to rectify but it takes time. Uh so we are you know we've got the contract amendment out. We've got call handling being approved right now. We've got uh systems going in and we do expect to see this number start to decline now. We had to get past that bottleneck. Um but we are now at 339 systems that are over year 7. So, um, staying in contact with those PAPs out there, making sure that, uh, that if there are systems at risk that we are communicating with

017them. We're trying to prioritize obviously our our older systems and getting swapped out. Uh, those that are beyond year 10 are are particular interest to us. So, that remains a consistent effort from our team. >> Question regarding that? >> Sure. Are you getting any feedback from those agencies, specifically the ones in the tenure realm, of concerns they might have that they can't meet that change when the time comes because there's a lot going on in each individual PAP? Do they have the staff and resources to be able to facilitate that transition? >> We uh we are not hearing those concerns because I think our PAPs understand the the need and the necessity to get that system swapped out. So, they are prioritizing it. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, um, I just had a

018a comment just accolades to your staff. We're going through an upgrade process right now. Um, and your staff has been excellent with timely responses and also to helping obviously there's a lot of turnover at the agency side, but just helping fill out forms and get that process working through. So, thank you for making that happen. >> Appreciate that, Chief. Yeah, the staff has been really, really working overtime lately. They've been doing a lot of good work. And this slide will show. Uh so as as I mentioned last time, the contract amendment for on-prem CPE was signed uh back in July. Uh Steve has asked me to give you guys a a snapshot in time, kind of a six-month rolling snapshot of how many letters we're getting out and then how many approvals are getting out.

019And then as these systems start to go in, we'll start to tell you which ones are installed and signed off and which ones are invoiced. And that's that's, you know, kind of we'll round out the process. Um right now in the last six months I I said at the last meeting our goal was to hit 100 systems for the year. That that was what I wanted the team to do. Uh going back to July we are at 75 already. So these approvals are I mean they're they're literally they're flying out the door. So the team is pushing out about three a week right now and it's just it's incredible to see. So we're getting a lot of interest. We're getting a lot of peace apps who are signing on uh and we are moving these

020approvals quite quickly through the process. So, it's been uh it's been really uh good to to get this, you know, to get this ball rolling. I think we're going to see that log jam clear and we're going to see the numbers drop soon for for systems that are getting old. Uh 27 additional aotment letters went out in the last last couple months here, last six months here. That number is starting to slow down because, you know, once that letter is out, it's out there and it doesn't expire until the contract expires. And so, uh, you you'll see that number start to tail off, especially as we start to approve more and more of these systems. Uh, it will, uh, increase dramatically when we sign our new contract, when we go out to bid for our

021new contract, because all the letters that are in the field currently that don't have a system tied to them will expire and then we'll issue new letters. So, if that makes sense. So, if you've got a system in the works and you've you've been approved for it, your letter you don't need to worry about it. But, if you haven't started the process, you'll get a new letter from the office. So, we'll see that number jump in July. The team uh has finished writing the RFP for the new contract. That's in process right now. We're working with CDT to get the, you know, get all the proper attachments and get everything into the system to get it uh to get it ready to put out. I'm hoping that we can have it out in the next

022few weeks. Like I said, it's been written. It's all done. We're just we're just uh making sure that we have our our process dialed in. Uh it's a it it takes a little bit of time. I have a lot of vendors that are that are asking. Everyone's very very excited for it. Uh so we will have that out in the next few weeks and then the goal will be to have that contract awarded in July, June or July. The current contract expires at the beginning of July. So we hope to have no, you know, no gap in service there for the PAP so that we can continue to just just roll on. >> Any questions on that? >> Yeah, I have a quick question. Of the 75 and the 27, are the majority of those

023the on-rem? Do you have a percentage of on-prem versus the cloud-based >> for the CP upgrades? Yes, those are those have all been on prem. >> Okay. >> Uh for the letters, I I don't have that number, Chief. >> Thank you. >> But I but it is the majority. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I don't Oh, go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Um what what do you think as far as um deployment in the field, is it realistic that they'll be able to bring 75 to 100 systems up in a year's time? That's a great question, Mark. U we have had several meetings with our vendors to relay the importance of that of that fact that that has to be done. That's not an option. It's not a question at this point. So, we've talked with

024our vendors. They're very confident that they can do it. Uh we have monthly meetings established with everybody who's signed a system. So, we're we're talking through it. We're making sure that they're tracking these numbers. We're tracking these numbers more than we would have in the past. you know, in the past, our office would would approve it and we'd let the vendor and the PAP do their thing, but we're we're trying to stay a little bit more on top of it now. So, we are in in conversation regularly with those vendors to to to ensure that they can meet that goal. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, that's it it's just it's ambitious, right? Because that's more than one system a week, you know, being employed statewide. So, >> and it's not slowing down. So yeah, we're

025absolutely watching that and and it's it's it's difficult for us because I don't want to throttle approvals artificially. I don't want to keep PAPs from their from getting these systems or getting approval for these systems. Uh but at some point we we will have to start to to monitor that pipeline and and and make sure that the vendors are are holding up their end of the bargain. Yeah, >> appreciate it. >> Yeah. Can you speak to the um at a high level the cost and we had a conversation offline where you looked at some other states and kind of going back two meetings ago there was a discussion about being approximately twice as much but then where that fits in market-wise. >> Sure. Um so we have worked a lot on that chief. Um the

026the costs that we're seeing nationwide are are going up everywhere. Uh these systems are more expensive than they were the last time we signed a a contract with on-rem uh equipment. Um we are working with our vendors to make sure that that doesn't get out of hand, right? Our new contract will be they will be scored on price, right? They will have to be competitive. We've made that very clear to them. Uh but we are seeing an increase in cost. Um we are working uh executive staff at OES is working on our BCP for next year and I have pushed those numbers up for call handling that that that I will need in order to be successful to get these systems paid for. Uh, so we are um, you know, I'm making sure that the

027that leadership knows that that we have a dollar amount that we need to hit to make sure to to get you the systems you need at the quantity that I need them to be installed with hopefully a little bit lef over to right to buy those peripherals that agencies need. >> Any other questions? >> One more. >> Um, regarding the legal update we just had, there were a couple things related to NextGen 911. Is any of those if they all pass, is that going to put any additional burden on this specific team and trying to get this stuff done or is it a different unit? >> It's a different unit. Okay. >> Yeah. So, we should be good. >> Depending on what that national parks one comes out with, that that may impact us a

028little bit because our federal sites have different requirements for call handling than than than we do for at the state level. Uh but we've been dealing with that problem for many years. So, Okay. Should be okay. Yeah. >> Thank you. All right. And then lastly, we'll talk a little bit about our fiscal and operational reviews. We wrapped up the year 2025. Uh we had 51 uh site visits. So that's 51 uh individual PAP visits from our team going out and and working with our PAP folk to answer questions and to provide some some information on site. This is the same team that handles those call handling approvals. So, uh, I think I mentioned at the last meeting that that we we will be attempting to hit the numbers that we want to hit, but this

029team does have to prioritize those call handling installations over this process. So, we've made it clear that that that is that's number one, and fiscal and operational reviews are number two and priority. Uh, but as you can see for 2026 and January, we already had a couple visits. So, we do have the team still getting out there and and making sure that they are visiting with their with our PAPs and sharing information in in a one-on-one environment. So, happy to see that. Um, I'll I'll give my pitch. I always do. Uh, these these are great meetings to have. I used to do this job and uh one of the one of the best ways to learn 911 is to get out and talk to your people in the field. And, um, so I advocate for

030this uh for anybody who's listening. So, if you want our office to come out, sit with you, talk to you, go over some of the fiscal numbers that affect your PAP, some of the things that that we're working on at the office, please give us a call. We will make sure to get somebody out to visit you. >> All right. So, I I did have one comment I wanted to add here. So, Andrew threw several pieces of information at you, uh, statistics and met metrics, I think, that help to paint the picture of what's going on here. But um I know that in the past this board has asked for some other you know other performance indicators or you know in terms of the vendor service level performance and the transparency of how the system

031itself the network um is being deployed and operated. And so what I want to do is is going forward I want to sort of build out more of an ecosystem of performance metrics and uh corrective actions that we're taking to be able to you know paint the picture that we're managing uh the relationships with our vendors and managing the deployment of systems and networks um in a transparent way that you can rely on seeing on a regular cadence And so one of the things uh you know we don't have data on the network itself today but we will be posting some information and reporting on it on a regular basis at this it'll just be included in the statistical breakdown of how how things are working here but um I think the information is going

032to be important particularly when we start you know deploying additional paps onto the nextG network there's going to you know natural be an opportunity for a dashboard to display progress, but also how the system is operating and some of those corrective actions that we may have to take um in in terms of making sure that the availability of that system is adequate and meeting our standard benchmark of 59s of reliability. And so I wanted to talk a little bit about that. um you know to start with I'm what I'm thinking of is you know we would be reporting on maybe you know the quantity of issues that are reported in you know uh trouble ticket form um we would talk about you know the number of impacted uh answering points when one of those trouble

033tickets arises uh we would talk about the duration of the impact and the severity of the impact um you know it and I think the severity could probably be broken down into you know kind of a a a tier one, tier 2, tier three scenario where um maybe an intermittent impact um that's recurrent gets it elevated to a a higher level of of uh priority. If it's a persistent impact, then that would of course be escalated even further. And so just wanting to get some some visibility that's quantifiable into the conversation. And I think that will help us all to have clarity about what's actually happening with the network and with the systems out there. Um, like I said, you know, I I think having, you know, factual data to hang our hat on matters

034because, you know, if you're not measuring something, you're not going to actually improve its performance. And so that's really the key driver here is wanting to make sure that we're having a system that really meets the the standards that we're setting which you know we talk about it here frequently that you know California deserves to have a best-in-class solution and that you know includes the network infrastructure itself but also the enduser equipment needs to be that as well. Um, so if we're, you know, aspiring to that, then we need to be able to somehow quantify that and report on it regularly so that we can drive improvement in those metrics. And I think what I would like to do is I mean, the first thing I would like is is to get some feedback from

035from the board members here. I mean, does that sound like it would be useful information and a useful uh endeavor to spend our time collecting that data and reporting it here? Obviously, I envision posting it publicly as well on our public facing website, but give me uh some feedback on your thoughts if you don't mind on that topic. I actually think that's a real great idea because at this point, it's not that we're not hearing anything. You know, you're hearing what what center one center might be going through from hearsay, right? So to visibly see it, um to see the matrix, to to see what issues and the impact, it sort of kind of give the centers an idea that if this happens, they know what they're looking for. Uh coming from a center now

036that we're getting ready to go to the upgrade is right now we're starting from ground zero and if something does come forward, we don't know what it is, right? But if it's something already posted, if it's something that we're actually keeping the data for, um something that we can view later, that's just not for us. But for transparency for the public, I actually think that's a pretty good idea. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it helps drive better decisions, right? So, >> yeah, I think uh as if you're wanting to improve uh transparency, if you're wanting to rebuild the trust that I feel has been broken, you have to uh >> really expand on the transparency. So that's uh that's a good idea, but I think that you really like rebuilding trust should be >>

037paramount to to your effort. >> Yeah. No, thank you for that input and and that is exactly I think the heart of what this is is, you know, if we don't have anything to hide. Uh then we show the cards that we have and you can then validate that what we're saying and reporting actually is borne out by the data that we're posting. then you can start to see the correlation between our words and and the execution and that I think gets to the heart of the trust part that you're talking about. Right. So yeah, I thank you for that feedback. I I do think that you know the transparency and in the overall integrity of the program demands that we you know quantify things rather than just rely on anecdotal evidence. So, um, are

038there, uh, other comments or perhaps and and you don't necessarily have to answer this right now, but what I would like is if there are other elements of data or things that you would find useful to be reported in this segment of the proceedings that you could get that back to us. You could either tell us now or get it back to us offline and we'll include that and evaluate how we could shape that data into a useful report for you. So, I'm I'm happy to hear from you now if you have an ID. I see Chief White, you have your hand. >> Yeah, I think it would be good to get um a count at least in a summary view like the number of SLA violations that have been um issued. I think the

039uh you talked about like tickets, I think looking at ticket aging versus what the expectation is because >> sometimes the numbers don't tell us like you talked about tiering, but like what's important? So if it's average ticket is taking this long and it's tier one, what's our actual benchmark, >> right? Um I think the other one is looking at uh and this may be more related to um the cloud CPE but I guess it also applies to the network is like the change management requests >> you know I think at least for myself and I'm sure other board members here from vendor side here from OES um but to be able to understand like when there's change requests specifically like patching what's the timeline because in some cases vendors are saying they've submitted and they

040get no response um and I think it's good to, you know, make sure that the the playing field, so to speak, is level because at the end, it's really not about us and it's not about the vendors. It's about the person trying to dial 911. >> And if we're all working together, we need to make sure that stuff's done timely, but also too done uh uh responsibly. Um and then the other one would be is the number of like corrective action plans that have been issued. I think that'd be another good uh metric overall, and I leave this to the experts on your team. Um, I think history is instructive on the the future. Um, and with that said, you know, we all know where we're at right now and I think there's a lot

041of lessons to be learned. And I'll say that there wasn't necessarily a shortage of data being presented. In fact, there was many diagrams and numbers and everything else, but in the end, we missed what was really going on big picture. So, I'd be careful not to get too locked in. And and with that, I would say on the CPE information, the question was raised, which I thought was great, is like what what are the obstacles for those agencies that are in I would consider the highest risk tier, at least it seems, the ones that are in the longest level of support. It'd be good to know like out of those, how many are currently in that process or from a high level, what are the obstacles? Is it something that the board can support with

042or is it something outside of our our hands? >> I think that would be really helpful. >> Okay. No, that's great feedback. And I mean and that's the kind of I think input that we need from from this board with its expertise is that type of you know sort of honing in on the on the metrics and and information that really matters. You know like we like you said we could get lost in data that doesn't have any inherent meaning but if it's important and it it's you know helps you have form an understanding of how things are actually going or where a problem is cropping up. Those are the things that I actually want to be able to report on. And so, you know, like I said, if you may not have it on

043the top of your mind right now, but if you think of it in the coming days, then by all means, send that back into us and we can start working on, you know, refining the, you know, what we're what we are reporting on so that it does hit the the the mark that you're talking about. >> Can I just uh very briefly just to pick up what Chief White said and what you just mentioned is where we're at now. I do think there would be value in starting to report out the successful uh transitions. We've seen very little information on how many are have been successful, right, in transitioning nextgen 911. And what I didn't see and maybe I missed it in this report was what is that number right now because I I think

044it's still relatively low, right, >> that have actually completely transitioned. But again, I think moving forward in the interest of public trust and really reassuring people that this can work, we need to hear how many transitions have successfully worked. >> Thank you for that. >> Any other comments on that topic or any of the items that uh that Mr. Matson brought to our attention before I >> just um to u the sheriff's point is Toualami the center that was the furthest along as far as deployment of nextgen >> and about what percentage of >> of total calls >> yes >> uh >> 80% >> ballpark >> maybe 80% of total calls >> okay and then they're taking on uh nextg 80% of >> 80% of their call their total calls are nextg calls I think.

045>> So, I'd have to check on that number, but it is the majority of their calls. Yeah. >> But they're the furthest center along, right, that's that's worked through the process the the most. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then what's the next center after that? Do you know? >> Uh I would say the Imperial cluster, Imperial County cluster. So, they've all gone there's a group of I think it's five PAs that have that have all gone together and they have um less uh I think it's probably closer to 40% of their call volume is I3. >> Okay. NextG. Yeah. >> Perfect. Does that give you an idea as sheriff? >> Yeah, it gives me an idea, but it also gives me concern. I mean, that is still for the amount of time that we've been

046working on this project, the amount of PAPs that have actually successfully transitioned over and especially with the conversation of, you know, moving nationally is well, realistically, what would that take? I mean, there's thousands of PAPs nationally and at this pace, is it something that's going to be realistically done within 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? Um, and I don't know if that's already been answered. >> If I can interject real quick on that, Sheriff. Um, that was part of the problem was the process that we were using by by transitioning carrier by carrier to a percentage of calls at each PAP. It was very it was very problematic and it was it was causing a lot of the delays that we're that we're seeing now. So the process going forward will be different in that

047we'll be using as as Steve's mentioned in past meetings and I think Lisa mentioned transitional elements that will help us move PAPs over cut them over to from legacy to nextG traffic all at one time so that there isn't you know the the this this iterative process right this trickling through of calls carrier by carrier. it'll simplify for us, help us move a lot quicker. And >> I'll be the first to say I'll be happy to to to report out which ones are are transitioning as we go along. Yeah. >> And and on that point, too, and this kind of touches on what we discussed last time and in the path forward um and there'll be fewer contingencies on transitioning a a PAP itself. it won't like instead of having to wait for people that

048you know paps that it normally works with to also be ready to move um it can be done on an individual basis when that location is ready so that'll also tie to the pace at which we can transition the numbers um you know to I mean to your point obviously we've been paused for some time now uh that has some impact on how quickly things can move obviously but even before that it was going at the pace that Andrew is describing for the reasons the some of which were technical reasons that we were limited um that way. So going forward we're intending to design a lot of those limitations out of the way uh the transitions take place. Is the 20 I know you gave rough numbers but if say 80% of the calls are

049coming in on nextg is that remaining 20 not transition because of the pause basically or is there another reason why the remainders aren't coming in as nextg? >> Uh it tough to get into without going on a siteby-side basis. Uh I do believe that the the remaining percentage were landline calls which do present additional challenges technically. Uh but the pause certainly certainly is a factor there too. Right. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. And with that, we'll move on to the next sub item. Um, so this is uh the the NextG 911 project update. Um, and I think everybody's had an opportunity um to see the implementation plan. Um, at our last board meeting, we laid out the the the transition plan and that was the the strategy change that we were going through.

050Um, and we talked extensively about that. I think at that time I also indicated that we would be, you know, continuing to develop and add chapters to it, if you will, um, to talk about the next steps going forward. And so, since that time, we've developed the implementation plan, which was published uh, last week. and I think sent to each of you in your email as well um in review for this meeting. So we produced that uh you know implementation plan because the transition plan back in November was you know it articulated why a change was necessary and what those changes would be to our strategy for nextgen 911. This implementation plan starts to then get into how we're going to accomplish those changes. And I think you know as you've reviewed the document you've

051seen that the implementation is divided up into three phases. And you know phase one being to establish contracts um with the statewide 911 providers. And phase two was to migrate all of the PAPs onto that statewide provider. and then phase three to decommission the legacy and what was remaining. Um, and so it's very deliberate, you know, laid out that way. Obviously, one of the key takeaways there is that decommissioning happenings after everybody is entirely migrated onto the the new statewide system. Um but as we're doing that we're you know engaging in these contracts and once we have these contracts in place there will be further updates in terms of the project deployment plan and the schedule associated with that. So, what we're talking about right now is, you know, ballpark time frames that we've sketched

052out, uh, that kind of get down to maybe, you know, quarterly updates within the years ahead. We will have much better granularity on that once we have a vendor partner under contract and can work with them on how it's going to proceed during that time frame um, during the period of performance. Um, so that's the sort of the high level and we can talk a little bit about phase one here in establishing contracts with statewide providers. Um, and this will kind of break itself up into a couple of different segments. One, um, is going to be to enter into an interim contract to to move PAPs that are currently on the NextG 911 voice. We want to move those >> on to Can we mute that please? Thank you. Um yeah, so yeah, establish an

053interim contract um and and migrate off of the regional framework onto a statewide framework. And so that'll be the the 23 PAPs that are presently on the NextGen 911 will be the first ones to move over and we're going to consolidate onto that statewide network. Um that's going to obviously simplify support processes quite a bit and allow us to improve response times when you know issues if you know when they are reported um we'll have clear response and recovery timelines established with one partner rather than many partners. Another thing it allows us to do, and this is, you know, I think a significant priority, is to implement NextGen 911 for PAPs in the Los Angeles area prior to the 2028 Olympic Games. Um, and so we got about a two-year runway there before the games

054are upon us and wanting to make sure that we do what we can to support that massive influx of visitors and activity into Southern California. So that's going to be an also priority. So, we will be moving the existing uh 23 PAPs onto the NextG system and also prioritizing the Los Angeles area and making allowance for um any other PAPs that um have uh an urgent need to transition should they experience uh some significant problem. Um you know, copper theft usually comes to mind in this case. So, we've made allowance for those things during that interim contract. Simultaneous with that, we'll be soliciting um in an open procurement process for our long-term statewide partner and you know so we can obviously you know start with the interim process and start making progress but also get

055that statewide partner in in place so that um we're sort of this allows us to I think compress the overall timeline somewhat so that it doesn't drag out for seven to 10 years this way. This allows us to begin moving immediately, make some progress um and not have to wait for that open solicitation to conclude and get um that new long-term partner on boarded before we start making any any additional improvements. So, we're being mindful in this approach that we want to transition all of them as soon as possible. And that means we make some of these adjustments so that we can uh compress the timelines and run parallel tracks uh to make improvements as soon as we possibly can and also have that end date be closer. um recognizing that the legacy system isn't

056getting any younger and um it's served us well for many many years, but the need for the system itself um to be, you know, improved is one thing, but also the features that that system brings with it are things that are urgently needed in the uh to people who are out there, you know, being the frontline mission um out in the in the public. So wanting to get those features and the reliability improved as fastly as as quickly as possible. That's why we selected this approach. Um so phase one prepares that um and allows us to then move into phase two which is the full migration of all uh and that'll take place over the period we're anticipating July of 27 through June of 2030 is when the the bulk of all the all of

057them will be transitioned across from their existing systems onto the nextG system. And so we're targeting June of 30 to have 100% on the um the new nextG statewide platform. And then of course after after that is phase three where we decommission the legacy system and retire all the components of it. And we're anticipating that happens in July of 2030. So from today until this timeline concludes in July of 2030, you know, we're looking at, you know, four four and a quarter years. Um, but I think that is it's a schedule that I mean at at first blush it sounds like it's out there in the future quite a ways, but with all that's going to be taking place during that time, it's um as aggressive as can be prudently done. And and that I

058think is one of the things is always balancing the the reality that this isn't the type of of project and the impacts that it has aren't the type of impacts that you you know necessarily take risks with. And so we want to make sure that we're doing it and conducting this in a in a prudent fashion and planning it uh well in advance and managing the change well. Um, so that's sort of uh I think the gist of what this implementation plan calls for. And with that, I think I'm happy to open it up to the board if they have comments or thoughts they would like to talk about. >> Yeah. Well, want to first I'll applaud you because it's an ambitious implementation plan. Um, and again, I apologize because I'm relatively new. I think

059it's been about a year I've been on here now. So I think I heard you mention 23 PAPs that have already got everything in place. >> Well, they're they're taking voice traffic on the nextG regional platform. >> Out of the 451 four is it 451 PAPs somewhere >> on the order of 450. Yeah. >> Okay. So out of the 23, we have about 420 roughly still to go and that's what we're hoping to have fully online in four years. >> That's correct. >> Very ambitious. I applaud you for that. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. And I think one of the reasons that we can be, you know, comfortable and in that ambition is the time that's been put into, you know, sort of planning out all of the details with what it would take

060to get there and optimizing, you know, certain things. I think a minute ago we were talking about, you know, the pace at which transitions could happen and some of the some of the things like transitional elements um technologies that allow us to to sort of make it easier on the on the answering point itself to transition help with that. Um but it also makes it possible to not have as many dependencies on on other uh other PAPs or other partners. um also streamlines that process and makes it possible to move at a pace that is perhaps faster than what we've experienced before. So I just think it's important to point out that when you say 23 paps not one of those paps is fully transitioned. Um as Andrew just spoke to is about 80% transitioned

061but um many of those paps may just have one carrier or two carriers that are transitioned. So when you hear that number, there's no PAP today in the state of California that's taking 100% of their calls on NextGen. Um and so I know that number gets thrown around a lot and it's a little confusing, but um we still have a ways to go even with those 23 PAPs to completely convert them to NextG. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Yeah. So this is obviously plan B, right, from what the initial plan was and a lot of money was spent on plan A. Okay, I see what >> transition. So, I just I'm advising on behalf of the group that I represent to have a new plan B for when things either go right or

062go wrong so that you you have better tracking and less money is spent on on something that ends up getting scrapped. Uh so I yeah I think understanding your point there is that it it's it's about economic prudence right is kind of and I think that hearkens back to one of the points that we said was our one of our fundamental decisionmaking uh framework in the first was economic prudence obviously is one of those things um you know another one of our things was the reliability had to be top tier and so I think when we have design principles like we published in the first uh document back in November that that ties directly to what you're saying and I I agree with you is we need to make sure that under all circumstances we

063are being economically prudent but we're also maximizing the use of anything that we've already you know invested in and we're maintaining that the highest order of the day is to have operational reliability And so that's where the the 59s of reliability of the system need to come from. And so I thank you for, you know, pointing out that that means that we're on the right track with our design principles. And we've sort of hit some very important points with those that resonate with a lot of people. And I think it it gets real when you start talking about the impact in the real world and what it could mean to a first responder out there or to a member of the public who's calling for help. So yeah, >> not only that, but the almost

064half a billion dollars that have was spent and reported as not being functional anymore. >> So that that's a that's a big dollar sign amount when you know when the state's facing all the other fiscal challenges that it has. Yes, I think we we definitely take seriously the the responsibility that comes with building a high technology system across the state of California, understanding that taxpayer money doesn't grow on trees. So, we need to definitely be prudent with every dollar that we invest in this system, making sure that California gets out of that investment everything that it should be getting. So, yes, I agree. Thank you. If I can, Chief, I also heard two parts to that. One was the fiscal responsibility, but the second was the backup plan. All of us have operated with a

065a backup plan to a backup plan, um, if not a fourth backup plan because we're all emergency responders. So, now that we're on plan B, C needs to be on deck and >> because we do have so many people that rely on this system for their own safety. >> Yeah. No. And and I think it kind of, you know, also gets into um sort of a way of architecting that reliability that we're talking about. And I think a lot of that will be revealed as we engage with um the vendor community to determine what kinds of ways we can approach achieving that reliability. And um sometimes you know when you're solution and I think where we left was the need to always have a contingency plan in place and um so I think yeah we

066got a a great illustration there um of the need for that timely as ever. So, I think your point's well taken is um you know having that plan and being you know that the field that we're in is public safety and so I think always designing you know like to your point backups upon backups and and being ready for that next thing that you can't really anticipate but you know might be coming. So, um, yeah, uh, well stated and we'll definitely make sure that we have that included in any technical requirements that we have and any planning that we do will include alternates and backups as well. >> Was that it? The final maybe point and question I have uh, the sheriff had talked about the kudos on the the lofty goal of of the

067four-year plan. Yeah. And you had mentioned the LA with upcoming events, special events that will clearly maximize their resources. >> Is there communication already starting with those agencies so they know who they are to prioritize them? Because Norcow, everybody south of Grapevine to San Diego is LA to me, right? >> Um and but I'm sure that there's more organized. >> Yes. Um no, thank you for that question. Yes, we've already begun engagement down uh in the LA region in um I think it was last Wednesday we kicked off what we're calling the Los Angeles regional PAP workg group and um the way we approached that was to engage with um the city on both the law and fire disciplines um uh and engage with the county at the law and fire disciplines and then our

068state partners on the law and fire disciplines were represented as well. So what we're attempting to do is cast you know a net that's wide enough to cover estimates are about 12 to 15 million visitors are going to come into the Los Angeles area during the period for the Olympic games and the parolympic games that follow. And so that's a large influx over a reasonably short period of time. And so wanting to make sure that we're covering uh principally where the Olympic game venues are going to be. Um knowing that that's where the focal point of all the attention is going to be. And so as we go in there, we want to be talking with all of the all of the partners in that area. So we started u a meeting last week and

069we'll be meeting at regular intervals as we go along. Some of which involves, you know, just the logistics of planning. Okay. If you were going to transition before the Olympic Games, how far ahead of the, you know, Olympic game ser opening ceremony would you be comfortable doing that? Um, knowing that people don't want to do it the night before, things like that, right? So, a lot of planning around that, but also selecting, you know, which of the PAPs are the ones that really are going to be in the in in the zone where all of the activity is going to be happening and presumably then they'll be the ones who are going to get the the call traffic associated with that. So, like I said, we had an initial meeting last week. We're going to

070schedule another one for in March here and be engaging with them regularly throughout the throughout the period of time between now and then to make sure that we have a plan for which which of the uh PAPs are the ones that are going to be you know included and transitioned in this priority group of transitions. Um and make sure that we're communicating well enough in advance and planning for whatever concerns or contingencies there might be. I'm aware that there are going to be some times where, you know, other events are happening. I think there's a Super Bowl that's going to be coming up there next February that will cause impacts to any transitions that we'll be doing. So, you know, managing those things, you know, the whole process of managing the change, um, it isn't

071just a technical situation in a lot of cases. It's there's a lot of logistics that go into it as well. So, yeah, we're engaged with those parties down there. Thank you. >> I have a question real quick. Um, >> some of the uh the the best practices that you come up with out of these meetings, would there be a benefit in sharing that with the board because there may be something that's useful? I know our agency CHP is working with you on that, but there may be some some benefit that we can use for the overall plan as we move forward. Uh, because you're doing this in such a short period of time, right? I know there's lots of issues that are coming up, but that may help um that may help. >> Yeah. >>

072Uh the overall cause moving forward. So maybe you could report back to us if you if you think that's beneficial. >> Yeah, I think I think you're right. Um, you know, I think leveraging what's been learned by people who've gone before um will make subsequent transitions smoother and easier or at least not have to be replanned u 100% because it can use things that have already been learned. So, um I I think that's a good idea regardless of of how compressed the timeline would be. So, thank you for that. Yeah, we'll definitely take that down as an action. Um >> yes chief couple questions. Um >> I guess the first one would be what do you see as the role of the board in advising along this path. Um and by that I mean like

073you mentioned that you said in the last meeting was established why we're transitioning why we're choosing a different approach. In this one, there's like a high level um overview, but if the board's supposed to advise, how would anybody here know the pros and cons of, for example, um let's talk about the interim process. There's got to be pros and cons and how do you envision us providing feedback as a the impacted public safety representatives about yeah, that sounds good or no, it doesn't. And with that, like I have a specific question is it was mentioned um and I know there's another item for subcommittee, but about some traffic being rerouted. Um one of my questions about that going to the statewide provider is my understanding is that it may actually be downgraded as I traffic

074and it's not being routed as I raises more questions. Um and I don't know if there's somebody here technical that can talk about it. Maybe it's not an issue. Um, but it's difficult because we get different points of input >> and concerns raised and then ultimately people ask, well, why is it going this way versus if we just come here and hear the updates and say this is what we're doing? What does that advice look like? Uh well at a high level I would say you know this these meetings themselves provide that opportunity for feedback and I and I think you know as we bring ideas here you know hearing from you as a board what would be beneficial from your perspective. um and then we can take that information back and weave it into

075the plan that ultimately gets executed. So that's one layer of it. Um and I think taking input from the board, not just at the board meetings, but you know there's opportunity in between to submit, you know, uh agenda items that you would like to have discussed. Um that can be submitted any time in between. But also, you know, to the extent that we don't violate the, you know, the Bagley Keen rules of open meetings, um, we can have conversations. Um, it just, you know, it can't be with so many of the board members simultaneously that it does infringe upon those rules. So I think you know one of the ways we've addressed that up to this point is through the use of the subcommittee um which was you know designed in such a way that

076we could have some you know some of these kind of conversations without infringing upon the uh Bagley Keen rules and so I would say you know the subcommittee in a lot of cases can um can provide some of that feedback um that you're talking about in terms of advising us on things that that would be useful and make sense. I think, you know, your point about hearing pros and cons um is something we could always stand to do better at articulating, you know, here in this forum is, you know, when we come here with a a document, um I think we've thought a lot about the pros and cons already. Um and but we don't really talk about it in in the presentation of it. And I think that's where your point, I think, has

077at least one of its points is um is wanting to hear those pros and cons that were considered and how we weighed those out. Is that >> right? I I think so. I mean, I I look back on how we got to where we're at and then going forward and I think part of why we got to where we're at is that like if you look back, I don't think the board ever, you know, we act as a board. We, you know, we come to this individually, but ultimately the board only acts when we meet in session. And I don't know that we ever once voted on the single biggest project impacting the state of California, >> even if the vote is merely to provide advice to go left or right or we think this

078is good or bad. >> Yeah, >> it is only advisory. It's it's not binding. But certainly there's a tie to this the uh Satna money. If you look back at why the board was brought to uh together in law and you know I mean if you go back the whole decision about going away from a regional model to the other you know I think there would have been some value in the board saying yeah we we think this is the right direction to go or we don't or here's some disscent or whatnot >> otherwise I think how the board really plays out is it's sort of like we're just a super set of public comment right we get the first at it, >> but really it's as if we just show up to a council

079meeting. And I'm not diminishing the the subcommittee thing. I appreciate you guys setting that up, but I think even there too is, you know, we can provide input on what's before us, >> but the most critical thing is actually what we're doing from us from public safety perspective. And >> you know, even back to the timeline, like I, you know, I understand a lot of it's going to depend upon what do the vendors say they can actually do and so you can only provide your best guess at this phase. But I worry is, you know, between now and these RFPs goes out and then stuff comes in, like does the board have any say so to say, yeah, we agree with this or we don't or, you know, the biggest thing that's missing. Um, and

080I realize we won't know till we get the proposals, but what's the cost of all this? Because at the end of the day, you know, we're the most connected to the local communities and taxpayers >> who ask questions and to say like, I don't really know or or you know, with what's presented here, I guess no cost is too expensive because there is no other plan. This is it. So hopefully one of them comes in at an affordable level. >> Well, I think these are all great ideas or issues that need to be, you know, reasoned through well. And I think your point about wanting to understand what would be a good an effective use of the advisory function. Um and so I think we can definitely take that back and frame up ways that

081that what that would look like. Um, obviously, you know, I think your point about the way it has historically played out, you know, hasn't been, I guess, the most effective use of the ex expertise that exists on this board and so you would like to see it done in a more effective and prudent manner going forward. So, I think we can take that back as as something to prepare some remarks on. Is there um regarding phase one, is there somebody that can answer the technical question of are we actually changing from I3 to I2 with that statewide provider because there's some limitation on their end. >> Yeah, so I'm looking for my chief engineer uh if you want to step on up. >> Hey Chief White, go ahead and reframe the rephrase the question. So

082what was explained was that my understanding is right now there's traffic that's being rerouted from a regional and I might be using the wrong term but that it's being shifted at the OSP level and that it's being delivered as I2 traffic because there's some capability issue and so tying into here of the plan in phase one if we're shifting the stuff to there is there a degraded service like what does that mean to the end is it a big deal is it not a big deal maybe you can >> yeah so I I think um in order to answer that, you got to understand what the difference between I2 and I3 is. And to me, the difference is um to get to the root of that, it's the the location. So, we're talking about location,

083right? And so, the location is coming directly from the carrier versus what we call an LD, but from the dispatcher's perspective, from the comm center's perspective, you guys won't see any true difference. the location is still going to come with the call whether you call it direct from the carrier or from an LDB location. >> And in terms of um like finding where somebody's at, that's from us and on the practical standpoint, >> is there any difference in terms of the uh preciseness or time? Now that's where we're getting into the whole the i3 world where you know there's a lot of nuance in in the way the specs are being described for you guys. But in the end operationally I think in my mind there is no like to answer your question is it

084degraded? I would say no. My opinion would be no. Now, if you get down to the academics and the purists and the way that you want to start to, you know, argue requirements and and the true I3 delivery, then you could you could argue that. But in my mind, we're at the point now where if we if we deliver the call, the voice call with location to the comm center appropriately, I think that's in my mind not degraded service. >> And then just to and thanks for making it simpler. Um the second question would be is uh with switching kind of going back with the legacy alley. I know before when we had information reported there was outages reported with legacy. Are we going to like a single point of failure in this transition period?

085Like how big of a deal is that um of going backwards to legacy for the interim time frame per location? >> No, I wouldn't say that. Um it's still the same location database. So I mean I wouldn't say you're going any worse. Um what is changing is the the delivery of voice, right? And so you have today voice traffic going over the regional provider which is being changed to go to a single statewide provider. But the location itself I would say is not any different. Whether you call it direct from the carrier or through an LDB, I would say still location is not degraded. Thanks for clarifying. All right. Uh any other any other questions from an engineering perspective that people would like to have answered now? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you, Ryan.

086Um, how about uh concerning the the implementation plan? Um, I think that's uh wrapping up that topic here. Um, I think, you know, as as time goes on, you know, you'll have more of an opportunity to think through what we're talking about here and perhaps come up with some questions. And if you do, obviously, you can reach out to to the team or to me and um we can figure out, you know, how to get you some information to keep that, you know, dialogue open in between. I I I agree with you, Chief, that this shouldn't just be, you know, every 12 weeks we have a conversation and that's all that there is to it. Um, you know, it it has to mean more than that. Uh and so I think your engagement um and

087you know your thoughts in the intervening period between the board meetings um are things that you can funnel to the team and to me and we can um have a dialogue in that way but again there are certain things obviously we can't do with the rules uh of Bagley Keem governing this and so we'll you know make sure that we're not violating those but still have the open dialogue and get that input and advice from you. So with that, um, we'll wrap up that agenda item and we'll move on to the next one. Agenda item I think number five, which is the subcommittee report. And so uh, uh, Mark and and Chief White, if you want to provide an update of the subcommittee's dealings over the last few months, I'd be happy to hear from

088you. >> Sure. So, uh, Chief White and I have been serving as a subcommittee to, uh, meeting regularly with Steve and Russ and some other people at the 911 branch. Um, I would just say that for me personally, I'm encouraged um, to hear that the centers that have been transitioned to the prime network service provider have been performing well with no issues. I think that's a great first step. U, as a member of the subcommittee, the RFP process has been collaborative, thoughtful. uh people's intentions are in the right place. There's a sense of urgency. Uh the work is getting done and I'm optimistic that the new model will bear bear some fruit especially uh considering the use of transitional elements. This is going to greatly benefit the PAPs and the line level dispatchers who don't

089have to worry about their critical work being affected in day-to-day matters. Um, I do want to reiterate, you know, we've been back and forth with it a few times, but I believe that, um, standing up a technical advisory board with PAP IT personnel is critical. Um, you getting on the ground expertise from different representatives in different regions of the state uh, so they can weigh in on the plans, offer feedback, and ideally prevent any siloed thought process. Um, I think that would uh, be very important to get started. Uh we've started and stopped that a couple of times. Uh but I think that would be really an excellent way to incorporate the PAF's point of view and get um true feedback that um can assist the branch. >> Thank you for that. >> Anything to

090add? Uh Chief White? >> Yeah, thank you. Um, one of the things that I think we talked about quite a bit and we certainly hope to see it um, you know, throughout the RFP and then also to his Cala staffs is making sure that we have some sort of like ombbudzman type position that is really independent of the implementation folks that can make sure that PAP concerns are being elevated and you know uh, learning from the past um, of people expressing concerns like who do I contact at Callowas or being afraid or whatever else um that they can kind of monitor that and and >> okay, >> you know, the more that I think about it, maybe it's appropriate that in a project of this scale that maybe it's an outside company or something that's

091giving that. And I think it's important to get back to this whole board of here's what we're actually hearing, here's what we're seeing. >> Um I think if we're going to be, you know, to use the word transparent, um that we have to assess ourselves as Callowas and then also to um the vendor side. I think the other one that was discussed that I think was important is um you know this being the direction that's going to get a new system um is listening to what the vendor has to say about how they will meet in other words that we set the criteria which I know your team's working on of here's how it should actually work. Mhm. >> Um, you know, it's like if we have a soda machine, we wanted to dispense sodas,

092collect money, and do that sort of thing, but the inner workings, we leave that to the engineers and stuff to figure that out. Um, I think in here, you know, a good lesson learned is to, um, see what they come back with. And I know you've mentioned that the timelines are the best estimates now. Um, but as that stuff rolls in, I think it'll be important to make sure that the board understands and that the agencies are communicated. The other one was um you know we can't mess things up for those places that already had rough transitions and I know Mark and I talked about that at the um making sure that that's addressed but realizing that stuff's going to happen between now and the next meeting. >> I hope to see how that translates

093into some sort of you know outreach because I would hate to see Towalami and the other sort of early adopters um suffer again. Uh that's an you know I think um an avoidable error. >> Yeah. No, thank you for that. It's a good point. Um all right. Uh any questions from the board or comments about the for the subcommittee members? All right. Not seeing any takers on that. Um, thank you for that update from the subcommittee. We will move on then to the next agenda item, which is the update from the long range planning committee. And I'm looking now, here we go. You want to step up to the microphone, please. Good morning, everyone. For those who haven't had a chance to meet, my name is Jeff Logan. I sit on the long range planning

094committee. um and I represent uh California Fire Chiefs Association on that group there. So, the LRPC had our last meeting on um November 19th following the advisory board meeting. Um and there are several current tasks uh that were reviewed and that we're currently working on. Uh first and foremost, um we had the majority of our discussion is regarding the recruitment and retention survey and and I understand that's the next agenda item for this group here. But for the long-range planning committee, what we've been trying to work on is a process that we can put in place that we can make bring forward a recommendation to the 911 advisory board from our group of um kind of how to best um utilize that document's been created. You know, one of the things that uh I think

095we all see here, especially when we look back even at the nextG 911, but you know, at at various stages, you know, time can be a little bit of an illusion there. So that staffing survey that we want to keep current and take a lot of action with, you know, was done in 2024 and here we are at 2026 still trying to find ways that we're going to implement and roll that information out. So, we have a a big agenda topic that we'll be discussing work that's been done over the past 3 months with our group uh at our meeting later today at 2:00 uh with the hope that we have a document uh easy to read and present forward to the uh 911 advisory board here. So, that was a big part of our

096uh process. We had uh discussions on another item that's been assigned to us is discussion uh regionalization and consolidation. Um you know this this is a challenging discussion for our group. Um our last meeting we had a lot of uh discussion about looking at experiences in real world uh where it's been a success and some of our team members were assigned um to look back at some of the examples of consolidation regionalization that we can bring forward uh to this group as well too. So uh we'll be looking to dive more into that later today. Um, we also have been working on uh 911 uh dispatcher job descriptions and how to uh provide more resources to the PAPs out in the world um here, especially here in the state of California to align those job

097descriptions with more of what's going on uh currently in um the PAP world. Uh, one of the things that we learned in our last meeting is that although we've uh, developed some good examples and we've got some good templates have been in place is that, you know, all of our PAPs, there's no one-sizefits-all and there's a lot of nuance to that. So, the group took a homework assignment um after the last meeting to start looking at um breaking it out into sections that can be uh used as more of a menu if a if a PAP is looking for examples to put together their own a job description that better correlates to what they do. Um, and just for a little bit of history that, you know, the reason why we've been working on this

098project is, you know, helping PAPs better identify what the jobs they do. If if you look back at your own organizations and look at the job descriptions for your dispatchers, it probably, if you haven't touched it, doesn't read much of what they actually do today. Um, it it more likely looks more like of a secretarial job. Um, so there's a lot of opportunities to enhance those and um, work that on behalf of your your dispatch staff. Um, one of the other topics we didn't spend a lot of time on is we've been tasked with looking at uh, options for uh, remote call taking um, you know, options. Um, there there's some examples out there in the world and what our group did is we kind of took a little pause of working on the 911

099side of things, especially with uh, how much discussion is going on in the 911 world. and we're looking at more of a how are agencies taking those um calls outside of their center currently uh for some of the non-emergency uh aspects of it. And so uh we had a couple of meetings um from the last meeting till now with uh some of the agencies that are working through that and we'll we'll discuss it a little bit more uh later today with our group. Last update I have um you know specifically uh for uh you know Chief Gonzalez and and Chief White is that in our last meeting um our representative for the California Police Chiefs Association stepped down from uh her position on there just other projects that she has going on. So we'll be

100looking for um a replacement um in that role and I'm happy to discuss with you after the meeting if you have any questions or anything like that. Um and that's the end of our report. Uh happy to answer any questions. Right. Any questions for the from the board? >> Are you guys having discussions about uh AI assistance related to staffing and processing calls? >> So, it's an interesting uh question that you have and uh is specifically with AI. We do not have it on a topic, but it's one of the things that we were going to I was planning on adding today for our roundt of future items, but it does tie into what we're looking at the staffing study. And one of the things that we're discussing and bringing forward is getting some of

101the best practices that are out there currently where we have an identified issue and how are people currently solving that and I can speak uh for my center is the AI has been a big part of that. I think it would be great. I realize you guys um like us all have your primary jobs and so sometimes taking your discussions and you know writing formal reports just speaking for myself but maybe the rest of the board agrees is um I think it'd be good to I don't know if some of the hangup on things is like somebody has to go back and you know compile a thing. I think it'd be fine just to come and give us a report like hey here's kind of what we're seeing and less formal so that we get

102it um more in in real time. And I would say I know I was one of the ones talking about you know looking more at the remote call taking options and I saw there's actually some you know jobs that have been flown at large agencies. It'd be good to hear like how that's working but I think as time you know things quickly change I think AI is taking a front seat to all that. Um, and so it'd be great to hear maybe even at the next meeting like what have you seen and what's working? And also too, you know, when we look at recruitment and retention while the state, you know, doesn't provide funding for dispatchers. We spend a lot of money in technology stuff. Maybe there's opportunities that, you know, through the 911 office

103to provide grants or something to help provide some of these tools that can make, you know, fewer dispatchers be more efficient. um and try to help with that that wellness issue of being constantly overloaded. >> That's fantastic. And uh I I feel like maybe you're like ready to sit on our meeting we have at 2 o'clock today. A lot of those topics are some of the things that we're looking to discuss. Uh very much appreciate the uh comments and insight there. Thank you. If I may add, um, continuing with the wellness, we had talked about in the past that there's insufficient funding for wellness, um, cumulative trauma, things like that for dispatch where we saw funding from the state come in through BSC for sworn personnel, but not for dispatch and trying to find ways

104to help support those that are um, behind the mic. >> Thank you, Chief. that uh you know for anyone listening out in the the PAP world um and those who are here those are the comments that we're looking for and that's the understanding um that's out there and uh you know we we have some ideas to bring forward uh with our group there but you know funding is always a challenge but I think that if we you know put the right um effort towards it and the right uh visibility I think we can prioritize it. So thank you chief Right. Any other comments from the board members? >> All right. Oh, just continued thanks to the LRPC. I know it's a lot of work. So, thank you. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >>

105Um All right. Moving on to our next agenda item. Uh this is number seven. This is a staffing and retention study discussion. Um I understand that this topic uh the board has previously wanted to make sure that this m maintained its presence on the agenda um perpetually. And so it's here um to be an opportunity for the board members if they have uh concerns or or issues they want to discuss around the staffing and retention study. This is sort of the opportunity if you wanted to continue the talk. I know we talked a little bit uh here just in the previous uh agenda item, but if there's others uh other comments or issues that the board members want to bring up, now's a great time. >> Yeah, I guess we don't have a lot of

106people knocking on the door trying to get in. So, um, the big question is how as an as a board and just our profession overall, how can we make it an attractive role that people want to come do? There's lots of people with talents out there that hadn't considered themselves as potential PAP operators. So, you know, whether they're in service industries now or anything else, it would be nice to see us somehow find a way to >> help promote the role and attract people that might be qualified for the job. >> Yeah, I think in increasing the the number of potential candidates helps uh obviously fill those vacancies that are out there. And so, um, what does anybody any of the board members have some thoughts on that or, um, ideas about how to how

107to increase the supply in this equation? >> I don't know. I'm handing out business cards every time I've got, you know, QR codes from my previous organization. Uh, and when I see somebody with communication skills and a desire to serve somebody in their capacity of whatever it is, I'm handing out cards. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I'm just trying to get them to apply. So, >> yeah. No, I think uh you know the point is well taken that um you know from a supply and demand standpoint you have a couple of ways you can approach that. I think you know uh obviously awareness to your point handing out those uh business cards and making people aware of something they might not otherwise have been aware um is one way of doing that. Um, so yeah, obviously

108uh if nothing comes to mind right now from the board members, uh, we're happy to collect your thoughts later or >> Yeah, I just one comment. Go ahead. I can wait. >> Uh, this is Sheriff Sanchez. I'm just uh I'm wondering if there's been any information gathered as far as like maybe the testing process that might be um pushing people away. I know that that's been a factor for onboarding law enforcement and things that we've addressed or at least made the hiring process a little bit smoother as well as faster. So is maybe the testing area that needs maybe improvement or can be improved. >> Um let me I I'll add to that. I know for our department, the CHP, we've looked at uh the whole process, right? how we recruit um the testing process,

109the interviews, you know, we've looked at that and um made some changes in terms of of making that a little bit more standard across the board to to help um make sure that we aren't, you know, uh we're bringing people on as fast as we can, as efficiently as we as we can. Um because sometimes the process might not be um consistent or or the right one that we need. So that there uh like Sheriff Sanchez said, you might want to look at that individually with these agency. How are you recruiting? How are you testing? What's your background process look like? Um we spend a lot of time um looking at that. So I think there's some improvements that could be made there. >> Yeah, that would be similar to like pellet B for the

110officers, right? Once you get your pellet B test and your score, you can then apply that score to other organizations >> as opposed to having to go through each process over and over again. that might streamline it. >> Yeah, I think part of the ask to by the board was to make sure it stayed on as an agenda item so that it wouldn't lose so it wouldn't just end up on a bookshelf somewhere. So, we continue to talk about it. So, I know that um the 911 branch staff has at conferences mentioned it, talked about it. The only thing I I can say in addition to that as as the staff is going to the different peace apps u putting that on the checklist of things to um share discuss with those those paps because

111I I think that was uh one of the big things that we wanted to see is it not just kind of go to waste and end up on a bookshelf. >> Yeah. Oh, that's a that's a great point. I think we can definitely add that to the list of items that uh are included in in our engagements out there. um and you know make sure that it's top of- mind awareness for the people that we engage with at the paps would continue to raise you know the level u particularly if they weren't in you know sort of in tune with what the report shows um you know there would be an opportunity to discuss that so thank you for that >> yeah we were in the process of standing up a new center and I

112actually found it very useful on shift scheduling and all kinds of information so Well, there we go. >> I would just offer up that I mean traditionally um at least on the law enforcement side there was a a post test that many agencies used but um it would typically be given either by an agency or regionally but you had to wait for that post test was the first step. Um so in recent years there's been um different software programs that are used. One's called critical um is probably the most prevalent one. Uh but that does offer some flexibility in the sense that if an agency has that pro program, they can send the applicant that link at home to take the exam at home. Um especially that that was key during um the COVID pandemic

113and then it's become u more of of the rule these days. But there's not a lot of sharing of that data. So if you apply with department A, department A, you know, you may pass the critical there, but department A isn't sharing that critical score with other agencies. And then there's some customization within the test as well. Um that may uh each agency sort of gauges the test as far as the different modules and um according to their needs, right? If they want to emphasize one thing more than the other. So that is there. I mean the I would say the the hardest part versus someone um like my centers in Silicon Valley, right? So they go to apply with city of PaloAlto or whoever city of Mountain View and it's going to be a

1143 to six month process to get hired right and there's the background process there's a polygraph there's a psych exam there's all those type of things whereas they have a competing job offer from Netflix or Google that they can start in two weeks right and so that's really how do we overcome that um so it's really emphasizing uh the the stability of the retirement system, the added benefits of public service, all those types of things. Um, but it's an ongoing battle, right? And that's something that I don't know that we can overcome, but um really just word of mouth and u a lot of agencies have been doing different things as far as uh on social media, Tik Tok videos or um online forums where uh people can just join via Zoom to talk about

115the position, see a presentation. So, there are outreach efforts. It's uh but it just requires it's almost a full-time job, right? To really just try and get a lot of candidates in the pipeline. >> Um and then the candidates that can successfully pass a background test and follow through on all the steps. It's it's a challenge >> and for the public's knowledge, it's mandated to go through those background processes. So state mandate and post enforced. So, it's not like we're just being hard on things and want to make it difficult as government tends to do, but we uh we're following the rules and private sector doesn't have that. So, their ability to hire faster is blows us out of the water. So just for my edification is like you have to go through those steps

116regardless of who the hiring authority is. But is the outcome determined independently by those hiring authorities or in other words if you pass the the psych test is that good for any hiring authority or do do they each have their own standards on that? >> Yes, each agency has their own and it's very frustrating. For example, in the Bay Area, um, and in Northern California, it's more prevalent that we hire what are called PDM dispatchers. So, if you're a full-time dispatcher in an agency, you're like me, someone who's gone into the IT side of dispatch. I still will work part-time for other departments. I'm not sure why, but in Northern California, it's pretty prevalent. In Southern California, it's it it they're trying to implement it more, but it's not as common. But, in fact, I'm

117on payroll at six different police departments um and work in six different centers, >> and I'm working on a seventh. But every time you go, you have to do a full background. You have to repeat the entire process again. So >> um it's it's daunting. >> That's post regulations. >> Okay. >> So it's not just the agency, but the state's um peace officer standard and training that includes dispatch >> 1031 of the government code. Does that sound right? >> Yeah. And then 1029 I think is the other. It's in it's in there. Um, but it's the regulations are there, the mandates, and it shows what each step has to be completed. >> All right. Well, there we go. Okay. Uh, any other any other comments from the board on that? All right. Seeing and hearing

118none, uh, we'll offer the opportunity for the public to comment on the retention and staffing topic. Anybody in the room who would like to weigh in on that? I don't see any hands. Any online? No. All right. Okay. Um that will then wrap up agenda item number seven. Um I think we'll move on to agenda item number eight, which I believe to be the the closed session. Um so we will be pausing the proceedings here in the open session and transitioning to the other chamber for the close session. Thank you. >> All right. I I perceive that uh the board members are all present and accounted for. Um so why don't we go ahead and and continue the meeting with our next agenda item. Um this will be the next agenda item is the um

119identification of agenda items for future meetings. So uh we talked about this earlier obviously at any time between now and the uh deadline for posting the agenda for the next meeting. You can of course email those in to us. Um, but is there anything on your minds right now, board members, as to an agenda item you'd like to see on the next agenda that you haven't already commented on today? >> Yes. >> I'd like to keep the wellness retention recruitment theme on board for those working the centers. >> Okay, we'll make a note of that. Any other agenda items from the board members? All right. Seeing and hearing none other than that one, we'll make a note of that and uh uh obviously if you think of something, go ahead and email it into us.

120Um and we'll move on to the next agenda item, which will be the public comment for matters that were not on the agenda today. Uh is there any member of the audience or uh either in person or online who would like to make a public comment? I see one here. Yes, sir. Please step up to the podium and declare your who you are and what your comment is. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Yep. Uh good morning or afternoon, evening, whatever. My name is Stephen Sprag. I'm a business uh professional here in California. However, I was a professional firefighter paramedic for many years uh here in Northern California and still have family currently working in the fire service in Southern California. Um actually came from a cop and fire family was uh our family get together.

121Um because of these factors, the statewide 911 reporting system is a a great interest in me. >> Um and doing some research, I have learned that there's that nextg 911 system that is in place now. >> Um and that uh provides regional input and coverage. Uh location services, we talked about that along with multiple providers and vendors. um that has cost over half a billion dollars to initiate and I'm put uh to where it is at this point. Um by uh in my research own a mission of um of this body that is apparently working uh very well and is ready to move forward in this current state uh regionally. Um it seems to me as Joe citizen Joe taxpayer you know I'm on anybody's payroll anymore. um that it and especially in this era

122of removing waste, fraud and abuse that there would need to be a really good properly analyzed and documented reason to scrap a working structure that provides an extra security and resilience to spend another who knows half billion billion on a single provider system. Um the legacy system appears to have had several significant service outages. That's a problem. Um and it looks like the recording of those outages may have even stopped back in 2024. I'm not sure why um that was. And I will say this that um you know spent many years responding to emergencies and location and and quickness is extremely important right brain can't survive more than four six minutes without oxygen. house fire doubles every 90 seconds, right? Can't speak to law enforcement stuff. I can't fire, right? Um so this is very

123very important. This is a huge state and I don't know that a single source um solution has worked ever in the state of California. It hasn't. I don't I think regionally we need to everybody's region is different. It's got different needs. And to say we're going to do one statewide system that has now one cyber attack point, one outage point makes no sense to be sense to me as a as a taxpayer and as a citizen, especially as somebody who actually has worked in the 911 system for many years. It also looks like there's going to be a multi-year delay in getting this to roll out. Also doesn't make sense to me, but there's already a system in place that's regional that has multiple vendors and not dependent upon one vendor. So just coming from

124a common sense standpoint as a citizen um and I did want to mention this earlier um I hope to give comments that this was mentioned on the uh in the early part of the meeting I think may have been a violation of the bag and keen act not let us talk at that time but that's okay. Um I just can't uh comprehend spending a whole bunch more money to reset when there's really no reason given in the research I've done to have that make sense. And I listen to some input from the board members here that are in the field representing the people that actually respond. It seemed like they had some questions too about what have we done? Why are we doing this? Why are we going to do move into another system where

125um we've got a documented performance now and no failure points various providers state of this size should be able to manage four. That's what they have right now. I'm so sorry. >> Your three minutes is up. Can you um finish your thoughts? Y. >> Thank you. Um so, uh in conclusion, we don't know what the cost is going to be. We don't know what the timeline is going to be. We have a regional working system with four providers. Now, what are we doing? >> Thank you for that comment. Any other comments in the room? Sorry. And there was no open Um but for not on record or not on agenda like I just wanted to wanted to bring to light a few things to the board that may not be aware of what has occurred

126with the media and the blogs and the stuff that's out there. Not all the information. Two things I wanted to make sure you have. One, we got a letter from the the 911 technology division chief. Nothing wrong with the infrastructure that we have in place by NGA and AWS. We also have a letter from LA stating that there is nothing wrong with any of the providers that are providing services. Right now we are in over 200 stops providing my region few Los Angeles and we are providing legacy providing services now very little minimal if any is at all the we also with that we built the net built ours and a backup built at all sites that a a lot of in place. Ripping it out really doesn't make sense. Two new ones in essentially

127what the only impact that's going to have is on the itself. They don't have the time, resources, that was sent. Uh, a few other things that I wanted to mention. we were up there during the meeting but wasn't able to um own communicate with one vendor in regions at least in our two regions they don't go to behind the scenes I think that that needs to be very clear that the reasons for the change are reasons that make sense on the issue with pets have to manage multiple vendors CAD and recall handling and with this. Yes. But for this specific project, they only have to deal with one um provider. So I wanted to make that um as well. Just wanted to say as as a partner with the state, we've been a partner the

128state of health do you and we have built it with 100% interoperability as the state designed it and with redundancy and resiliency it is built into this that's exactly what a newer I'll leave this so the board can see um what each of the >> All Right. Thank you for that comment. Any others in the room for public comment? All right. How about online? We got any hands showing? All right. Seeing and hearing no other public comment, then we will move to our next agenda item, which is to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all. Uh the next board meeting will be in the May time frame. Um I think it's already on the calendar. If not, it will be coming out shortly. So thank you and uh until then have a good good day. This

129meeting's adjourned.