Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 800 MHZ COMM SYS 07-16-01.AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE' JULY 16, 2001 NO. 15 07-1.6-01 =. 800-55 TO' HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM' SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ' ~~t' 800 MHZ COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION That the City Council authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Orange County Grand Jury which responds to recommendations set forth in a Grand Jury Report regarding the 800 MHz law enforcement communications system. BACKGROUND: The Grand Jury issued a report in April 2001 concerning its review of the newly installed 800 MHz countywide law enforcement communications system. The City Council is required to approve responses to four recommendations in the report, a copy of which is attached ("999--Officer Needs Assistance, 800 MHz--A Public Safety Perspective). The City is represented on the 800 MHz Governance Committee by City Manager William Huston. The Governance Committee includes representatives from four cities, the Sheriff, the County Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Engineer of the County Public Facilities and Resources Department. The Governance Committee was established to assist with financial and contractual policy matters related to implementation of the 800 MHz system. The Committee was formed through the 800 MHz Joint Agreement executed in 1996 by all cities, the County and the Orange County Fire Authority. This agreement provides the framework for financing, and implementation of the communications system. Also attached is a copy of the Sheriffs Department response to technical findings and recommendations in the Grand Jury report. The Sheriffs Department Communications Division was responsible for oversight of the acquisition and installation of the 800 MHz system and ongoing maintenance of the system. The County and cities are currently negotiating an agreement for sharing the cost of maintaining the backbone components (those needed to serve all agencies) of the 800 MHz system. DISCUSSION As indicated above, the Sheriff's Department has responded 'to the technical issues raised in the Grand Jury report (recommendations 1-6 set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the report). Responses to recommendations 7-10 on page 8 of the report are required from each City Council of cities represented on the 800 MHz Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest and Tustin). The questions and proposed responses by the City of Tustin are as follows' m The County and cities, along with the 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS) staff, should coordinate future installation of commercial wireless communications antenna sites to mitigate interference with public safety communications (Finding 13) Response' The City of Tustin adopted the "Wireless Communications Ordinance" on February 2, 1998, to regulate the installation and modification of proposed and existing cellular antennas. These regulations ensure adequate public review and mitigate the adverse visual impacts associated with wireless communication sites by specifying the desirable or acceptable locations, heights, and designs of facilities. The potential for interference is addressed through typical conditions of approval or methods of operation for wireless communication sites. A number of operational methods developed by the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner are included in project approvals which require the applicant to provide engineering measures to prevent interference '(especially in the choices of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware), submit to a post-installation intermodulation test to confirm that the facility does not cause interference, provide a 24-hour phone contact number to report instances of interference and resolve interference complaints within 24 hours, cease operation of any facility causing interference with the City's facilities immediately, provide a "single point of contact" in its engineering and maintenance departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues, and ensure that the lessee or other users comply with these methods of operation. As technology changes, other mechanisms to eliminate interference may be explored or applied such as bi-directional amplifiers. As required by State law, notices of public hearings for proposed wireless communications sites are sent to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed site. When deemed appropriate, notices may also be sent to property owners and tenants within one thousand (1,000) feet of proposed antenna sites advising them of potential interference. Each project is reviewed five (5) years from the date of installation to consider additional conditions or project modifications to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The scope of this review may address interference issues. el County and city governments should consider the enactment of ordinances requiring that new commercial construction include bi-directional amplifier (BDA) installations for public safety communications within new structures. Retrofitting of existing commercial structures should be included (Finding 6). Response' To date, the only recurring problem within the City of Tustin concerning no reception within underground locations and large buildings has been at the Tustin Police Department. This problem has been resolved through installation of a BDA at the Police Department building. The City does not believe it is necessary to enact an ordinance requiring retrofitting of existing commercial structures. The City will assess on a case- by-case basis whether a BDA is required for existing buildings or underground facilities. The City will consider imposing a condition on new construction that a BDA be installed after further discussions with the Sheriff's Department Communications Division. Sm Participating agencies should consider a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) having the legal authority to manage and maintain the CCCS. The JPA would replace the Governance Committee (Finding 11). Response: The City disagrees that a JPA should be created. Through the provisions of the 1996 800 MHz Joint Agreement, the County, SherifFs Department and cities (representing police and fire departments) have successfully worked together' to finance and implement a very expensive and complex communicati°ns system. While there have been and continue to be technical issues, the process for sorting through these issues works. All involved agencies are currently discussing a cost-sharing arrangement for the backbone system. A JPA. with such a limited purpose offers no advantage over the process established through the 1996 agreement. The City agrees with the Sheriff's Department response to Finding 11 which addresses this issue. 10, Governmental entities and public safety agencies in the County should develop a strategy to elevate public safety communications and frequency acquisition to the highest priority and encourage their respective professional organizations to assist and participate in a national endeavor (Findings 12 and 13). Response' The County and cities have invested over $100 million in the 800 MHz system, which clearly demonstrates a commitment to public safety communications. The City agrees with the Sheriff's Department responses to Findings 12 and 13 which address this recommendation. Upon City Council approval, the City's responses to Grand Jury recommendations 7-10 will be transmitted to the. Grand Jury and Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. 999 Officer Needs Assistance 800 MHz Radio, II I A Public Safety Perspective SUMMARY "999!" Officer needs urgent assistance. Emergency! Since the inception of mobile' cOmmunicatiOns for law enforcement nearly.80. years ago, this has been the most feared and dreaded radio call by police officers. What if an officer put out a "999" call and no one responded? Could an officer be seriously injured or worse? Could members of the community be in jeopardy or life-threatening danger?. As the implementation of the new 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS, System or the Radio System)in Orange County began in April 2000, stories and newspaper accounts began to circulate concerning the inability of Tustin and Irvine police officers to communicate within certain buildings, parking structures, and numerous other "dead spots" in their cities. Firefighters reported that, on occasion, while inside a burning building it has been necessary to move to a window to communicate with personnel operating the fire equipment outside. These situations place public safety officers, police officers and firefighters alike at risk of serious injury or death. After an extensive study, the following report has been generated to review the chain of events that led the County of Orange and all participating agencies to the new 800 MHz Radio System. This new System is being implemented in every law enforcement agency, fire department, public works agency and government communications venue in the County. It is a sophisticated and complicated system that manages emergency and non-emergency communications. It is a very costly project that will bring Orange County public safety and public works communications up-to-date. While this report enumerates the difficulties that are still encountered during each agency implementation, it should be noted that the entire team involved with CCCS is dedicated to resolution of problems. Working with line officers will help to identify and resolve the issues. ., The Findings of this report include significant public safety issues and technical concerns such as: antenna sites, reception and equipment problems, and training. The Recommendations in this report address solutions for these concerns, including an independent evaluation for resolution of perceived problems and issues. PURPOSE/INTRODUCTION It became apparent to the 2000-2001 Orange County Grand Jury that the implementation of a new 800 MHz digital radio system in our County was a subject for immediate attention. Published reports in the local press were drawing attention to problems in the first two municipalities that began using the new system. Why were police officers going to the press? What problems were they encountering? What is the history of the conversion? How much money has been and will be spent on the conversion? Are there viable solutions that would assure - the users and the public of safe, reliable communications during times of ordinary and extraordinary service? These questions and other issues generated serious concern for the current Grand Jury. The purpose of this study was to examine the process and outcome of updating radio communications in Orange County. HISTORY/BACKGROUND The County law enforcement radio system had been in service since 1973. In the mid 1980s, law enforcement and county communications officials realized that the radio system in Orange County had reached its maximum capacity. Inception and Planning In 1985 the Orange County Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs Association (OCCOPSA) requested that county communications develop a plan to remedy the situation by obtaining new radio frequencies granted through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Two years later, in 1987, a proposal developed by a joint subcommittee was accepted by OCCOPSA. The subcommittee consisted of members from OCCOPSA and county communications. They formed a team to survey government users of the radio system in Orange County and developed a plan for the future. No independent consultant was utilized for this project. The County and cities began to set aside funds designated for purchasing a new system. By 1991 a survey of all law enforcement agencies had been conducted and as a result a preliminary Request For Proposal (RFP). was drafted and made. available for purchase to contractors. Five companies purchased the RFP but only two, Motorola Inc. and Harris Corp. responded with proposals. A contract was developed with Motorola and submitted to the Board of Supervisors shortly after the County declared bankruptcy in December 1994. The original proposal was for approximately $100 million. It included co. mmunications for all law enforcement, fire departments, other public safety agencies, and public works. An $82 million proposal was presented after the elimination of two of the proposed tower sites and the reduction of power penetration from 20db (decibel) to 15db. In January 1996 a scaled-down contract was signed for approximately $70 million that included the elimination of Public Works and mobile data terminals for law enforcement. That same year, to oversee implementation of the system, a Governance Committee (a decision- making body) was formed consisting of four city managers and three county representatives with ultimate oversight by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.. Today, wireless communications are commonplace. The competition for radio frequencies has become a critical issue. Orange County was granted a license by the FCC to operate within the 800 MHz frequency band. This band is shared with several wireless communications companies. Neighboring county government agencies have also been granted licenses within the same frequency range. As Orange County and its cities began planning and utilizing the new frequencies, there were many problems to consider. Planning to Implementation The original proposal submitted by Motorola was for an analog radio system, but technology in the 1990s had overtaken the market. The County asked Motorola to provide a plan for tho newest tochnology~digital radio. There were many advantages to the new technology, not the least of which was encrypted communications. Historically, criminals have had access to communications between officers and their dispatch centers. Knowledge of tactics and police activities by the criminal element was something to eliminate. The 800 MHz band offers an increased number of talk channels allowing field officers to communicate more easily with other officers. The need to communicate among County and city entities is also vital to the County for coordination of mutual aid situations. Mutual aid between fire, police and local government agencies is imperative. The 1993 destructive fire in Laguna Beach highlighted this critical need. Reliable countywide coverage by the new system was essential. Existing county sites and some private locations have been utilized for transmission equipment. Currently there are 21 antenna sites countywide. There are more antenna sites in the North part of the county than in the South. The County is divided into "cells", North, South, Northwest, Southwest and Laguna Beach. In the past ten years, . there has been tremendous growth in South County, both commercial and residential. As transmission problems became known, the number of antenna sites has become a costly issue for the new system. The County has a radio transmission coverage expectation based on contract guarantees between the County and the contractor. Recently the County of San Diego implemented an 800 MHz radio system. To reach their system reliability goal, the number of antenna sites increased from 21 on initial survey, to 43 before the system was complete. Additional sites in Orange County may be part of the solution. Irvine and Tustin, as well as large portions of the southernmost County, have been high growth areas. New areas have opened up to residential and commercial construction in the rural parts of the County. Because of earthquake requirements and other architectural design changes, building structures have more density and/or reflective surfaces that do not allow radio signals to penetrate or pass through. Equipment that can amplify radio penetration is available for these situations (bi-directional amplifiers [BDA]). BDA installations are expensive and not included in the approved contract. This may, however, be a more cost-effective approach to improve reception in these situations. County Communications supervised the placement of transmission equipment at the antenna sites. The vendor provided a catalog of available equipment for use with the new system. Individual user agencies chose from existing lists of vehicle, handheld, and dispatch apparatus. Custom designs were not available. In November 1998 an updated contract reinstated the public works component that had been removed in the 1996 contract. Preparation for the system took until April 2000. County Communications staff conducted some startup testing of the System and field officers received an initial technical training session. Irvine was the first police agency to implement the new System. Problems began to surface immediately. Police officers found that their training was not specifically focused on the use of the new equipment. In addition, they found: · Dead spots (no reception) and transmission difficulties within underground locations and large dense buildings · Garbled transmissions · Difficulty stabilizing the voice volume received from different users. (i.e., loud from a dispatcher and very Iow from another field officer) · Excessive power drain of motorcycle batteries · 10-15 second warm-up activation time for the radio equipment · Visibility problems with motorcycle console displays--very difficult to read in daylight · Problems with pushbutton size and configuration on motorcycle units making it difficult to use when wearing gloves Location of the red channel selector button (emergency) on the handheld radios causes frequent accidental activation These are some of the problems encountered. Law enforcement officers expected better support to resolve these problems from the providers of the System. Better pretesting of the System could have identified some of these problems before implementation with law enforcement. In fact, further system implementation was delayed for several months and some of these issues were remedied. Training of subsequent agencies and officers has been modified and improved. There have been adjustments made to the antenna transmission power output and some changes made to mobile and motorcycle equipment. But it is anticipated that additional problems will surface as other cities in the County are switched to the new System. Implementation into the Future Future funding and development of new policies and procedures will be a major consideration in the continued operation and maintenance of the 800 MHz CCCS. The System must be funded for on-going maintenance. Currently, there are no agreements among user entities to ensure continued funding of the System. There is a warranty period but modifications or improvements will be necessary and must be funded by participating agencies. There are monthly meetings available to participants from all of the agencies in the County for the exchange and resolution of technical issues (800 MHz Technical Liaison Committee). Problems have been addressed and some resolutions provided. Although the Governance Committee has served its original purpose well, consideration should be given to creating a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) thus granting legal control over the CCCS. A Joint Powers Authority, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 6500-6528, provides for a legal entity capable of assessing taxes and issuing bonds. A JPA would be able to contract for services or products independently and not depend on the County or any other entity. The JPA would be responsible for maintaining the CCCS after implementation of the currently contracted-for system. A JPA provides some insulation from extraordinary influences of any one of the participating entities and discourages secession from the group. METHOD OF STUDY Interviews were conducted with Sheriff-Coroner's Communications staff, Motorola staff, Sheriff-Coroner's personnel and municipal law enforcement officers and their management. Members of the Grand Jury toured radio antenna tower sites by helicopter, visited the communications center at the Loma Ridge facility several times, and attended Governance Committee and 800 MHz Technical Liaison meetings. Interviews were conducted with outside communications consultants. Grand Jury members rode with on-duty law enforcement officers, reviewed contract documents, and reviewed the San Diego 800 MHz system. In addition, published media reports were used for initial information. FINDINGS Under California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses are required to all findings. The 2000-2001 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following thirteen findings: 1. For the first time ever, the County of Orange and its 34 cities worked together with a common focus toward a state-of-the-art $100 million countywide communications system for public safety. 1 During implementation of the new 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS), deficiencies existed in the System for the police agencies in the County of Orange, particularly in the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This reduced level of communications performance has put public safety officers and the communities they serve at risk. 3. There have been fewer implementation problems in the north county area of the CCCS than in the south. 4. There has been no recent (5 or more years) countywide survey for 800 MHz radio reception coverage. (The county made no initial survey.) 5. Prior to implementing the CCCS with law enforcement, the system should have been thoroughly tested by agencies in the County not involved with public safety. 6. The reduction of the decibel (db)level penetration from 20db to 15db inside buildings has had a detrimental effect on the overall efficiency of the CC, CS. 7. Existing CCCS antenna sites, particularly in the south county area, do not provide adequate, dependable area-wide communications. 8. Commercial wireless communication antenna sites that utilize the 800 MHz radio frequencies within the County create interference with the CCCS and can completely block transmission in the immediate area surrounding these sites. 9. The handheld radios and motorcycle radio head/consoles were not designed specifically for local law enforcement use, nor was local law enforcement consulted for design input prior to initial implementation. . 10. The County did not adequately provide initial training and realistic expectations of the CCCS to public safety users. 11. Them is no government agency with binding legal authority over the CCCS. Presently, no contractual commitment for future funding of the CCCS exists. 12. Public safety agencies are forced to compete with commercial communications providers (i.e., television, wireless, etc.) for federally assigned frequencies without preference or priority. 13. The close proximity of private and public sector radio frequency assignments within the 800 MHz range is detrimental to public safety. Responses to Findings 1-13 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation requires a response from the government entity to which it is addressed. These responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Supedor Court. Based upon the findings, the 2000-2001 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that: 1. The CCCS staff should utilize an outside consultant to evaluate the need for corrective action to improve the communications system. (Findings 2-4) A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors. 2. A countywide survey should be conducted to evaluate the radio coverage area. (Finding 4) 3. Additional CCCS tower sites must be considered to ensure adequate coverage in areas of known deficiency. (Finding 7) 4. The CCCS staff should study the feasibility of developing partnerships with commercial wireless communications providers for the joint use of tower sites and facilities as radio antenna locations. (Finding 8) 5. The CCCS staff should make a recommendation to the equipment manufacturer for the development and/or replacement of motorcycle consoles and handheld radios with user-friendly equipment that does not create a safety problem for the user. (Finding 9) . 6. Recurrent and ongoing training of CCCS users should continue to be emphasized. (Finding 10) Responses to Recommendations 2 thru 6 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. 7. The County and cities, along with the CCCS staff, should coordinate future installation of commercial wireless communications antenna sites to mitigate interference with public safety communications. (Finding 13) 8. County and city governments should consider the enactment of ordinances requiring that new commercial construction include bi-directional amplifier (BDA) installations for public safety communications within new structures. Retrofitting of existing commercial structures should be included. (Finding 6) 9. Participating agencies should consider a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) having the legal authority to manage and maintain the CCCS. The JPA would replace the Governance Committee. (Finding 11) 10. Governmental entities and public safety agencies in the County should develop a strategy to elevate public safety communications and frequency acquisition to the highest priority and encourage their respective professional organizations to assist and participate in a national endeavor. (Finding 12 and 13) Responses to Recommendations 7-10 are requested from the County Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. Responses to Recommendations 7-10 are required from the city councils of cities represented on the CCCS Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest and Tustin), the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors. Commendations The 2000-2001 Orange County Grand Jury commends personnel of the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department, the Governance Committee, members of various law enforcement agencies and representatives of Motorola Inc., for their courteous and candid support. Their professionalism, technical expertise and candor proved to be invaluable in the completion of this study. We were particularly energized by the Irvine Police Association. Appendix Information Sources County of Orange CCCS Update Bulletin, various issues Leonard, Jack, Los Angeles Times, articles written June/July 2000 Davidson, Paul, USA Today, "Cellphones drowning out police radios. Mobile communications explosion interferes with signals---and the results can be deadly" and "Bad things can happen if agencies can't talk, March 12, 2001 Minutes of the Sheriff-Coroner Department, County of Orange, Communications/800 MHz Technical Liaison Committee, monthly San Diego and Imperial County Radio Communications System Reports and Evaluation, Various Years Assessment Study of San Diego County--Imperial County Regional Communications System, July 9, 1999, Deloitte and Touche Orange County Request for Proposal SLL-379650, revised digital proposal, September 1, 1994 General Services Agency, County of Orange, various background documents, 1994 City of San Diego, System Overview of 800 MHz Trunked Radio Network, February 1995, prepared for Orange County Communications Orange County 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS) Radio Equipment Contract, Price Book, Motorola, September 1995 Quality Standard, Fixed Network Equipment Installations, R56, Motorola, 1-1-1994, PHI County of Orange CCCS, Standard Operating Procedures, March 2000 Recommendations for Implementation of a New Orange County Coordinated Law Enforcement Communications System, Communications Committee, Orange County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association, May 1987 Joint Agreement for the Implementation and Operation of the Orange County 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated System, January 30, 1996 Comparison of 1990-91 and 2000-01 Assessment Roll Component "Assessor's Parcels by Property Types", January 2001, Orange County Assessor Department Previous Grand Jury Report, Orange County Fire Communications, 1985. and responses Complaints from various police agencies regarding 800 MHz usage Various intra- and inter-county communications dating to 1985 regarding radio communications Various agencies training outlines and procedures ]0 SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF SHERIFF-CORONER 550 N. FLOWER STREET P.O. BOX 449 SANTA ANA, CA 92702-0449 (714) 647-7000 July 3, 2001 ADMINISTRATION C. Robert Jameson Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 JUL - 3 2001 RECEIVED Dear Judge Jameson: MICHAEL S. CARONA SHERIFF-CORONER ASSISTANT SHERIFFS JOHN FULLER DON HAIDL JOHN HEWITT GEORGE H. JARAMILLO TIM SIMON DOUG STORM As requested, I have prepared responses to each of the findings and recommendations in the Orange County Grand Jury's report entitled "999-- Officer Needs Assistance, 800 MHz Radio---A Public Safety Perspective." This department has made every effort to coordinate with the other respondents through the 800 MHz Governance Committee. Each of these respondents, the Sheriff-Coroner's Department, County Executive Office, Public Facilities and Resources Department, and the four specified City Councils, is represented on this committee. This preliminary response is being submitted pending Board of Supervisors' approval of the responses to Recommendations I and 7 through 10 and City Council submission by the four cities represented on the 800 MHz Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest, and Tustin) to Recommendations 7 through 10. FINDINGS 1. For the first time ever, the County of Orange and its 34 cities worked together with a common focus toward a state-of-the-art $100 million countywide communications system for public safety. Res-..-onse' Disagree partially with the finding. Comments: It is true that the County of Orange and the 31 cities worked together to fund and field the new 800 MHz CCCS that integrates fire services, law enforcement, public works, lifeguard and paramedics into one system. It is also true that this is the largest joint venture by the County and cities in the County's history, and that it was fielded in a difficult, bankruptcy environment. What is not true, however, is that this was a first. The County and the cities have joined forces for 67 years to PROUDLY SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY AND THE FOLLOWING CITIES AND AGENCIES: DANA POINT · LAGUNA HILLS · LAGUNA NIGU.EL · LAGUNA WOODS ° LAKE FOREST ° MISSION VIE JO RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA · SAN CLEMENTE ° SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO · STANTON ° VILLA PARK HARBORS, BEACHES & PARKS ° JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ° OCTA ° SUPERIOR COURT DRUG USE IS bring coordinated communications to Orange County and have jointly funded prior systems. The County of Orange and the cities in Orange County have had coordinated communications since 1934. The County and the cities jointly participated in the development 'of the law enforcement UHF system that was installed and implemented by the County in 1973. The County funded the backbone system that supported the mutual aid and backup GREEN channels. The cities funded their own GREEN-channel equipment. In May of 1988, the then-Orange County Fire Department and the City Fire Departments funded and implemented the County's first 800 MHz Trunked Fire Radio System. GSA/Communications provided the system integration and technical support to field this Motorola 800 MHz system. The Orange County Fire Department and the City Fire Departments turned over ownership of this jointly-funded system to the County, With the understanding that the County would maintain the backbone. The base hospitals and the County have also participated in a Paramedic Coordinated Communications System since the mid-1970's that was funded, implemented and operated by the County. 2. Communications System (CCCS), deficiencies existed in the System for the police agencies in the County of Orange, particularly in the cities of Irvine and Tustin. This reduced level of communications performance has put public safety officers and the communities they serve at risk. Res-,.-onse: Disagree partially with the finding. Comments: Police services for the cities of Irvine and Tustin did experience problems when they were cut over to the new 800 MHz CCCS. These problems were totally unexpected as the Costa Mesa and Santa Ana Fire Departments had both been operating on the South cell without problems. The law enforcement problems involved system, dispatch, training and subscriber concerns. A reporting system was put into place immediately that allowed users to fax Radio System Quality Reports to Communications staff with immediate distribution to Motorola. High-level meetings were held with the City of Irvine Police Chief and his staff that included Motorola and County management. These were followed by ongoing meetings, ride-alongs, and an offer to m-train Irvine personnel. This was also true with the City of Tustin. As noted in the response to Finding 3 below, the 800 MHz Project Manager halted the entire law enforcement implementation for four months pending a review of the entire system and the identification and resolution of officer and dispatcher concerns. GrandJury7 6/27/01 2 The County, does not, however, believe officers or the public were placed at risk. The new system has actually eliminated a large number of radio dead spots that were inherent in the previous UHF law enforcement system. The incidence of dead spots is diminishing in Orange County as users become familiar with the new system and as antenna improvements, power enhancements and system modifications are made to the new system. The new 800 MHz CCCS has also eliminated the problem of officers' delays in accessing overloaded radio channels as the new system has 112 channels as compared to the 19 channels in the old UHF law system. In addition, 65 of the 112 channels operate in a trunked mode rather than as dedicated channels so the system is far more efficient. This is a major system and public safety improvement for officers. The previous UHF system was originally designed for on-the- street coverage only, with no requirement to provide in-building coverage. This system enhances officer safety as it targets in- building coverage. The penetration of buildings at 15 dB in the 800 MHz contract applies to average, medium-size buildings. Motorola did not guarantee coverage in any specific building due to the fact that a building could have structural elements or an unusual structural design that would decrease penetration (e.g., jails, aerospace buildings, shopping malls, reflective windows, etc.). The County now has in-building coverage in many cases. It was the radio system vendor's responsibility to provide a turnkey system, including design, development, installation and other associated tasks. Subsequent acceptance tests were performed by the County and Motorola to assure that the contract specification by the County was met. 3. There have been fewer implementation problems in the north county area of the CCCS than in the south. Response' Agree wholly with the finding. Comments: It is true that there were fewer implementation problems in the North County area as compared to the South County area. Following the law enforcement implementation of Irvine and Tustin on the South cell, the project manager halted the law enforcement implementation in order to evaluate the implementation problems. Motorola conducted a second operational and hardware review of the entire system using a team of experts from Motorola headquarters, beginning with the South cell but including all operational cells exclusive of Laguna GrandJury7 6/27/01 3 Beach. Specific dispatch center, training and subscriber issues were also reviewed by the County and Motorola. Exhaustive coverage testing was conducted in the City of Anaheim by a special team of police officers and County staff, including a review of hospitals, 63 schools, and all areas of the city. Train- the-trainer classes were abandoned in favor of Communications personnel providing individual training classes. The new classes were more operational and less technical. When the cutover of the City of Anaheim was initiated in October 2000, the entire system had been reviewed and training efforts revised. Communications staff also attended every law enforcement briefing at two different locations for the first four days of the cutover. This combination of activities, including the early receipt of agency-specific programmed portable radios in order to pre-test the system, made for a more successful cutover in Anaheim and was followed by the same actions and results in the remaining South County, North County, and West County cities. 4. There has been no recent (5 or more years) countywide survey for 800 MHz radio reception coverage. (The county made no initial survey.) Response: Disagree partially with the finding. Comments: Prior to backbone transmission site selection, the Motorola computer modeling system was used many times to predict radio coverage from a multitude of sites. Final site selection was made when the computer model could predict 15 dB coverage in most areas of the County. Actual results later confirmed better than 15 dB coverage in most areas. (Actual in- building coverage testing was not planned or conducted.) Updated propagation maps were completed as late as 1997 to accommodate site changes in the South cell. In the Negotiation Committee minutes from September 30, 1994, 11 dB in-building loss was described as providing coverage in medium-size buildings, stores, factories and office buildings; 18 to 20 dB in-building loss in large commercial buildings, Manhattan-style buildings surrounded by other large buildings. An in-building loss of 15 dB met City/County requirements. As each cell was completed, exhaustive radio coverage testing was performed. Over 13,000 grids equally distributed throughout the County were vehicle-tested prior to initiating any fire, law, public works or lifeguard cutovers in those cells. GrandJury7 6/27/01 4 The Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) for the Countywide trunked simulcast cell verified a minimum 15 dB or better coverage as defined by the contract's ATP. In addition, coverage in the other cells (South, North, Northwest, and Southwest) was verified for a minimum 15 dB coverage as defined in the contract throughout their respective geographic areas. (The Laguna Beach cell is pending). (Refer to Attachment A, Contract Acceptance Test Plan.) 5. Prior to implementing the CCCS with law enforcement, the system should have been thoroughly tested by agencies in the County not involved with public safety. Resoonse: Disagree wholly with the finding. Comments: The system was extensively coverage-tested prior to the Irvine and Tustin Police Department cutovers. Additionally, the Santa Ana and Costa Mesa Fire Departments had been operating on the South cell with no operational problems for several months prior to the Irvine and Tustin law enforcement cutovers. Testing the system with agencies in the County not involved in public safety would not have prevented the problems encountered during the Irvine and Tustin Police Department cutovers. 6. The reduction of the decibel (dB) level penetration from 20 dB to 15 dB inside buildings has had a detrimental effect on the overall efficiency of the CCCS. Res~3onse: Disagree wholly with the finding. Comments: Radio signal reserve addresses coverage requirements; not overall efficiency of the system. During negotiations, Motorola was asked to provide an integrated Fire Services/Law Enforcement/Public Works proposal that included 20 dB coverage. Following numerous discussions with Motorola, and reassurances that 15 dB would meet the structural requirements of most buildings in Orange County, the 800 MHz City/County Negotiation Team proceeded with the 15 dB proposal. In all cases, the system design for 15 dB building penetration, at 95% contour (98% area) coverage, 95% of the time has been met. (The Laguna Beach cell is pending.) Most of the buildings encountering in-building problems are getting better than 15 dB coverage and in many cases 30 dB coverage up to their exteriors. The in-building coverage problems in some buildings generally cannot be argued in the case of officer safety since the prior radio system was only designed for on-the-street coverage. GrandJury7 6/27/01 5 Buildings exist throughout the County that have excessive in- building losses, such as the South Coast Plaza and the jail facilities. The Orange County jails, including Central Men's Jail, Central Women's Jail, Theo Lacy, and the Intake and Release Center (IRC), are in a very good coverage area in excess of 30 dB, yet the building construction is consistent with a penetration loss that exceeds the outside signal. The installation of BDAs (bi-directional amplifiers), which were budgeted by the County 15 months ago and were anticipated as the solution, are either installed or on track for installation in these jail facilities. 7. Existing CCCS antenna sites, particularly in the south county area, do not provide adequate, dependable area-wide communications. Res-;-onse' Disagree wholly with the finding. Comments: The antenna sites in the South County area do provide adequate, dependable, area-wide communications as specified in the contract, since mobiles properly function in virtually all south county areas. What they cannot provide is intense, in- building penetration in all cases due to structural building impediments. In fact, coverage is provided over a much larger geographic area for the South County cities as well as other cities. Under the old UHF radio system, coverage was generally limited to each city's boundaries. The new South cell system covers all the way from south of San Clemente to just north of the 22 freeway, a significant gain in overall area-wide coverage. Many tests were conducted to meet the contract criteria for coverage. It was decided that overall, the system was functioning as specified, and the user community should start to use the system after the various levels of testing were performed. 8. Commercial wireless communication antenna sites that utilize the 800 MHz radio frequencies within the County create interference with the 800 MHz CCCS and can completely block transmission in the immediate area surrounding these sites. Res~3onse: Disagree partially with the finding. Comments' It is true that wireless communications antenna sites that utilize the 800 MHz radio frequencies within the County can create interference to the 800 MHz CCCS and can block transmissions in the immediate areas surrounding these sites. However, this is not always the case because some cell sites do not create GrandJury7 6/27/01 6 interference. Beginning in October 1999, Nextel made changes to minimize the interference of its cell site communications with the County's 800 MHz public safety system. County Communications is attempting to work with AT&T and Verizon to try to reduce cellular interference. The 800 MHz Governance Committee also forwarded proposed language to every City Planning Department in Orange County, plus the Orange County Planning and Development Services Department, Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department, Orange County Fire Authority, and Orange County Transportation Authority, to include in their cellular agreements in an effort to minimize cellular interference. (Refer to Attachment B.) The FCC facilitated a forum to identify and mitigate interference to 800 MHz public safety communications systems from 800 MHz wireless carriers. A "Best Practices Guide" resulted from this effort. (Refer to Attachment C.) 9. The handheld radios and motorcycle radio head/consoles were not designed specifically for local law enforcement use, nor was local law enforcement consulted for design input prior to initial implementation. Resr)onse: Disagree partially with the finding. Comments: Throughout the negotiation process, every effort was made to purchase an off-the-shelf product unless it did not meet the 800 MHz CCCS needs, as custom radios are very costly. Software upgrades on custom radios are usually a problem because future upgrades of features and ongoing maintenance from Motorola are difficult to obtain. The City of San Diego encountered problems because of significant customization of radios in its 800 MHz system. Motorola has been developing communications products for public safety for 50 years. Each product leverages the "lessons learned" from the prior product, as well as incorporating features and functionality identified as desirable by the user community. Sources of this information include direct user feedback to sales and marketing, trade shows, focus groups, market research, users groups (Motorola Trunked Users Group and Motorola Data Users Group), and industry trends. Motorola has deployed over 350,000 portable and 235,000 mobile radio products to over 600 domestic trunked system customers in the past 15 years. GrandJury7 6/27/01 7 The Motorola design and implementation team spent several days at OCSD/Communications in 1994 reviewing the motorcycle configuration and implemented the County's proposed and successful antenna-splitter configuration. Motorola also hosted two exhibits at the Doubletree Hotel in Orange during the same year. Public safety and public works personnel were invited to attend these exhibits and view the equipment and how it operated. Operational, technical and equipment issues were also addressed by the 800 MHz Technical Liaison Committee which was initiated in March 1994. Equipment demonstrations were held at Technical Liaison Committee meetings on an ongoing basis, with law enforcement and fire services representatives providing input on external features of the radios. The Motorola-related subscriber problems have been resolved and are being implemented. It should be noted that all mobile equipment, including motorcycle and helicopter radios, were custom-designed primarily to include the Hot RED receiver. The City of Santa Ana has used these motorcycle control heads for eight to ten years and has not had any reported problems with them. Motorola has sold thousands of Spectra radios so their experience with this radio is also extensive. 10. The County did not adequately provide initial training and realistic expectations of the CCCS to public safety users. Res-,_-onse: Disagree partially with the finding. Comments' Train-the-trainer formats are often Used when implementing a major new radio communications system. In 1988, the County of Orange successfully used a train-the-trainer format when the fire services community converted to its new 800 MHz trunked radio system. A train-the-trainer format was also successfully used when the fire services community transitioned to the new 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System in late 1999/early 2000. This format was effective as fire services had previously been on an 800 MHz system and the transition involved primarily a renaming of channels. In addition to train- the-trainer classes, each fire service was provided individualized user cards, radio code books, and videos. GrandJury7 6/27/01 The County provided initial train-the-trainer classes to law enforcement users, specifically Irvine and Tustin, based on the County's knowledge of system operation. As experience was gained from these two cities, more realistic expectations were factored into the training. In addition, the operational components of the training were enhanced and the technical aspects minimized. In October 2000, the Emergency Communications Coordinator and the Communications Training Officer assumed the responsibility of individually training all law enforcement personnel in the City operations, as a replacement for the train- the-trainer program. Over 3000 law enforcement personnel attended these training classes. (Refer to Attachment D.) These two employees also attended law enforcement briefings the first four days of each police department's cutover, beginning as early as 4'40 a.m. and running as late as midnight, for a total of 180 briefings. The police departments applauded not only the training but staff's availability and responsiveness at briefings. 11. There is no government agency with binding legal authority over the CCCS. Presently, no contractual commitment for future funding of the CCCS exists. Res~3onse' Disagree wholly with the finding. Comments: The County of Orange is the governmental agency with binding legal authority over the 800 MHz CCCS. The current contract with Motorola, Inc., is with the County of Orange, with the County acting on behalf of all County agencies/departments, the Orange County Fire Authority, and the 34 cities. As noted in the 800 MHz Joint Agreement, that was signed by the County and the 31 cities in early 1996, it is stated that: "Similarly, it is understood that County has ownership of the System Backbone and certain backbone sites, as well as FCC licenses presently owned by the County, and upon any termination by any Parties to the Agreement, any and all right, title and interest in the System Backbone, those backbone sites and FCC licenses shall remain with the County. Should the County wish to withdraw, an orderly transition to remaining Parties must be affected." The County of Orange is currently financially supporting backbone maintenance operations, but discussions have been initiated for the cost-sharing of these expenses. The Governance Committee, consisting of four City Managers and three high-level County executive managers, was established to oversee the contract execution, system implementation and financial management of the 800 MHz CCCS. Any funding for any needed future contract additions will be reviewed by this committee and approved by the County and the participating cities. The Governance Committee has provided excellent guidance and expeditiously responded to issues. GrandJury7 6/27/01 12. Public safety agencies are forced to compete with commercial communications providers (i.e., television, wireless, etc.) for federally assigned frequencies without preference or priority. Response' Disagree partially with the finding. Comments' It is true that all users of the electromagnetic spectrum do compete for the use of that spectrum, public safety agencies included. However, it is not true that this competition is without preference or priority. Safety of life and property is the highest priority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Further, Congress has mandated that the public safety community must be given priority consideration whenever new spectrum is allocated to make sure that the public safety telecommunications needs are met. The FCC has allocated dedicated frequencies exclusively for public safety use which are not "shared" with commercial communications providers. It is noted that the exclusivity provided in dedicated public safety frequency allocations is not the same as a guarantee of freedom from interference. It is further noted that public safety agencies are also one of the largest group of users of commercial cellular services. 13. The close proximity of private and public sector radio frequency assignment~ within the 800 MHz range is detrimental to public safoty. Res-._-onse' Disagree partially with the finding. Comments: The proximity of private and public safety radio frequency assignments present challenges to both sectors. Interference, however, for either or both, is not the inevitable outcome of these parallel uses of the electromagnetic spectrum. As noted in the response to Finding 8, significant effort, both locally and nationally, has been put forth on this issue. An additional benefit to those endeavors (again, see response to Finding 8) is the identification of cellular sites throughout the County, which assists officers in anticipating potential transmission degradation in close proximity to these areas. As a result, tactical consideration to this issue can be forecasted. Responses to Findings 1-13 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner. GrandJury7 6/27/01 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The CCCS staff should utilize an outside consultant to evaluate the need for corrective action to improve the communications system. (Findings 2-4) Res-..-onse' The recommendation requires further analysis. :Comments: The County has historically used consultants in the implementation of this project. A consultant was initially used to evaluate the results of the City/County Evaluation Committee's assessment of the two vendor proposals in 1993. The 800 MHz Project Manager, who had extensive telecommunications management and implementation experience and oversaw the 800 MHz CCCS implementation from January 1994 to December 1997, was a consultant. In addition, a consultant was hired by the City of Laguna Beach to review the Laguna Beach Cell design. He was later hired by the County to review the overall antenna configuration of the 800 MHz CCCS. Consultants have proved to be invaluable on this project. The Sheriff's DepartmenfJCommunications Division is certainly willing to hire an outside consultant to perform a critical technical performance review of the 800 MHz CCCS. However, the time for that action is not appropriate until the full system is in and the system is fine-tuned. The Communications Division staff and Motorola staff are totally aware of the corrective action needed, committed to monitoring its implementation progress, and have already been taking corrective action. Highly- experienced technical experts have also been available from Motorola's Schaumburg, Illinois and Plantation, Florida sites, and elsewhere, and have been brought in to analyze and resolve specific problems. The entire system needs to be installed before a decision to hire an outside consultant is made. The issue of hiring an outside consultant will be re-evaluated in November 2001. A response to Recommendation 1 is required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors. 2. A countywide survey should be conducted to evaluate the radio coverage area. (Finding 4) Res-;onse' The recommendation has been implemented. GrandJury7 6/27/01 l l Comments: A detailed, overlapping coverage survey was successfully completed for each of the five cells presently implemented prior to placing users on the new system. This study was conducted by Motorola/County teams that traveled all over the County doing tests from vehicles. The number of approximately one- quarter mile-square test grids totaled over 13,000. The testing was computer-controlled to create an objective testing process, with 500 test points averaged over 40 wavelengths to assure statistical accuracy. Communications staff and Motorola staff are, however, continuing to review any radio coverage concerns on a city-by-city basis based on user reports. A coordinated effort of adjusting antenna configurations and resetting power levels of radio sites is occurring based on new propagation studies. The County has already budgeted over $1 million for Intellirepeater, antenna and fill-in site equipment in its FY 2001/2002 budget to address coverage concerns. 3. Additional CCCS tower sites must be considered to ensure adequate coverage in areas of known deficiency. (Finding 7) Response' The recommendation requires further analysis. Comments: The Communications Division has already started the review and analysis of the technical performance of the CCCS. This cannot be effectively completed until the sixth and final cell in Laguna Beach is completed and antenna and power-level adjustments have been fully made. Many antennas and power- level adjustments have already been made through a partnering effort between Motorola and the County, with substantial improvements in radio coverage as the result. (Refer to Attachment E.) A comprehensive review of all changes will be conducted in October 2001 and a plan for future requirements will be determined. This ties to the determination to be made in November on whether to hire a consultant. 4. The CCCS staff should study the feasibility of developing partnerships with commercial wireless communications providers for the joint use of tower sites and facilities as radio antenna locations. (Finding 8) Res-.-onse' The recommendation requires further analysis. Comments: The feasibility of developing partnerships with commercial wireless communications providers will be considered as the need for additional CCCS antenna sites is identified. Generally speaking, the County sites are located atop mountains, hills, and tall buildings, and cannot accommodate commercial providers because cell-site antennas must be fairly close to ground level and near densely-populated areas. There is also GrandJury7 6/27/01 12 the potential of cellular sites co-located with our transmission sites causing radio interference. After the complete system is implemented and fine-tuned, the feasibility of such co-location will be considered. This will be re-evaluated in October 2001. 5. The CCCS staff should make a recommendation to the equipment manufacturer for the development and/or replacement of motorcycle consoles and handheld radios with user-friendly equipment that does not create a safety problem for the user. (Finding 9) Res~3onse: The recommendation has been partially implemented. Comments' Through the efforts of a joint City/County/Motorola Motorcycle Task Force, many motorcycle radio solutions have already been implemented. (Refer to Attachment F.) In addition, cities may choose to add five motorcycle modifications at a cost of $300 per unit to accommodate user concerns. (These include an analog volume control, speaker/headset earphone switch, backup battery to prevent radio rebooting during engine start, relocation of the handlebar push-to-talk switches, and a control head hood to shade the display from sunlight.) Motorola had previously implemented the County-recommended antenna- splitters on the motorcycle radios (in 1994) as well as integrating the County-specified Hot RED receiver capabilities in all mobile radios. The Communications Division has continued to advise Motorola of recommended changes for the improvement of the operability and functionality of all public safety communications systems equipment. A formal list will be prepared and forwarded to Motorola. The County is also a member of the Motorola Trunked Users Group which reviews subscriber equipment. County Communications has also been a Beta test site for several new Motorola products. 6. Recurrent and ongoing training of CCCS users should continue to be emphasized. (Finding 10) . Res~)onse' The recommendation has been implemented. Comments: The initial approach for the training of new law enforcement users was based on a "train-the-trainer" approach, due to the vast number of users to be trained. The training program was significantly upgraded in October 2000 to optimize its meaningfulness based on dispatch center and field input from the law enforcement user community. Based on the complexities of the 800 MHz CCCS, Communications Division staff members are now training all law enforcement, lifeguard and public works employees. Since October 2000, over 3000 GrandJury7 6/27/01 13 law enforcement personnel have been trained by Communications Division staff. These training changes, accompanied by knowledgeable staff members attending first- week briefings for departments transitioning to the CCCS, have improved both the quality and acceptance of the training program. The County will continue to identify system-wide issues and present updates to all system participants on an ongoing basis. County Communications has been issuing monthly 800 MHz CCCS newsletters since September 1999 that include training tips and information. Communications staff members have also been providing each department a complete training package on compact disk so users can do follow-on training with staff and new employees. Responses to Recommendations 2 thru 6 are required from the Orange Count3t Sheriff-Coroner. 7. The County and cities, along with the CCCS staff, should coordinate future installation of commercial wireless communications antenna sites to mitigate interference with public safety communications. (Finding 13) Resr~onse: The recommendation has been implemented. Comments: The 800 MHz Governance Committee asked Communications Division staff to develop a list of conditions for use with commercial wireless communications providers that could be considered by County and City planning authorities. Recommended conditions were forwarded on August 28, 2000 to the City Managers, County and City Planning Directors, Orange County Fire Authority, and Orange County Transportation Authority, for their consideration, with copies also directed to the three 800 MHz commercial wireless communications providers: AT&T, Nextel, and Verizon. Several jurisdictions are currently working with the Communications Division in the deployment of new commercial wireless sites to mitigate interference to public safety radio operations. The Public Facilities and Resources Department concurs with this proposed language and will incorporate these additional permit approval conditions, as permits are requested or renewed, on properties for which the Public Property Permits Section of PF&RD has responsibility. aa County and city governments should consider the enactment of ordinances requiring that new commercial construction include bi- directional amplifier (BDA) installations for public safety GrandJury7 6/27/01 1.4 communications within new structures. Retrofitting of existing commercial structures should be included. (Finding 6) Res~3onse' The recommendation has been implemented. Comments: The 800 MHz Governance Committee requested the development of a model building ordinance to assure that public safety staff, including, but not limited to, law enforcement and firefighters, will be protected when operating inside of buildings. Of particular concern to the Governance Committee were those buildings in which the construction materials or design could make it difficult for radio waves to penetrate the · buildings. The model ordinance will call for integrated infrastructure in new buildings to facilitate communications. Planning officials, designated by their professional planning organizations, are being scheduled to meet and develop this model ordinance, facilitated by the Governance Committee Chair, Allan Roeder, City Manager of Costa Mesa. 9. Participating agencies should consider a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) having the legal authority to manage and maintain the CCCS. The JPA would replace the Governance Committee. (Finding 11) Res-~ onse' The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Comments' The County is the cognizant governmental agency with responsibility for the 800 MHz CCCS in accordance with the Joint Agreement signed by the County, Orange County Fire Authority and the then-31 cities in 1996. It should be noted that an 800 MHz CCCS Joint Powers Authority was initially approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 28,1995, subject to approval of the City Councils, to oversee the 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System. A total of 29 of the 31 cities actually approved the JPA and an informational meeting was held on June 28, 1995. The JP^ was quickly rescinded by the County and the cities when the County established adequate funding to meet its financial obligation. The JP^ was then replaced with the more streamlined 800 MHz Governance Committee comprised of seven members, with the cities holding the majority vote. This committee has been very effective in overseeing the 800 MHz CCCS implementation. 10. Governmental entities and public safety agencies in the County should develop a strategy to elevate public safety communications and frequency acquisition to the highest priority and encourage their GrandJury7 6/27/01 15 respective professional organizations to assist and participate in a national endeavor. (Finding 12 and 13) Resr~onse' The recommendation has been implemented. Comments: The County, supported by the cities, continues to participate at the national and local levels with the Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety Planning Committees, and public safety communications organizations such as APCO (Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials- International), to make sure that the public safety communications needs are met, and that outside, commercial interference is mitigated. This has been elevated to a high-level status within APCO due to its importance. Additionally, it is important to note that the Federal Communications Commission governs frequency acquisition and the County continues to express concern over the critical need for expanded regulation. Responses to Recommendations 7-10 are requested from the County Executive Office and the Public Facilities and Resources Department. Responses to Recommendations 7-'10 are required from the city councils of cities represented on the CCCS Governance Committee (Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Lake Forest and Tustin), the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner and the Board of Supervisors. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Orange County Grand Jury report and am committed to resolving any outstanding issues related to the 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System implementation. rv~ohe, ei S. ,,arona SHERIFF-CORONER Attachments CC: Joseph Gatlin, Foreman, Orange County Grand Jury Members, 'Board of Supervisors Michael Schumacher, Ph.D., County Executive Office Vicki Wilson, Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department Jim Armstong, City Manager, City of Fullerton Bob Dunek, City Manager, City of Lake Forest William Huston, City Manager, City of Tustin Allan Roeder, City Manager, City of Costa Mesa Randy Thompson, Project Director, Motorola, Inc. GrandJury7 6/27/01 16 Attachment A EXHIBIT E ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN Contractor shall submit to the County a detailed Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) 120 days after the signing of the contract. The ATP shall be designed to verify that each system meets all the requirements of the specification. The ATP will specifically address the areas of radio coverage, regional plan compliance, tmnking system loading and response time, reliability and system functional tests. ". ' Contractor shall use the levels of testing procedures during the ATP as described below. testing procedures shall be submitted to and approved by the County prior to starting any tests. All 1.0 1.1 LEVELS OF TESTING System/Subsystems Acceptance Test Plan A Subsystem shall be defined as any tmnked simulcast or fill-in cell and each individual County, City or contract related agency installation. Systems shall refer to North, South, Countywide tmnked, Data (optional), and Mutual Aid systems. Master system interface site is comprised of the SmartZone Controller and Embassy Audio Switch located at Loma Ridge. System functional tests shall be performed to verify that the systems are operating as designed. The following procedures shall be utilized during the System/Subsystem Acceptance Testing: Ao All site equipment shall be accounted for and inventoried by Contractor and County. This information shall be recorded and included in the Contractor's system documentation and provided to the County. Bo Contractor and the County shall verify that the system and subsystem installations meet or exceed Contractor specifications and County specifications as described in the Scope of Work Exhibit A. Contractor shall perform Fixed Network Equipment (FNE) quality audits on all sites and document the results, utilizing Contractor's stringent R56 standards to assure that the sites have met those standards and the standards defined in Exhibit A, Scope of Work. A copy of the audit shall be provided by the Contractor to the County along with any recommendations for the County, Cities and the contract related agencies to improve items under the agencies direct control. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 - l - Exhibit E 1.2 Co Functional testing of all backbone system components shall be performed during staging at the 'Contractor's Customer Center For System Integration facility in Schaumburg Illinois. These measurements will be recorded and included in the as- built documentation provided to the County. Do The various failure modes of the system shall be demonstrated to the County in the Contractor's Customer Center for System Integration located in Schaumburg Illinois. These tests will be accomplished by simulating equipment failure to verify the redundancy capabilities of the system. Any problems that arise shall be corrected by the. Comractor and the [ailure modes shall be retested from the point of testing failure. Eo System/Subsystem operational reliability shall be demonstrated during a 30-day stand-alone performance test. Fo Contractor shall identify and obtain licenses for all required microwave paths on behalf of the Coumy. All microwave systems provided by the Comractor will be tested and aligned on an end-to-end basis. Go System as-built documentation shall be provided in three-ring binders and will include the following information' · Installation Drawings · Accountability/Invemory · Level Settings · Functional Test Information o' Operational Procedures · Equipment Troubleshooting Procedures (Service Manuals) · As-Built Drawings Coverage Acceptance Test Plan (ATP) There shall be four separate, distinct procedures performed during the Coverage ATP' Ao A radio frequency (RF) coverage test shall be performed for each tmnked system. A coverage verification test for the mobile data system (optional) shall be performed and recorded. This test shall be independent of the voice systems RF coverage tests. A NPSPAC channel test shall be performed and recorded to ensure compliance with the regional plan. D, A power output test of the Coumy, State and National Mutual Aid channels shall be performed. Informational only coverage tests will be conducted for the Mutual Aid channels during the coverage testing of the trunked systems. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. $0000015.95 -2- Exhibit E 2.0 DETAILED TEST PLANS Successful completion of all the System/Subsystem Acceptance Test Plans (ATP) and delivery of each subsystem's documentation to the County Project Manager shall constitute final system acceptance. This acceptance shall be provided in writing by the County 800 MHz Project Manager. Contractor shall perform the following voice and data radio (optional) acceptance test procedures ...which are designed to clearly demonstrate Systems/Subsystems installed 'meet the coverage requirements defined in specification contained in Attachment E-1, Radio Coverage Maps. coverage that all County's 2.1 Voice Radio Coverage Acceptance Test Plan Radio coverage requirements are: In all areas a minimum of 95% contour (98% area) coverage, 95% of the time to and from hand-held portable units and operating inside medium buildings (15 dB average loss) within the 15 dB shaded, coverage areas of the system/subsystem shown in Attachmem E-I, Radio Coverage Maps. A passing rate of 95% of test grids of any system shall be deemed to be accepted. This Coverage Acceptance Test Plan is designed to demonstrate that the RF coverage for the tmnked Systems/Subsystems proposed to the County will meet the coverage requirements as set forth in Attachment E-l, Radio Coverage Maps. This test will be used to evaluate coverage provided by each tmnked System/Subsystem for portable units as shown in Attachment E-1. The coverage acceptance criteria will be limited to 15 dB shaded areas accessible via two wheel drive vehicles on public access paved roads only. A quantitative method of measuremem shall be used which involves the use of the following equipment provided by the Contractor: a calibrated test receiver, analog-to- digital converter, and a portable computer. The test areas to be evaluated shall be those which are defined by the coverage maps in Attachment I of this document. Any areas which are shaded as 15 dB coverage within Orange County. on the coverage map shall be evaluated. Coverage maps for each trunked system shall be guaranteed only within the shaded portion of the maps that apply to that system. If interference is detected and determined to be caused by equipment installed as a part of this contract, it shall be corrected by the Contractor. The RF coverage maps illustrate the predicted coverage areas and show the worst case scenario of portable radio talk-in and talk-out. The system coverage illustrated in the coverage maps shall be guaranteed in the stated areas, at the stated reliability set forth below. EXHIBITE. ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreemen! No. SO000015.95 -3- Exhibit E 2.1.1 The acceptance criteria shall be based on a demonstration that a mean signal level of 15 dB above 0.30 microvolts across 50 ohms is available at the receiver input for the base-to- portable configuration. 95 percent of the grids must yield a mean signal level of 15 dB above 0.30 microvolts across 50 ohms within the shaded area to constitute acceptance. The base-to-portable outbound configuration shall be evaluated based upon reference field intensity measurements acquired by the calibrated measuremem equipment. During the field test, the receive package shall be placed in an automobile, which will travel to each of the test locations. At each location, outbound signal level measurements shall be captured by the calibrated measurement equipment and these measurements shall be used as reference levels upon which ~11 other levels shall be determined. During the analysis phase, the value for the base-to-portable configuration shall be obtained through extrapolation to compensate for any system gain differences between the test equipment and the base-to-portable configuration to be evaluated. Inbound portable-to-base signal levels shall be tested jointly by the Contractor and the Coumy GSA/Coruscations at the backbone sites and site signal balance will be demonstrated at each site. In-building signal levels shall be extrapolated' from the outbound reference levels by this method. The County may also have users perform informational portable in-building tests. Contractor shall provide tables for County approval which indicate the value to be used to extrapolate the signal level for the base-to-portable configurations, based upon the receive reference measurements made during the field test. These figures shall be used in the analysis phase to evaluate radio coverage acceptance. Contractor shall conduct this test once, except in those areas that have failed a test. If the test is proven to be unreliable because of proven equipmem malfunctions or failures, Contractor shall repeat the portion of the test affected by the equipment malfunction or failure. The Contractor shall provide, if available, the Coumy with radio coverage' information in those areas tested outside of the shaded radio coverage areas on the maps in Attachment E-1 for information purposes only. Coverage Testing Methodology Reference Grid Each test grid shall be determined by Contractor's FACTWARE Test. tested is approximately 1300 feet by 1300 feet within the County. Each grid to be Ao The test shall be an RF signal strength measurement test. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 Exhibit E Bo Co Do Eo Fo Go H° The test shall be conducted in a moving vehicle so that the maximize amount of signal level test data can be gathered during the test period. The test shall be conducted using a Contractor supplied calibrated test receiver to measure outbound reference signal levels. Through extrapolation, signal levels for the base-to-portable configuration to be tested will be determined. Computers provided by Contractor in the automobile shall be used to gather signal strength data. An antenna shall be c~nnected to the antenna port of a Comractor-supplied calibrated test receiver monitoring the transmission from a repeater at the fixed end radio Site. The antenna and antenna height shall reflect customary mobile operating mode. An analog to digital converter device shall be connected between the signal strength indicator port of the mobile and the computer. A computer program will manage each data gathering session and store the results on disks for later analysis. A random method of selecting evenly and uniformly distributed test locations shall be used. The indicated guaranteed coverage area will be divided into the appropriate' number of evenly distributed, equally sized grids. A random method of choosing a location within the grid shall be provided by the Contractor's fully automated FACT test computer. Signal strength at each location shall be determined by taking five hundred (500) evenly timed data measuremems over a distance of 40 wavelengths. The average of these measurements shall be computed to determine a signal level representative of the test location. An average of multiple samples is used rather than a single measurement to ensure that the measurement is not biased by taking a single sample that might be at a peak or null point on the radio wave. The resulting average shall be referred to as the "Reference Grid Level." The "Reference Grid Level" shall be used and through extrapolation, receive signal levels shall be determined for each of the test configurations. For the base-to- portable configuration, if the extrapolated receive signal level is equal to or greater than a mean signal level of 15 dB above 0.30 microvolts across 50 ohms, that grid for that configuration shall be declared passed. If the extrapolated receive signal level is less than the level of 15 dB above 0.30 microvolts across 50 ohms, that grid for that configuration shall be declared failed. If more than 5% of the grids fail the signal level test as described above, Contractor and County shall perform a subjective test to evaluate audio quality in the failed grids. The subjective test shall consist of two teams of at least one representative each from Contractor, County, and the end users of the system. EXHIBITE. ACP ~{:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 -5- Exhibit E A fixed control station location shall be established. Each test team shall have members that operate a portable unit in the field and members that are stationed at the control location. Thus, multiple tests can be conducted simultaneously. Locations shall be consistent with the grids chosen in the signal reliability test given previously. For tmnked systems, each test talkgroup shall be steered to a specific tmnked channel. This will ensure that all the tests are conducted on the same fixed end channel. A communications, procedure shall be devised to allow the transmitted audio to be graded for art"approximate five-second transmission. The test team members stationed at the grid test control point shall grade the transmissions from the field unit for portable-to-base audio quality. Conversely, the portable team members shall grade base-to-portable transmissions for talk-out audio- quality. A test sheet shall be structured to record date, time and the location of the portable team. Each team member shall record his or her subjective evaluation and the test sheets shall be compared at the conclusion of the testing day. The grading shall be based on the following Circuit Merit Chart reception' Circuit Merit Chart reception: Circuit Merit Grade of Circuit Performance Signal not present or present less than half the time. Speech not perceptible. Speech understandable only with considerable effort. Frequent repetition required for intelligible conversation. Speech understandable with slight effort. Occasional repetitions required for clarification. Speech easily understandable. Some continuous noise. Speech perfectly understandable. Negligible noise. If the mean of all the subjective evaluations of all members of the test team equal Circuit Merit 3 for a grid that grid will be declared passed. The County and the Contractor shall agree prior to testing on the specific definition of circuit merit levels 1 through 5 to be used for testing and all testing personnel will be certified. Contractor has designed the system so that the average building loss will be 15 dB. The successful passing of the base-to-portable configuration will constitute the criteria for acceptance of the radio coverage if it achieves the levels of coverage described above. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 -6- Exhibit E 2.1.2 Prerequisites and Preparation 2.1.3 Two or more automobiles and drivers supplied by County shall be utilized for this test. It is expected that the vehicles used for this test shall be as similar as possible to the vehicles which are to be used by the end users of the system. Contractor shall provide the calibrated measurement equipment for the test. Two or more sets of equipment shall be provided to permit at least two test teams to conduct tests simultaneously. A team shall consist of a driver (County), a Contractor test person and a County test person. Analyzing Data and Report Ge~'neration During the field test, a computer file will be generated' which includes the signal level averages for each test location. This data shall be placed in a computer spreadsheet using Microsot~ Excel during the analysis phase and summaries shall be computed for each of the test configurations. A report outlining the test and test results shall be submitted to the County by Contractor. The time frame for the report submission shall be agreed to by the County and Contractor. 2.1.4 Acceptance of Coverage Test Plan Procedure Contractor shall accept financial responsibility for the addition of equipment to achieve the desired level of coverage shown on the coverage maps. The County shall accept financial responsibility for radio site procurement and construction. The acceptance signoff by the County for the Coverage Acceptance Tests shall be provided by the County Project Manager in writing. No oral statemems shall be construed to be acceptance. The County Project Manager may opt at any time to accept coverage and stop testing. 2.2 Data Radio Coverage Acceptance Test Plan (optional) In all areas, a minimum of 95% contour (98% area) coverage, 95% of the time from mobile Units within the shaded coverage area shown in Attachment E-l, Data Radio Coverage Map. A passing rate of 95% of test grids shall be deemed to be accepted. The objective of this test is to demonstrate that messages can be transmitted over the RF network with a reliability of 95% contour (98% area), 95% of the time within the coverage area specified by the coverage maps contained in Attachment E-1. In order to verify that the RF reliability is met, the area within Orange County's coverage contour shall be divided into approximately equally-sized test grids as specified in Reference Grid under 2.1.1 EXHIBITE. ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 -7- Exhibit E 2.2.1 2.2.2 This test specifically excludes areas of poor RF coverage as identified by Comractor's propagation prediction plot contained in Attachment E-1 to this document to give less than 95% comour (98% area) reliability. Also excluded are underground parking lots and underpasses that dip below grade. Also, locations where unusually high levels of environmental noise on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week, exist may be excluded, since they will cause an uncharacteristic degradation in the sensitivity of the mobile receiver. The RF coverage maps illustrate the predicted coverage areas of worst case talk-in and talk-out for mobile radios. The Contractor is otherwise responsible for achieving the test objective. The contractor shall provide, if available, the County with radio coverage test results in those areas tested outside of the shaded radio coverage areas on the maps in Attachment E-1 for information purposes only. Test Point Selection Prior to the commencemem of the test, Contractor shall provide Orange Coumy with a suitable map showing the test grids using the reference grid defined in 2.1.1. The specific test locations used within a given grid will be selected by the vehicle test team and documemed during the test. Test Procedure Prior to the test, Contractor's personnel shall verify that the MDT and radio, in the test vehicle are operating satisfactorily. The primary coverage test shall consist of up-link and down-link test transmissions performed within each of the test grids. All test transmissions shall be initiated by the County's representative. The vehicle speed (traffic conditions permitting) during test transmissions should be between 10 mph and 30 mph. One test transmission shall consist of one press of the transmit (TX) key on the MDT. This will initiate the first transmission and up to three automatic retransmissions. The reception of an acknowledgment (ACK) shall indicate a successful up-link communication. No acknowledgmem of this transmission shall constitute an up-link failure of the test point. When TX is pressed, the MDT shall indicate the transmission is taking place until an acknowledgment (ACK) is received from the base equipment. If the ACK is not received by the terminal the MDT prompts "message not acknowledged." The down-link test transmission is automatically initiated upon receipt of a valid up-link test transmission. Failure of an up-link message does not constitute failure of the down- link message. Should an inbound message fail, another inbound message shall be initiated solely for the purpose of triggering the outbound delivery. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agre~nn~nt No. $0000015.95 -8- Exhibit E The coverage criterion of 95% contour (98% area) reliability shall allow for the failure of up to 5% of all up-link and 5% of all down-link transmissions from the total number of valid test transmissions from those test grids. Since up-link and down-link messages do not occur simultaneously or at precisely the same location, up-link and down-link message transmission successes and failures shall be .summed separately to determine the results of the test. If the up-link failures represent less than 5% of the valid up-link test point locations and the down-link failures represent less than 5% of the valid down-link test point locations, the test shall be deemed passed and completed. If either the up-link or down-link test failures amount to more than 5% of the total number of the valid test transmissions, "'secondary coverage testing will be performed to determine the extent of the problem. Alternatively, the County may deem the test passed and complete if it is felt that there is no real problem and the radio coverage is acceptable. If the secondary testing.is required (i.e., more than 5% failures), it shall be performed after the completion of the primary coverage test. The secondary coverage test shall determine the size of each of the idemified problem areas. If the sum of all of the problem areas idemified by the secondary coverage test is less than 5%, the Data Radio Coverage Acceptance Test shall be deemed passed. 2.2.3 Test Messaee Description The inbound test message shall be 150 characters in length. The outbound test message shall be 150 characters in length. This is to reflect a test message that is typically larger than the average test message to be used. 2.2.4 When the down-link message is received by the MDT, it shall be directed to the MDT's page buffer. The message can be viewed on the screen so it can verify that the down-link message was received. At the RNC, an ACK is the positive indication the message was delivered to the MDT. These ACKs and up-link messages are viewed on the R_NC host simulator console. Coverage Test Documentation For each test point the mobile test team shall record the following: Grid number - corresponding to the numbered grids on the map Test transmission number - corresponding to a clearly marked number written on the topographical map Test transmission location - clearly identifying the street identification of the test point · Time of day - to the nearest five minutes EXHIBITE. ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 ' Agreement No. SO000015.95 -9- Exhibit E 2.3 Pass/Fail - as defined herein Additional comments - should include observations about the test point location, any large shadowing objects or below-grade underpasses obstructing coverage; type of area (rural, residential, urban); type of foliage (sparse, medium, dense). At the completion of test!ng, the duplicate copies of the following items shall be retained on file by Comractor and Orange County: · Test sheets · Maps with the test points clearly marked · Test results · A signed Acceptance Sheet to be jointly developed by the Contractor and the County. NPSPAC Channel Test Contractor shall meet the requirements Of the Southern California 800 MHz Regional Communications Plan and assure that signal strength outside the County coverage area is minimized. Contractor will use techniques, such as, patterned antennas selected to minimize signal strength outside desired coverage areas. Any portion of the system that 'fails to meet the criteria of the Regional Plan, at the date of the comract, shall be corrected as required by Contractor to be in compliance with the Plan; however, such corrections shall not adversely affect coverage as required in this document within Orange County. Contractor shall comply with the requirement that signal levels outside of Orange County will be verified by actual field measurements. Testing shall be performed until all adjustments are completed on all systems which require them. The tests to be performed will be jointly designed by the Contractor and the County, performed by the Contractor and witnessed by the County. Contractor shall correct any violations of the Regional Plan radio coverage regulations. The field tests will be performed using the Contractor's FACTWARE test set. The tests will be performed using 2600 foot grids along a route, mutually agreed to by the County and the Contractor, that is between Orange County's and the adjacent channel user's "coverage area" as defined by the Regional Plan. The test route will be designed to ensure that the interference levels meet the levels specified in the Regional Plan within the adjacent channel user's "coverage area." If these tests fail to meet the levels specified in the Regional Plan and the adjacent channel users determine that the interference levels are acceptable, then the NPSPAC channel test shall be deemed to be accepted. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. $0000015.95 - 10- Exhibit E Contractor will document the test results in writing for the County as stated in Section 2.1.1. The acceptance signoff by the County for the NPSPAC channel tests shall be provided by the County Project Manager in writing. No oral statements shall be construed to be acceptance. 2.4 Thirty-Day Stand Alone Performance Test Plan This 30-day stand alone performance test is designed to demonstrate the successful operation of the system or subsystem over a period of time. It is the intent that each subsystem be tested successfully only once. The 30-day acceptance test is started after the radio coverage testing is completed as described in 2.0 above. 2.4.1 General Description The 30-day stand alone test requires that the system or subsystem under test must operate for thirty days without a significant outage. A significant outage shall be .defined as the failure of 10% of the digital radios active on the 800 MHz backbone system at any time. If a significant outage occurs, the County shall require that the test clock stop for the effected subsystem during corrective action then resume until the 30-day test period has concluded. The 30-day test periods will not be interrupted for unaffected subsystems. Subsystems which fail twice during the 30-day test period will be repaired and testing will begin anew for that subsystem. 2.4.2 MethodoloKv of Testine 1. Test Beginning Testing of the Law Enforcement Agencies green and yellow talkgroups shall begin after all the portables have been distributed to an agency and 60% of all the mobile radios have been installed. The Comractor Project Manager shall certify in written form that the system or subsystem is ready to begin the 30-day stand alone test period. The County Project Manager will note the date and time. . Test Duration All significant operating parameters of the system/subsystem shall be monitored for the ensuing 30-day interval. If no significant outage occurs, the test will have been successfully completed. If major outages occur, the outage shall be corrected by and at the sole expense of Contractor. . Test Completion Upon successful completion of a 30-day stand alone test period the test data sheet will be completed and signed off by the County and acceptance provided to the Contractor in writing. EXHIBITE. ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. $0000015.95 -11- Exhibit E 2.5 2.6 National and State Mutual Aid Channels Test The Contractor shall demonstrate to a designated County Communications representative that the power out put at each of the remote sites for the National and State Mutual Aid Channels are operable and acceptable. Full System Acceptance The entire system will be accepted the day after the last contract related subsystem that is installed and accepted in writing by the County, that is, after all County, City and comract related agencies communications subsystems have been installed and accepted in writing by the County. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2.1 MICROWA~ SYSTEM ACCEPTANCE TEST PLAN lmroduction The microwave system shall be ready for use upon successful completion of acceptance testing. The system will not be accepted until the standards of performance set forth below are met. All acceptance testing shall be done in the presence of Coumy representatives. The Contractor shall record the test results and shall provide the County with the test results. The County shall accept the system in writing after successful completion of all tests. Acceptance Tests The Microwave ATP specifies tests to ensure compliance with installation requiremems in three categories' · physical installation at all locations · electrical specifications of supplied equipment · path specifications per the system design criteria Verification by the County for each of the above categories constitutes acceptance for the system. Acceptance Test Plan , The physical installation of equipment at each site shall comply with County installation standards and Comractor's installation standards. EXHIBITE.ACP. JM:akb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 - 12- Exhibit E . The equipment tests at each site shall include: measurement of the RF power; measuremem of the unmodulated RF transmitter frequency; measuremem of the receiver reference oscillator frequency; measuremem of the DC voltages (in volts) at all front panel DC test points; verification of module faults by checking individual module alarms; verification of network management system (NMS) functionality; measurement of the radio modem data '(baseband) clock frequency; measurement of IF modulation frequency and levels power meter; measuremem of individual channel levels; measuremem of individual channel frequency response; measurement of multiplexer clock frequen.cies. ... . The path tests at each site shall include: fade margin tests (reliability of 99.9999% or better While maintaining a 1.000 * 10.6 or less BER); measurement of the per-hop received signal levels; measurement of the per-hop and end-to-end BER for DS-1; a functionality check of the RF fault switching system; measurement of service channel and orderwire audio levels and signaling; measuremem of NMS levels; testing of multiplexer system diagnostic operation and programming; measurement of each DS-1 and DS-3 BER on multiplexers; measurement of battery voltage and charger voltage; a radio frequency interference (RFI) test. 3.2.2 Thirty-Day Stand Alone Performance Test Plan This 30-day stand alone performance test is designed to demonstrate the successful operation of the microwave system over a period of time. It is the intern that the microwave system be tested successfully only once. The 30-day acceptance test will be started after Acceptance Tests for all sites are completed as described in 3.2.1 above. 3.2.2.1 General Description The 30-day stand alone test requires that the microwave system must operate for thirty days without a Significant outage. A significant outage shall be defined as the failure of 10% of the active microwave paths on the system at any time. If a significant outage occurs, the County shall require that the test clock stop for the affected paths during corrective action, then resume until the 30-day test period has concluded. The 30-day test periods will not be imerrupted for unaffected paths. Equipment which fails twice during the 30-day test period will be repaired and testing will begin anew for that affected path. 3.2.2.2 Methodology of Testing 1. Test Beginning Testing of the Microwave System shall begin after the Acceptance Tests for all sites are completed as specified in 3.2. l'is complete. The Contractor Project Manager shall verify in written form that the system is ready to begin the 30-day stand alone test period. The County Project Manager will note the date and time. EXHIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agre~nnent No. S0000015.95 -I 3- Exhibit E 2. Test Duration All significant operating parameters of the system shall be monitored for the ensuing 30-day interval. If no significant outage occurs, the test will have been successfully completed. If a major outage occurs, the outage shall be corrected by and at the sole expense of the Contractor. 3. Test Completion Upon successful completi..on of a 30-day stand alone test period, the test data sheet .. will be completed and signed off by the County and acceptance provided to the Contractor in writing. EX~IIBITE.ACP JM:skb 9/15/95 Agreement No. S0000015.95 - 14- Exhibit E SHERIFF-CORONER DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF ORANGE CALIFORNIA Attachment B MICHAEL S. CARONA SHERIFF-CORONER 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, Allan L. Roeder, City Manager, City of Costa Mesa VICE-CHAIRMAN, Michael S. Carona, Sheriff-Coroner James Armstrong, City Manager, City of Fullerton Gary Burton, Chief Financial Officer, CEO Robert C. Dunek, City Manager, City of Lake Forest William A. Huston, City Manager, City of Tustin Kenneth R. Smith, Deputy Director/Chief Engineer, Public Facilities & Resources Department August 28, 2000 <<Title)) <<FirstName)) <<LastName)) <<Position)) <<CityName)) <<Address1)) <<City)), <<State)) <<PostalCode)) Dear <<Title>) <<LastName>)' The 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS) is currently in the implementation process for City/County law enforcement departments. This writing is to advise you and your staff to situations of potential interference to the new 800 MHz radio system being implemented in your community. Reports have been received nationwide of interference to 800 MHz Public Safety communications from cellular radio systems that also operate in the 800 MHz band. Such systems include, but are not limited to, radio communications sites owned by AT&T, Nextel, and Verizon. Such interference has already been experienced within Orange County and its cities. In order to avoid this potential for interference to the maximum extent possible, a copy of the "Wireless Communications Company Interference Report," prepared for the 800 MHz ¢'CCS Governance..Committee, has been enclosed. This document contains a recommended list of "Wireless Communications Facility Permit Approval Conditions" for your consideration whenever issuing conditional use permits for wireless communications companies to build and operate facilities within your jurisdiction. This recommended list should also be considered for proposed wireless communications facilities by. third parties, such as tower companies that lease to wireless communications companies. It should alSo be considered whenever renting, leasing, or licensing public property or facilities under your control for the construction and operation of wireless communications facilities. OCSDICOMMUNICATIONS, 840 N. ECKHOFF ST., STE. 104, ORANGE, CA 92868-1021 DRUG I$ August 2.8, 2000 Page 2 It is noted that, to date, excellent cooperation has been shown by the cellular companies in the mitigation of cases where there is interference to the 800 MHz CCCS from cellular companies. One cellular company has made global changes to its system to reduce cellular interference to our Public Safety system. If you have any questions, please contact Gary Gray, Chief Telecommunications Engineer, OCSD/Communications, at (714) 704-7911, as he has the technical and operational expertise to address your questions. Please note this communication is advisory only. It is an individual jurisdictional matter whether you choose to impose some or all of these provisions. They should be discussed in full with your legal counsel. .. Sincerely, Allan L. Roeder, Chairman 800 MHz Governance Committee Enclosure CC: ((CC)) WITLESS COMMUNICATIONS COMPLY INTERFERENCE REPORT Submitted by the ENGINEERING SECTION · OCSD/COMMUNICATIONS AUGUST 28, 2000 History OCSD/Communications was informed aborn a potential wireless communications company interference problem approximately two years ago, through its APCO affiliation, and has been following the issue since that time. Communications has also been kept up to date on. the resolution progress by manufacturer personnel working directly on the issue. The first confirmed' incidence of wireless communications interference to the 800 MHz CCCS occurred near the intersection of Imperial Highway and the 57 Freeway during December 1999. About a dozen additional cases have been Confirmed. It is noted this is a nationwide issue. In April of 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hosted a meeting in Washington, D. C., regarding the Public Safety 800 MHz system interference issue. At meetings held in conjunction with the APCO- International Conference and Exposition in Boston this month, the Public Safety 800 MHz system interference issue was discussed by a Task Force comprised of Al)CO, Nextel, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA), and Motorola. An FCC liaison is monitoring progress of this Task Force. Details Communications engineers have observed wireless communications interference om to a maximum radial distance of 500 feet. This distance has been reduced to less than 100 feet after mitigation measures have been applied. A typical wireless communications facility will only imeffere with one or two channels of the respective multiple-channel tmnking system. This adds a roulette nature to the interference symptoms. There are numerous wireless communications facilities in Orange County, including an estimated 150 Nextel sites, 133 Verizon sites and 127 AT&T sites that.operate in the 800 C¢llSims-I GD~ 08/28/00 MHz band. The number of other cell sites is curremly unknown. causing interference. Not all of them are The fundamental causes of wireless communications interference are their close proximity of frequencies and the proliferation of suburban facilities with short towers. Recent bench testing by Communications engineering staff indicates that wireless communications sites may only be partially responsible for the interference. Other potential causes are being investigated. Resolution To date, the County has been working with two wireless carders in order to resolve wireless communications-related interference.. Nextel has been extremely cooperative concerning this issue and has met with Communications several times in the course of mitigating about a dozen sites since December. This mitigation was occurring on a site- by-site basis. That strategy has been replaced with a countywide redistribution of frequency assignmems to specific sites. This redistribution was completed on July 28. As resources are available, Communications engineering staff will reinstate interference testing to determine if this global change corrected the problems, although Preliminary testing indicates it has helped. Communications has just confmned its first significant incidence of AT&T Wireless interference and is in the early stages of a mitigation effort. The fundamental causes and responsibilities appear to be the same. The attached recommendations apply to AT&T Wireless. At this time, the cost to the County to test and mitigate wireless communications interference will be limited to Communications staff time. Recommendations Communications has developed a list of recommended conditions that could be used by the County or Cities considering the development of new wireless facilities. Those recommendations are attached. CellSites-I G1Xi 08/28/00 Wireless Communications Facility Permit Approval Conditions , e e 4~ e e e (Permit Applicant) recognizes that the frequencies used by the cellular facility located at are extremely dose to the frequencies used by the City of for Public Safety. This proximity will require extraordinary engineering measures to prevent interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware. At all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in number 4 below, (Permit Applicant) shall not prevent City of from having adequate speetmm capacity on City's 800 MHz radio frequency. Before activating its facility, (Permit Applicant) will submit to a post-installation test to confirm that the' facility does not interfere with the City of Public Safety radio equipment. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of (Permit Applicant). (Permit Applicant) shall provide a 24-hour phone, number to which interference. problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. This condition will also apply to all existing (Permit Applicant) facilities in the City of . (Permit Applicant) shall cease operation of any facility causing imerference with City's facilities immediately upon the expiration of the 24-hour cure period until the cause of the interference is eliminated. Failure to cease such operation shall result in automatic suspension of this permit. (Permit Applicant) will provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all imerference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. (Permit Applicant) shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. CeilSites-1 GDG 08/28/00 Wireless Communications Facility Permit Approval.Conditions . (Permit Applicant) recognizes that the frequencies used by the cellular facility located at are extremely close to the frequencies used by the County of Orange for Public Safety. This proximity will require extraordinary engineering measures to prevent imefference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware. . At all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in number 4 below, (Permit Applicant) shall not prevent County of Orange from having adequate spectrum capacity on County's 800 MHz radio frequency. . Before activating its facility, (Permit Applicant) will submit to a post-installation test to confirm that the facility does not imeffere with the County of Orange Public Safety radio equipment. This test will 'be. conducted by the · Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Departmem or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of (Permit Applicant). . (Permit Applicant) shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which imerference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. This condition will also apply to all existing (Permit Applicant) facilities in the County of Orange. . (Permit Applicant) shall cease operation of any facility causing interference with County's facilities immediately upon the expiration of the 24-hour cure period until the cause of the interference is eliminated. Failure to cease such operation shall result in automatic suspension of this permit. . (Permit Applicant)' will provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Depamuents to insure continuity On all interference issues. -The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to County's designated representative upon activation of the facility. . (Permit Applicant) shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. CellSites-I GDG 08/28/00 Wireless Communications Facility Permit Approval Conditions le (Permit Applicant) recognizes that the frequencies, used by the cellular facility located at are extremely close to the frequencies used by .the Authority for Public Safety. This proximity will require extraordinary engineering measures to prevent interference, especially in the choice of frequencies and radio ancillary hardware. e At all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in number 4 below, (Permit Applicant) shall not prevent Authority from having adequate spectrum capacity on Authority's 800 MHz radio frequency. Before activating its facility, (Permit Applicant) will submit to a post-installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the Authority Public Safety radio equipmem. This test will be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriffs Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of (Permit Applicant). e (Permit Applicant) shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported, and will resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. This condition will also apply to all existing (Permit Applicant) facilities under control of the Authority. e (Permit Applicant) shall cease operation of any facility causing imerference with Authority's facilities immediately upon the expiration of the 24-hour cure period until the cause of the imerference is eliminated. Failure to cease such operation shall result in automatic suspension of this permit. e (Permit Applicant) will provide a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to insure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to Authority's designated representative upon activation of the facility. e (Permit Applicant) shall insure that lessee or other user(s) shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. CeliSites-I GDG 08/28/00 August 30, 2000 Mr. Harold Jones AT&T Wireless Services 12900 Park Plaza Dr. Cerritos, CA 90703-8573 Dear Mr. Jones: The 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System Governance Committee at the August 24, 2000 meeting approved the attached correspondence addressing potential 800 MHz interference issues be sent to the City Managers in Orange County. The chairman of the committee directed that the attached be forwarded to our local contacts with the cellular community. Questions can be directed to our Chief Telecommunications Engineer, Gary Gray at (714) 704-7911 or to me at (714) 7.04-7905. Sincerely, Joseph W. Robben, Manager OCSD/Communications JWPJasc Attachment Cellular Interference Letters sent to: · Orange County City Managers Orange County CEO/Purchasing and Real Estate Services · Orange County Planning and Development Services Department Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department · Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Transportation Authority cc's to: · Nextel Communications · AT&T Wireless Services · Verizon Wireless Attachment C Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washin.-.-ton, D. C. 20554 This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974). .=ws media Information 2021418-0500 TTY 202 1418-2555 Fax-On-Demand 202 1418-2830 Internet: http:l/www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 9, 2001 News Media Contact: Mark Rubin at (202) 418-2924 E-mail: mrubin~fcc._clov WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU ANNOUNCES BEST PRACTICES GUIDE FOR AVOIDING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL WIRELESS 800 MHZ COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS Washington, D.C.- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) today announced the availability of A Best Practices Guide ("Guide ") that can be used to identify and alleviate radio interference between public safety and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) systems in the 800 MHz band. It is intended to help prevent or mitigate interference to public safety communications systems that provide critical safety-of-life communications services from FCC-compliant CMRS operations. The Guide was compiled by a working group of subject matter experts from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO); the Cellular Telecommunications & Intemet Association (CTIA); Motorola, Inc. (Motorola), a manufacturer of both commercial and public safety radio systems; Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel), an enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) provider in the 800 MHz band; and the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), representing local, state and federal government public safety users. The Guide describes the types and causes of such interference and provides information that may enable the affected parties to reduce or even eliminate the interference. It also offers guidance for future system deployments that can prevent such interference through frequency planning, collocation or strategic location of public safety and CMRS base stations, system design improvements for either CMRS or public safety networks or both, equipment upgrades, frequency swaps and, if necessary, FCC rule changes or waivers. "This is a positive step, and the Bureau is very pleased that the parties collaborated to make this happen," said Tom Sugrue, Chief of the Bureau. "They have developed a valuable resource for anyone working with telecommunications systems at 800 MHz." The Bureau initiated the development of the Guide in April 2000, when it brought together representatives of CMRS providers and public safety communications officers to discuss the problem of interference between commercial mobile and public safety radio networks. The Bureau had received an increased number of reports of interference to public safety radio networks in the 800 MHz band apparently resulting from the operations of nearby CMRS systems, even though all providers were operating within the parameters of their FCC licenses. Anecdotal accounts appeared to correlate the increased interference with the recent expansion of 800 MHz CMRS systems -- particularly enhanced SMR systems and cellular networks - using digital technology and employing more intensive frequency reuse to serve an expanding customer base. It concluded, however, that additional facts and analyses would be needed to conclusively establish the causes of this interference and to identify potential remedies. Industry representatives were encouraged to develop definitive information as to the scope and severity of 800 MHz CMRS/public safety interference and to recommend mitigation techniques and solutions. The Commission emphasized that all parties affected by this phenomena - both commercial and public safety- needed to collaborate and share responsibility for identifying the causes of such interference, identifying mitigation alternatives, and developing joint planning and technical solutions for preventing interference. A number of participants formed a working group to pool their knowledge, experience and expertise. The Guide is available at www.apcointl.om. Additional technical background can be found at: http://www, motoro I a. com/c ~i ss/N A/co ntact/1 nterferen ce% 20Techni cal %20App endi x. pd f See also http://www.fcc.eov/wtb/publicsafety/ FCC Contact: Jeanne Kowalski (Public Safety and Private Wireless Division) at (202) 418-0680 or jkowalsk~fcc.[lov - FCC - 800 MHz I,nterference "Best Practices Guide" Page 1 of 1 APCO International. Compliance R e q u_~e_s t__Re_p.__.o....rt_ Use this form to report RF interference. The interactive form can then be submitted to APCO through intemet e-mail for processing. 800 MHz System Interference Update An update on interference issues in the 800 MHz band. The "Best Practices Guide" was compiled by a working group of subject matter experts from the following organizations' the Association of PublioSafety Communications Officials-International, ]:nc., the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, Motorola, ]:nc., Nextel Communications, ]:nc., and the Public Safety Wireless Network. In April 2000, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) brought together representatives of commercial mobile radio service (CIVlRS) providers and public safety communications officers to discuss the problem of interference between commercial mobile and public safety radio networks. It concluded, however, that additional facts and analyses would be needed to conclusively establish the causes of this interference and to identify potential remedies. The result of the work to date has culminated in the following "_Best P.._r_actices Guide'S. http://www, apco intl. o rg/afc/800 bpg. htm 6/28/01 AVOIDING INTERFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AND COMMERCIAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AT 800 MHZ A BEST PRACTICES GUIDE Note: This Guide was compiled by a working group of subject matter experts from the following organizations: the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials- International, Inc., the Cellular Telecommunications & Intemet Association, Motorola, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc. and the Public Safety Wireless Network. The authors wish to express their appreciation to the many individuals in these organizations who provided their time and expertise to develop this document. This document may be reproduced without permission. Production costs funded by Motorola, Inc., and Nextel Communications, Inc. Version 1 Printed December, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION In April 2000, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") brought together representatives of commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") providers and public safety communications officers to discuss the problem of interference between commercial mobile and public safety radio networks. The FCC stated that it had received an increased number of reports of interference to public safety radio networks in the 800 MHz band apparently resulting from the operations of nearby CMRS systems, even though all providers were operating within the parameters of their FCC licenses. The FCC noted that anecdotal accounts appeared to correlate the increased interference with the recent expansion of 800 MHz CMRS systems - particularly enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") systems and cellular networks- using digital technology and employing more intensive frequency reuse to serve an expanding customer base. It concluded, however, that additional facts and analyses would be needed to conclusively establish the causes of this interference and to identify potential remedies. The FCC encouraged the meeting participants to develop more definitive information as to the scope and severity of CMRS/public safety interference and to recommend mitigation techniques and solutions. It emphasized that all parties affected by this phenomena -- both commercial and public safety -- must work together and must share responsibility for identifying the causes of such interference, identifying mitigation altematives, and developing joint planning and technical solutions for preventing interference. Accordingly, a number of participants agreed to form a working group to accomplish the FCC's charge. The group includes Motorola, Inc. ("Motorola"), a manufacturer of both commercial and public safety radio systems; the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-Intemational, Inc. ("APCO"); and Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel"), an SMR provider in the 800 MHz band. The Cellular Telecommunications & Intemet Association ("CTIA") also agreed to participate in the working group to represent its cellular and SMR membership as did the Public Safety Wireless Network ("PSWN") representing local, state, and federal govemment public safety users. These organizations have pooled their knowledge, experience and expertise to develop this "Best Practices Guide" (the ,"Guide") for parties experiencing commercial/public safety interference.I The Guide provides a broad overview of practices that can be used to identify and alleviate interference between public safety systems and commercial systems. It is intended to improve the ability of both public safety providers and CMRS carriers to identify the radio frequency ("RF") conditions in which public safety radio systems are likely to experience interference from FCC-compliant CMRS operations.2 The Guide describes the types and causes of such interference. It then provides information that ~ In addition, APCO has placed on its web site a questionnaire for its members to report incidences of interference to assist in identifying causal conditions and remedial actions. 2 Public safety system out-of-band emissions also have the potential to interfere with CMRS operations. may enable the affected parties to reduce or even eliminate such interference. It also offers guidance for furore system deployments that can prevent such interference through frequency planning, collocation or strategic location of public safety and CMRS base stations, system design improvements for either CMRS or public safety networks or both, equipment upgrades, frequency swaps and, if necessary, FCC role changes or waivers. The developers of this Guide intend that it be used to help prevent or mitigate interference to public safety communications systems that provide critical safety-of-life communications services. The developers believe that the information presented herein will facilitate cooperation by public safety and CMRS operators throughout the country to prevent harmful interference between such spectrum uses. References for more detailed technical information and points of contact are provided at the end of the document. II. BACKGROUND - 800 MHz BAND HISTORY The 800 MHz spectrum band was first made available by the FCC for land mobile communications services in 1974 when it was reallocated from TV Channels 70 to 83 for use by public safety communications systems, private two-way radio, SMR, and cellular systems. As Figure 1 indicates, the FCC allocated 70 channels for public safety mobile communications systems between 809.9625-815.9875/854.9625-860.9875 MHz. These channels are interleaved with 50 channels allocated for private intemal-use Business systems and 50 channels for Industrial/Land Transportation private intemal-use systems. Some of the public safety channels are also adjacent to commercial SMR channels and some of the Business and Industrial/Land Transportation channels have been converted to S MR use during the past decade. Subsequently, in 1986, the FCC allocated an additional six MHz of specmnn (821.0-824.0 MHz paired with 866.0-869.0 MHz) for exclusive use by public safety agencies. These channels were allocated for interopemble public safety systems developed through regional planning progrmm involving both intm- and inter-region frequency coordination efforts. Additionally, some public safety communications systems have been licensed in the 800 MHz General Category frequencies (806-810/851- 854 MHz). Given the then-current state of 800 MHz technology, in which all systems employed similar analog high power, high site system architecture, the FCC had no reason to expect that two-way systems allocated for these different uses would be in any way incompatible and might cause interference to each other. When public safety radio systems initiated 800 MHz service, the FCC had not yet adopted service roles- much less licensed -- cellular mobile radio systems and 800 MHz SMR systems were in their infancy. In short, when the allocations illustrated in Figure 1 were promulgated, neither the FCC, the wireless industry, nor the public safety communications community could have anticipated the revolutionary changes in mobile commtmications technology that would occur during the 1990s, nor the explosive demand for commercial communications services and increased need for additional public safety communications capacity and capabilities. Figure 1- FCC Spectrum Allocation in the 800 MHz Band FCC Spectrum Allocation of 800 MHz Band Up-Link ~ ~- RIFt R1R 1191 ~ " Or'mhlding B.s/IL'I/P~/ISM~) ' . :' ....................... i' :J" "'"" ' :" Down-Link MHz Iriterlea\,ed [land (inclu,.li,§ HuslII.T/I:'SISI~I.~) Sameas Up-link above* In. SMR (80 channels)* BI - Business (50 channels)* Bi . Industrial (ILT) (50 channels)* I'1 . Public Safety (70 channels)* Cellular A :~T~:,qlt ,]: Gldlular ~B Blind .......................... ,.:.,~, I Cellular A Band Extended ' C~IuMr Cellular A :CIa. IllB ~ I Cellular A Band Extended * - Allocation for tlr 7nnp. (cliff, rAnt nlnn('] MP. xicnn and C,,nnndinn hnrdP, r mninn.qi The advent of cellular mobile communications technology, in which frequencies are intensively reused throughout a system's service area through the construction of multiple, low-power base stations, has enabled the 800 MHz spectrum to be used far more efficiently than ever before to provide value-enhanced services to millions of Americans. Advances in this technology, including the advent of digital communications techniques, have greatly expanded the capacity of cellular and similar frequency-reuse architecture SMR networks thereby making mobile communications affordable and convenient for both businesses and consumers. This has led to explosive demand for cellular and similar commercial wireless services at 800 MHz. At the same time, demand has also increased for public safety communications to support additional mission critical services. This, in mm, has resulted in accelerated deployments to accommodate more users, with more intensive use of the 800 MHz radio specmnn by public safety communications networks. These deployments of both public safety and commercial wireless systems in recent years have had some unforeseen consequences. Under certain circumstances the mix of public safety and commercial systems on neighboring or adjacent specmnn has resulted in overlapping radio emissions from mobile communications systems designed at different times and for dissimilar operating environments. Public safety radio systems designed for the frequency coordinated, less congested and less intensively used RF environments of ten and 15 years ago, for example, may not be capable of rejecting locally robust commercial transmissions on adjacem frequencies. Similarly, some digital commercial networks, while enabling more efficient specman use through division of bandwidth into time slots, may also increase the local noise floor above that in which older public safety equipment was intended to operate, resulting in disrupted communications capability. In addition, both public safety and commercial systems have migrated from systems that primarily use "mobile" in-vehicle devices to systems that increasingly use "portable", hand-held units, thus increasing the mobility of the units and the potential interference effects. The purpose of this docmnent is to help operators identify these circumstances and to proactively as well as reactively obtain assistance in mitigating harmful interference. III. CONDITIONS EXIST IN WHICH INTERFERENCE CAN OCCUR BETWEEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL WIRELESS SYSTEMS Why do CMRS operations cause interference to public safety radio service in some circumstances, but not in others? The answer lies in certain differences in the design parameters of these systems, which, in certain circumstances, result in conditions conducive to interference. These differences stem from the fact that public safety and commercial wireless systems were developed over time to serve two distinctly different user groups, using system architectures intended to best serve each group. Public safety systems have traditionally been designed to provide dispatch and coordinating communications to a comparatively small group of users (e.g., police, fire, rescue and medical) over a specified area of jurisdiction or responsibility. Public safety users, typically, are divided into operational/tactical groups of individuals who often have a need to roam throughout the political jurisdiction of the parent govemmental entity. Since all members of these operational/tactical groups need to participate in any given communication and since the individual members of the group may be at any location within the operating area, public safety systems are designed to provide radio coverage throughout a large area with little or no frequency reuse. Fuahermore, public safety systems must be capable of supporting large increases in capacity resultant from emergency situations (disasters, civil emergencies, large-scale fire, etc.) that may occur at any time and at any place. Based on this, and the fact that public safety agencies typically have limited financial resources, most public safety radio systems use high antenna site base stations and little or no frequency reuse to cost-effectively cover as much area as possible with the fewest sites, thereby holding fixed infrastmcmre costs to a minimmr~ This configuration can result in weaker signal strengths in areas distant (e.g., several miles) as opposed to areas closer to the base station. For example, the edge of the service area, other points distant from the base station, and various points within the service area where signals to and from the base station are blocked or otherwise attenuated may receive weaker signal strengths than an area close to the base station or where a signal is not blocked. These weaker signal strengths are acceptable as long as the signal from the base station is sufficiently strong to overcome the thermally generated electrical noise inherent in the public-safety mobile receivers (and, indeed, in all receivers of any type). Systems designed in this fashion, in which the limiting factor is considered to be thermal noise, are considered to be noise-limited. In contrast, CMRS networks are normally designed to provide service to a large user base (i.e., the general public) in a given area. Additionally, the average amount of time the typical CMRS user is actually using the specuum is much longer (because the typical telephone call lasts much longer than the typical public-safety dispatch call). Because the total amount of traffic generated by commercial users far exceeds the capacity of the available specmnn in the system's service area, the radio channels must be reused over and over again throughout the area. This, in mm, requires a CMRS operator to deploy large numbers of base stations throughout its service area with each base station's transmissions covering a very small area, e.g., a radius of only a few hundred feet to a few thousand feet. This "cellular" system architecture enables commercial carriers to deploy networks capable of serving thousands of subscribers using specmnn that previously supported only one call per channel at a time throughout a large service area. As a result, this system design methodology has become the backbone architecture of cellular, Personal Communications Service ("PCS") and enhanced SMR systems throughout the counmj. At any given time, the signal from the desired CMRS base station to a mobile or portable unit is interfered with by signals from other cellular base stations on the same frequency. Careful system design by the CMRS operator minimizes, but does not eliminate, such interference. This interference, rather than thermal noise as in the case of public-safety radio systems, is the limiting factor on successful operation of a CMRS system. CMRS systems are therefore considered to be interference-limited rather than noise-limited. Inherent in cellular-type architecture is the fact that base station transmissions from a local cell site will be fairly strong at a given receiver location (in order to overcome interference from other CMRS stations on the same frequency farther away). Other receivers in the same location (e.g., public-safety receivers) will be exposed to the same relatively strong signals, particularly in the immediate vicinity of a CMRS base station. This is in contrast to the public safety signal, which, particularly in areas distant from the transmitter site, is designed so that it may be relatively weak, as noted earlier. When these two types of wireless systems are close both geographically and spectrally (i.e., adjacent or near adjacent channels), the potential for interference exists --especially where the public safety signal is weak due to base station distance or topographic features, relative to a closer commercial base station's signal. Public safety handheld and mobile units may experience one or more of the interference effects described above when numerous commercial antenna sites in a given area (typically in a closely-spaced urban environments) are below 80 feet above ground level- thereby producing a particularly strong signal in the immediate street vicinity- and in fringe coverage/service areas where the strength of public safety transmissions is relatively weak. In such circumstances, public safety receivers may be overpowered in weak signal or "fringe" areas by stronger nearby CMRS signals. This is manifested as interference in the public safety communications system. Interference to public safety radio transmissions in these circumstances falls into four major categories: intermodulation, receiver overload, transmitter sideband noise, and effects due to the transition from analog to digital modulation, as described below. A. Intermodulation Intermodulation occurs due to interaction (mixing) between two or more different carrier frequencies. This mixing can take place intemally in a transmitter or receiver or extemal to both devices. The interaction produces signals at all combinations of the sums and differences of the carder frequencies. For example, a portable receiver attempting to receive on the frequency 869 MHz could potentially receive intermodulation interference from cellular transmissions occurring at 870 MHz, 871 MHz and 872 MHz (870+871- 872 = 869 MHz). As the number of transmitters at a site is increased (which CMRS carders may do by employing additional frequencies to increase capacity), the probability of creating an "on-frequency intermodulation product" increases accordingly. As noted above, intermodulation can occur either in the transmitter, receiver, or extemal to both. However, receiver intermodulation, when it occurs, is typically the predominant effect. A portable receiver experiencing intermodulation interference loses sensitivity when several strong signals mix in the front-end of the receiver, producing a strong intermodulation signal on or near the "receive" frequency. When this occurs, the receiver has a difficult time differentiating between the desired signal and the undesired intermodulation product, resulting in degraded communications capability. B. Receiver overload The first stage of a receiver is usually an amplifier. This device amplifies both the desired signal and any other signals close to the same frequency to a level that the rest of the receiver can use. If the signal or signals in the area are strong, they may overload this amplifier. The likelihood of this happening increases as the number of base stations in the area increases and as the signals from those stations become stronger (e.g., as the distance to the base station antenna decreases). Receiver overload manifests in three ways: receiver blocking, local oscillator interference, and receiver "desense." Receiver blocking occurs when an extremely strong signal or signals blocks out reception of the desired signal. Local oscillator interference occurs when noise from the local oscillator mixes with a strong, nearby undesired signal.3 This causes the interferer to "mix" and backfill on the desired frequency, producing a noise like component. Receiver "desense" is interference produced by a close, strong signal that reduces the gain of the amplifying stages of the receiver, thereby inhibiting the ability of the desired signal to be received properly. These effects are rare with modem receiver designs, as other effects are more likely to be manifested before tree overload occurs. Interference resulting from receiver overload can be reduced through frequency separation and geographic distance separation between the public safety ard commercial operations. C. Transmitter Sideband Noise Sideband energy is produced by every transmitter, regardless of type, as a necessary product of the process of making it convey information (the modulation process). Modulating a transmitter with information (voice, data, etc.) causes it to produce energy on frequencies above and/or below the assigned carder frequency. The FCC sets strict limits on how much energy can be produced at various frequency spacings away from the assigned carder frequency; this set of limits is usually represented as a curve and is referred to as "the FCC mask." It should be noted that in order to allow adequate modulation of the transmitter, the "FCC mask" provides limited attenuation of the transmitter sideband noise on the next, second, and third adjacent channels from the assigned channel (see 47 CFR 90.235(b)). When the desired signal is weak at a user's receiver and them are no intermodulation products on or near the frequency of the desired signal, the user can still experience interference if the energy from the undesired transmitter's sidebands is as strong as or stronger than the desired signal. This can occur even if the undesired transmitter is operating completely within the limits of the FCC mask. Sideband noise interference typically becomes predominant only when the desired signal is weak and no intermodulation products fall on or near the desired frequency. In other words, if there were no intermodulation interference, then transmitter sideband noise will most likely be the root cause of an interference problem. Sideband noise is an increasingly frequent factor for commercial/public safety interference as additional low power commercial stations are geographically deployed to meet customer demand for coverage and system capacity. In addition, the sideband noise performance of commercial transmitters often assumes that the commercial operator will be adjacent to its own operations in the specmun, and, therefore, will be able to manage intemally its own sideband noise. The sideband characteristics of digital modulation technologies increasingly used in commercial systems contribute to this type of interference, as discussed below. D. Analog to Digital Transition Beginning around 1990, the wireless communications industry (both commercial and public-safety) began to shift from using analog modulation to digital modulation techniques. Digital wansmission systems typically have greater sideband noise emissions than analog systems. Thus, the potential exists for digital CMRS systems to cause interference to public safety systems designed to be protected only from analog sideband noise emissions generated by other systems. As noted earlier, many public safety communications systems were designed to be noise-limited; that is, they were designed with an expectation that there would be few nearby specmun users and that intemally- generated noise in the mobile receivers would be their limiting factor. Since analog transmission systems were used exclusively in the band at the time, these systems were designed on the basis that co-channel (on-frequency) interference would be the predominant interference mechanism, with preventing or controlling adjacent channel interference of any kind receiving only limited attention. Public safety systems are becoming "interference limited" in the contemporary RF environment, i.e., their operations are susceptible to interference resulting from the unanticipated mix of technologies and modulation schemes in adjacent 800 MHz spectmm. IV. OPERATIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF INTERFERENCE The operational appearance of interference to a public safety system may manifest itself in various ways. All of the identified underlying technical causes discussed above tend to result in the loss of received signal by the mobile units. However, due to the location dependent nature of the interference, and the different kinds of technologies employed by public safety agencies, the actual interference may appear to be sporadic. The typically short duration of public safety transmissions further complicates identification. Interference to conventional operations is usually self apparent, since the mobile subscriber unit uses a dedicated frequency. Loss of coverage is readily apparent and it is often straightforward to identify the specific frequency being interfered within a definite area of operation. Interference to mmked operations is more difficult to identify. The frequency experiencing the interference may be used in one of two ways. If the frequency in question is a control channel, the result will normally be mobile radios that are entirely incapable of operation within the zone of interference. Since the radios are unable to decode an assignment received on the control channel, they are not available to receive transmissions. If, on the other hand, the frequency happens to be one of the randomly assigned working or traffic channels, the effect of the interference will appear more randomly. Only mobile units randomly assigned to the "problem" channel will experience the interference, thus rendering a repeatable observation difficult. In these cases, the close cooperation of both public safety and commercial operators is critical to identifying, evaluating and taking steps to mitigate such interference. The next section provides guidance for addressing interference situations and predicting potential interference conditions. V. MINIMIZING THE PROBLEM: TECHNI;UES FOR BOTH EXISTING SYSTEMS AND NEW SYSTEMS lO While the magnitude of the incidents of interference between commercial wireless systems and public safety radio systems is undetermined, the number of reported cases has not been large relative to the number of public safety communications systems. Even so, the resolution of any instance of interference to a public safety system must receive the highest priority. This section of the Guide addresses altemative measures, which CMRS system operators and public safety communications system managers can take to (1) mitigate such interference in existing deployments; and (2) prevent such interference in new or furore CMRS and/or public safety radio installations. A. Existing Systems When a public safety agency believes it is experiencing interference of the types described above, it should contact the CMRS carders operating in the affected area. Attached hereto are contact lists to assist public safety network operators in reaching the general managers or local engineering personnel of these CMRS carders to initiate evaluation of the interference to identify whether it is resulting from adjacent channel or geographically proximate CMRS operations. The CMRS contributors to this Guide recognize that such interference can affect communications vital to police, fire, rescue and other safety of life services and will endeavor to give such reports their highest priority and immediate attention. Public safety communications officers should assist in this process by working with CMRS operators to help identifiy the geographic extent of interference, the type of interference and to expeditiously test mitigation techniques. If CMRS operations are determined to be the source of the reported interference, a number of measures are available to mitigate or eliminate interference in most cases, as described below. Some involve modifications or refinements of the CMRS operations; others involve increasing the robusmess of public safety communications transmissions by adding more proximate base stations, increasing power levels or deploying more interference- resistant public safety handheld and mobile receiver units. Assuming that both the public safety and CMRS systems are operating in compliance with their FCC licenses and the FCC's roles, the parties should cooperate to determine the most efficient allocation of costs and resources necessary for interference mitigation, taking into account the costs and benefits of mitigative actions. 1. System Modifications The most effective actions to address public safety interference will depend on the specifics of each particular situation. Specific factors include the locations of the involved base stations relative to the area in which public safety communications are impaired; the height, power, and other operating parameters of the CMRS base station; the distance from that area to the public safety base station and its signal strength in the affected area; the number of CMRS channels operating in the affected area and whether they are adjacent to the desired public safety channels; the size of the area in which public safety communications are impaired; and the operating specifications and capabilities of the affected public safety handheld and mobile units. Depending on the factors or factors involved in a particular situation, CMRS and public safety agencies should cooperatively evaluate the interference-reducing effectiveness of the following actions, along with any additional burdens they may cause: · Retune CMRS Channels Further Away From the Public Safety O~mtor's Channels. Both cellular and enhanced SMR operators in a given location may be able to modify their channel deployment and/or channel reuse plans to increase the separation between CMRS and public safety channels in the affected area. A separation of 1.5 MHz or more between these channels has been effective in alleviating interference. · Modify CMRS Power Levels, Antenna Heir_bt and Antenna Characteristics. Reducing the Effective Radiated Power ("ERP") of the CMRS operations can reduce or eliminate public safety receiver overload interference. In addition, increasing the height of the nearby CMRS antenna site, changing the antenna radiation pattem, employing tighter beam-width antennas, or more gain in conjunction with reduced transmitter power to maintain the same ERP, may reduce undesired signal levels by virtue of the local antenna pattem. It may also be possible to sectorize CMRS antennas away from the affected public safety facilities to reduce the cumulative RF energy in that direction emitted from an omni- directional antenna. · Assure Prover Operation of Base Station Ecluil~ment. Poorly operating or degraded equipment may exacerbate interference. Both CMRS and public safety operators can check their base station equipment to ensure that it is operating within design guidelines. · In, rove the Local Signal Strength of the Public Safety Communications System In some cases, the alternatives described above may be less effective than desired in eliminating or sufficiently reducing interference. In such cases, the parties should evaluate improving the propagation and/or strength of public safety base station transmissions, particularly in the case of distant single-site systems designed to operate in a low noise, less intensive channel muse RF environment. The parties should evaluate adding more proximate public safety base stations, increasing ERP, providing better transmission antennae, and replacing existing mobile and handheld units with more interference-resistant equipment. Any such modifications must be done with careful coordination to analyze potential interference effects on other nearby public safety communications systems. 2. Incorporating Filters Into CMRS Transmission Equipment 12 As discussed previously, site sideband noise is an increasing contributor to interference in some public safety networks. If sideband noise is determined to be a potential issue, additional filtering of the CMRS transmitters to suppress these emissions can be effective in mitigating or reducing interference. Sideband noise has to be filtered out at the interfering source as it appears "on frequency" to affected receivers. Them are a variety of filters that CMRS operators can test as to their efficacy in a particular interference scenario. 3. Segregation of Public Safety and CMRS Spectrum Assignments Another altemative to mitigate interference in a particular case is to attempt to segregate or relocate public safety use away from commercial use in the 800 MHz band. The 800 MHz band continues to experience robust growth. Public safety organizations, commercial wireless carriers and equipment manufacturers should consider whether segregating public safety and commercial channels would be useful, and seek FCC permission to "swap" or reassign channels. In some cases, such frequency swaps can be a "win/win" solution for both public safety and CMRS operators by enabling them to both mitigate interference and make the most efficient and effective use of their specmun resources. While all of the mitigation measures described above can be effective in reducing interference to public safety operations, they will typically result in sub-optimal use of the licensed spectmm of either the public safety licensee, the CMRS operator, or both. Frequency swaps that enable each party to fiflly utilize its licensed channels serve the public interest by promoting specmnn efficiency and the widespread availability of both public safety communications and commercial wireless services. B. New or Ex,anded Systems.. 1. Advance Planning The most critical factor to preventing interference between public safety and CMRS systems is comprehensive advance planning and frequency coordination between commercial providers and public safety communications entities. This applies regardless of whether a CMRS system is first initiating service in an area already served by public safety communications systems, a CMRS provider is expanding the geographic coverage or user capacity of an existing CMRS system, or is adding or tmnsitioning to a digital modulation technology. It also applies whenever a new public safety radio system is being introduced into an area with incumbent CMRS systems, or when a public safety provider introduces a new voice or data upgrade to its previous communications network or transitions to a digital network. In other words, anytime either public safety or CMRS providers in a market introduce new service or significantly modify their communications systems is an oppommity for advance planning and cooperation to prevent or minimize interference. CMRS carriers introducing service, expanding coverage or making other major modifications should contact the local public safety agency to examine whether their plans potentially represent an interference risk. In particular, CMRS users of channels 13 that are adjacem to channels allocated for public safety use should ascertain whether such public safety channels are assigned for use in the same geographic area as their proposed CMRS operation. This information can be determined from the FCC's Part 90 database (add url), among other sources. For new or expanding public safety systems, the contact lists attached hereto provide a starting point to assist public safety network designers in contacting the local engineering personnel of CMRS cardem in their area to begin examining which channels may potentially represent an interference risk. By assessing intermodulation potential, base station locations and design parameters, adjacent frequency deployments and the relative signal strengths of each system at representative locations, the parties can identify where the probability of interference is greatest and plan around it. This additional planning should minimize the number of situations in which interference is likely. Advance coordination among public safety and CMRS providers also provides a means through which operators can collocate base station sites. This results in the signal strength of both public safety and CMRS transmission being comparable in the vicinity of the site, thereby reducing the likelihood of interference. 2. Public Safety Equipment Should Be Suited to an Intensive RF Environment Another key method for alleviating potential interference is to minirmz' e the susceptibility of receivers to interference. Public safety users purchasing new equipment for use in high RF environments should ensure that the receivers have high intermodulation specifications. For systems designed exclusively for on street coverage 75 dB minimum is recommended. This can be relaxed somewhat, 70 dB, for systems designed for portable coverage inside large buildings. Additionally, public safety users should avoid using extemal antennas when operating portable devices in vehicles, especially when these portables have been designed to provide in-building coverage, as this will aggravate potential interference effects. 3. System Design Criteria In those instances in which public safety systems will operate in high noise levels within the local environment, interference to public safety operations can be minimized or prevented by increasing the signal strength of the desired signal levels above local noise levels. Public safety systems in urban and other intensive RF environments must be designed to a higher degree of robusmess than was required before the advent of multiple adjacent and nearby CMRS networks. System designs that produce higher public safety system signal strength levels throughout the service area will create a more robust system resistant to interference fi'om CMRS systems operating in the area, as well as other interference sources (e.g., computing systems in buildings). For example, if a public safety radio system is being designed to provide in-building coverage, it may also provide more robust coverage on the streets and highways. 14 VI. FURTHER RESOURCES More information can be found at www.apco911.org including a softcopy of this Best Practices Guide. Additional technical background can be found at: ht~p://www.m~t~r~a.c~m/c~iss/NA/c~ntact/~nterference%2~Technica~%2~A~endix.~3df VII. POINTS OF CONTACT Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) 351 N. Williamson Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32114-1112 Phone: (904) 322-2500 E-mail: apco~apco911 .ort~ Web address: www.al~co91 l.org Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) Contact: Vice President for Industry Operations Phone: (202) 785-0081 FAX: (202) 887-1629 E-mail: indops~ctia.org Web site: www.wow-com.com Motorola, Inc. Contact: Customer Service Representative at the Motorola System Support Center Phone: (800)323-9949. Select Option 1 (operating 24 hours a day/7 days a week). Note: Callers with a maintenance contract should provide their System ID. All other callers should use a System ID INTFR to expedite routing to the appropriate division representative. ~is method of contact provides the quickest response time. FAX: (847)725-4073 E-mail: cms072~emailmot.com Nextel Communications, Inc. Contact: Senior Engineer RF Operations Phone: (703) 433-8894 Fax:(703) 433-8484 E-mail: publicsafety~nextel.com 15 Public Safety Program Network (PSWN) Contact: PSWN Program Manager Phone: (800) 565-PSWN (7796) FAX: (703) 279-2035 E-mail: hfonnation~pswn.gov Web address: www.l~swn.~ov 16 Communications Division Training of Law Enforcement Personnel on the 800 MHz System Attachment D city Number of Training Classes Number of Personnel Trained Anaheim 13 151 Brea 11 123 Buena Park 9 115 Costa Mesa 9 230 Cypress 3 55 Fountain Valley 4 76 Fullerton 3 57 Garden Grove 6 148 Huntington Beach 15 258 Irvine 1 40 Laguna Beach La Habra 5 87 La Palma 3 28 Los Alamitos 3 48 Newport Beach 10 206 Orange 8 132 Placentia 6 74 Santa Ana 25 531 Seal Beach 4 64 Tustin 1 35 Westminster 8 128 Total 147 2586 County Agency Animal Control 2 22 District Attorney 3 75 Probation 10 406 Sheriff-Coroner 18 230 Total 33 733 800 MHz Training Counts (asc) 5/15/01 O3 C (D (D t- ::3 c- 4~ 0 .... ~ -- __ .(.. .~ '~. Z ~0 --I :3 :::3 ::3 ::3 s.. :3 :3 :3 :3 :3 ::3 ::3 ::3 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U~ Attachment F MOTORCYCLE RESOLUTIONS Motorcycle issues have been resolved by implementing the following' BATTERY DRAIN Implemented improved battery maintenance procedures. Increased the amount of time the batteries are charged. Educated users to understand battery technology and what could reasonably be expected out of a motorcycle battery, particularly on the Kawasaki motorcycles. '10-15 SECOND WARM-UP TIME This was identified as actually 3-5 seconds and is a normal boot-up time for this type of radio, which is controlled by a small computer. ^ back-up battery to prevent rebooting on start-up is available as an option. VISIBILITY PROBLEMS WITH CONSOLE DISPLAYS A proposed solution, although not 100% effective, is a visor that fits over the control head as a glare screen. This part is readily available through the OCSD/Communications parts room. PROBLEMS WITH PUSH BUTTON SIZE This configuration was reviewed by all agencies without comment prior to implementation. The City of Santa Ana had been using this type of control head for several years with the same push 'buttons without expressing concerns. RED CHANNEL SELECTOR BUTTON ACTIVATION Through training, the number of these occurrences has diminished.