9 - 1 - 1 Advisory Board Meeting 20260819 162157UTC Meeting Recording

All right, good morning everybody. Uh, welcome to the 911 advisory board. My name is Steve Yarro. This is the third advisory board meeting of 20126. And so I appreciate everybody joining me. Um, so yeah, in today's meeting, we're going to be hearing some updates from the program areas, covering uh some new elements for the NextGen 911 program, some continuing activities of the 911 branch, and discussing activities and updates to the NextG 911 project. Um, and as always, I I appreciate the partnership of all of the members of the board um as we try to chart a course for these very important programs uh as we move forward into the future. The first item uh on our agenda today is uh to conduct the roll call to establish a quorum. And so uh we'll do a verbal roll call here. As I say your name, please indicate your presence or lack thereof. Uh I'll start with uh Rodney Ellison >> here online. >> All right. Thank you. Kurt Wallace here. All right. Thank you. Jennifer Gonzalez, no response. Andrew White, no response. Mark Chase, >> here. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sydney, >> present. >> Thank you. Eric Clevmire, >> here. >> Thank you. Garrett Huff, >> here. Thank you. Robert Johnson, no response. And Yinia Sanchez >> here. >> Thank you. All right. By my count, we have sufficient board members to establish a quorum. And so we are free to then conduct the business of the board. We'll move on to the next item on our agenda. And this would be the approval of the previous meetings minutes. meetings have been uh the minutes have been distributed to the board in advanced. Uh do any of the members have any comment on the minutes from the uh June meeting? Seeing and hearing none. Uh I would entertain a motion at this point if there was one to approve those minutes. >> SH has motion. >> Thank you. And do I have a second to that motion? >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. Thank you. Looks like we have a motion on the table to approve the meeting minutes from the June meeting. Um, and so before we do that, I'd like to open it up to a period of public comment on that. Um, we'll start here in the room. Please be mindful of the fact that uh there are several people who might have comments and so limit your remarks to three minutes, please. Um, are there any uh members of the public in the room who would like to make a public comment on the meeting minutes from the June meeting? If so, make your way to the podium over here where a microphone will receive your message. All right, seeing no movement in the room, how about online? Any hands online who would like to make public comment? All right, seeing none online either, uh then we'll go ahead and move to the roll call vote for the approval of the meeting minutes from the previous meeting. Starting at the top, uh, Rodney Ellison, how do you vote? >> Approve. >> Thank you. Kurt Wallace, >> approve. >> Thank you. Mark Chase, >> approve. >> Thank you. Demetrius Sydney, >> approved. >> Eric Clevmire, >> approve. >> Thank you. Garrett Huff, >> approve. >> Thank you. And Yinia Sanchez, >> approve. All right, we have a unanimous vote to approve the meeting minutes from the June meeting. Thank you for that. And we will then move on to the third item on our agenda today. This is the legislative update. And so the Callowas legislative affairs uh will provide an update on legislation that's being tracked. And for that, I'll invite Deputy Director of Legislative and Governmental Affairs Ivon Durant to come up to the microphone. It is >> all right. Well, good good morning everyone. I think the the good thing about being at the tail end of the legislative cycle is that my report is hopefully a little bit more brief. Um and so we are um reaching the near uh near end of the legislative cycle and it's a two-year uh legislative calendar. So August 31st is the last day for the legislature to pass all bills and then the governor has until September 30th um to act on all of the bills. And January 1st is when statutes take effect that do not have an urgency clause. And if statutes do have an urgency clause, they take effect upon the governor's signature. So for you, I have four state bills that I'm going to provide an update on and then four federal bills. Starting off with Assembly Bill 1540 by Assembly Member Gonzalez would require COH HHS, that's the California Health and Human Services Agency to annually determine whether an adequate federally operated specialized LGBTQ plus suicide prevention hotline is available through 988 and if not requires CAS to request that SAMA establish a California specific press three option to route callers to a specialized call center. Following federal approval, CAWAS would ensure that the necessary technology is available while CAHS would identify and contract with qualified LGBTQ plus suicide prevention service providers and administer the associated funding. This bill is currently in third reading. Moving on to Assembly uh Assembly Bill 1832 by Assembly Member Ransom would create a 211 fund upon appropriation by the legislature and require Cowes to distribute funds for purposes of statewide 211 capacity and core operating support. This bill is also in third reading. Uh, Assembly Bill uh, 2041 by Assembly Member Coreo would require a public safety agency that was not providing pre-arrival instructions to 911 callers on or before January 1st, 2026 to report to their local emergency medical services agency the status of their compliance on or before January 31st of 2027. This is also in third reading. And lastly for the state bills, um, Assembly Bill 2093 by Assembly Ma me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me member Bower Kahhan would extend the state's 988 advisory bodies through 2029 shift statewide 988 governance to cow HHS require cowes in consultation with the department of healthc care services to procure implement and designate a statewide interoperability platform capable of facilitating real-time communication and warm handoffs between 98 cent centers and 911 public safety answering points and set statewide standards for 911 and 988 handoffs. Also in third reading, moving on to the federal um bills, HR6505, the next generation 911 act. Um this is by Representative Hudson. Um, this bill amends the National Telecoms and Information Administration Organization Act to provide for further development and coordination of Next Generation 911. Um, as of January 15th of this year, it was forwarded to the subcommittee um of by voice vote. Um, the next one is making national parks safer act. That's HR 7031. Um, this bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to upgrade existing emergency communication centers and units of the National Park system to next generation 911 systems and for other purposes. Um, as of March 18th of this year, um, subcommittee hearings were held. Next one is, uh, Senate Bill 725, Enhancing First Response Act. This bill requires the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to report on certain activations of the disaster information reporting system. Um, the DUR is a reporting system that is activated during severe weather and other events impacting communications um services and enables communications providers to report outages and other degradations to service. And then lastly, um 988 LGBTQ plus Youth Access Act of 2025. This is Senate Bill, uh 2826, and this bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to dedicate sufficient resources for the support of LGBTQ plus youth seeking help from the 988 Suicide Prevention Hotline and for other purposes. And as of March 19th of this year, um, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, um, held hearings. That's all for me for the legislative update. >> Great. Uh, do any of the members of the board um, have any questions concerning the update you just heard on the legislative proceedings? No. All right. Um, and then I guess I'll open it up to an opportunity for members of the public to make a public comment on that. Uh, same rules apply. Try to keep your remarks brief. Um, we'll start here in the room. Any members of the public in the room who would like to make public comment concerning the legislative update? Seeing none, how about online? Looks like we have one online. Please unmute your microphone and proceed with your comment. >> Steve, can you hear me? >> Yes, I got you. Hi, this is Mark Smith. I'm the lobbyist for Calina. Ivonne, thanks for the update. I just want to let you know there's a minor amendment pending to AB 2041, which we just got wind of yesterday. It changes the date um that a PAP who is not offering either pre-arrival or EMD um to from January 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027. recall that AB645 statutoily doesn't require um centers to offer this until January 1, 2027. And so it just made sense to only require them to report their compliance after the effective date of AB645. Um on that note though, I do want to note that I think the state is very serious about making sure that centers are offering these services to callers. uh a previous version of this bill was punitive and would have uh restricted a cent's ability to access SETNA funding if they were not in compliance with 645. So uh hopefully everybody is coming on board with that new state law. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. >> Thank you sir. That was a a helpful update. Um any other hands online? All right. Seeing none, then uh we'll close out uh that agenda item and we will move on to agenda item number four. Um this will be the California 911 branch update. We have a few updates to cover at this time. Uh some of which are key elements relevant to the 911 system in California specifically. And we'll start um with the fiscal and budget review. And so I've asked Deputy Director of Finance and Logistics Administration Eric Swanson to come to the microphone and uh give us a summary of the elements of the of the budget act and talk about the SETNA calculation. >> I am uh Steve said Eric Swanson. I'm deputy director of finance and logistics administration at leas and I'm going to go over the uh what uh both the funding increases and the um um additional requirements that were part of the final >> I know you should see a green light if you are >> green light maybe I'll get closer and uh some of the other requirements that were part of the final budget act uh first a little bit about the fiscal update we u I think last time we talked in June we mentioned we had a a budget chain proposal that was proposed by callas for 141.9 million in one time state emergency number account or setting up fees. >> Oh, I'm sorry to interrupt. They're saying they still can't hear you online. >> Yeah. >> All right. Is it easier to go up there? >> I'll grab that one. >> Right there. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> That work better. >> Testing. One, two, three. All right. Uh, so a little bit about the fiscal update from the final state budget. Um, Callowas proposed a budget change proposal for 141.9 million in one-time SETNA fees to continue NG 911 deployment. That was included in the final budget act. um that'll help us um both uh support the deployment and transition from a regional model to a unified statewide system. And it also includes costs for the short-term implementation costs to wind down the existing regional system and accelerate our deployment in the Los Angeles area. Um, beyond the BCP we proposed, uh, the B budget also includes an additional 3 million for both an audit and a technical evaluation of the development and implementation of the system that we're going to complete this year. Um, the increased funding for this proposal for the for the everything that was included in the state budget is from SETNA. And uh the SETNA has a pretty mechanical uh fee uh rate uh process which I'm going to go over in the next slide if we could. I think we've talked about this before in board meetings, but um there's sort of some key elements of data that we use to set the SET fee. We use the authorized appropriation or that's the amount that um each agency is allowed to spend or each project is allowed to spend from the final budget act. We used fund balance information from the prior year that the department of finance publishes on their website. And then we also um ask that private uh carriers uh give us the number of phone access lines that they have available as of this year and we adjust the search charge to cover the amount of revenue that is needed for um those expenditures. We are expect we've got got the last uh data element within the last uh week or so for this. We're expecting to finalize our our fee rate adjustment. We need to do that by October 1st is when we have to uh send a letter to the department of tax and fee administration and that'll be set for calendar year 2027. So at the next board meeting I should have a final fee adjustment um for all of you. we go to the uh final slide here. I want to talk a little bit and some of these things I think are going to be covered in other um agenda elements here, but talk a little bit about other sort of requirements that came out of the final budget act. I mentioned a 911 uh NG 911 evaluation. We've contracted with the Rand Corporation for an independent technical evaluation that we've already sort of started the process on. The budget also authorized the California state auditor to conduct an audit of the effort to implement NG 911. And similar to last year, we're we are going to be required to submit quarterly reports to the legislature. Our first one is due October 2026. And then I think you touching on this item later on, but there wasn't a requirement also to change um the board that you're currently a part of to select a chair from amongst the voting members. Uh, so I think you're going to get into that a little bit. Um, and with that, that's the end of my fiscal presentation. >> Great. Uh, any questions for Deputy Director Swanson on the presentation he's made so far? >> Just one question. Are we going to get into it in a later slide? The proposed increase this year or >> what's the proposed increase to the um >> to the search charge? >> Yes. So yeah, we don't have that final calculation yet. So we won't be able to actually talk about what the number is. Um just that we are we've received the the last input into the calculation and we're working that now. So we won't we won't be able to talk about what the final search charge is right now. Okay. Thank you. Um okay. Yeah. With that, uh thank you Eric. Um we'll move on to the next sub item in this uh in this agenda item. This will be part B which is the branch operational review. And so I've asked as asked uh acting branch manager over California 911 emergency communications, Andrew Matson, to come deliver that. >> Microphone works, huh? All right, there we go. Good morning. Uh Andrew Matson, acting branch manager, uh 911 branch. Uh here to talk a little bit today about our uh call handling updates and fiscal and operational review updates. Uh for the year so far, uh right now we're looking at 10 force completed. Uh we we've talked about this in the past. The uh the contract uh for CPE was expiring early this year for call handling was expiring and that was a that was really an all hands-on deck type situation for our team. Um and so fours have been right now relegated to a little bit of the backbench. So uh the team is not currently on the road. We did finish up that contract. Uh it expired uh early August and now we are in a little bit of a lull, right? We're we're finishing up the the next call handling contract which I'll talk about on the next slide. And so the team is getting back out. They're doing they're doing some peace out visits right now, but you know, it's it's just sort of uh getting back getting back into the swing. So, again, this program is something that we you know, we we really do value. We we do want the team to get out, visit our PAPS, get that one-on-one time, that facetime with them so that they can talk through so that they can talk through any issues that are going on, funding, uh call handling. There we go. Uh and any anything else important to the pap. So, it remains an important uh program for us and we want to make sure that everyone knows that these are available to you. Uh and your PAP personnel if you need one, please reach out. Uh and as soon as we are uh at steady state with call handling, we will continue to or or reinvigorate this program to to rep prioritize it. Uh next slide, please. >> All right. So we've all seen this number and this this table uh over the years. Uh this table at this meeting represents the first time since 2019 19 that the number has gone down from meeting to meeting the advisory board went down by two. So we didn't have a massive decrease uh this quarter but it is the first time that the number has decreased. And so we are now getting systems out installed. the team did a really good job of getting uh getting uh approvals done and getting uh hundreds well almost almost hundreds 189 systems out. We'll talk about that on the next slide as well. But we have systems hitting year 7, you know, every year there are more systems that are that are that are coming into that age range and the team is working hard to get that number down. The vendors are working hard to get that number down. Uh we will start to see it decrease uh you know consistently I think with the next uh with the next few board meetings. So, we're very excited about that. Still at a number that nobody's comfortable with. 347 is a is a very high number. We don't want to have any more PAPS uh entering into this into this critical stage, right? Especially past year 9. Uh but the team is working very hard to address that and we're we're very excited about the the the future prospects there. >> Andrew, can you speak to how many paps in year 10 and beyond are in contract for replacement? >> Uh I don't know off the top of my head, Mark. Uh but I can find that out for you. Uh we are well so we're we're trying to find a balance, right? Because we want to prioritize these older systems first, but if a PAP comes to us and says, "Hey, we're in year eight and not year 12, we're not going to turn them away." So we are trying to take on any anybody who wants to get their system replaced, we're we're we're bringing them in, right? And we're working with them on that. Um but of course, you know, those those older systems are are critical and we're we're reaching out actively to try and work with those PAPs to get those replaced. But um we can potentially break this down a little further if we if we need to on the on the next meeting. >> Perfect. Yeah. If we could just get an idea of how many people actually have stepped up, right? Contracted to have their system replaced, that would I I feel like that would be good information to have. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions on on call processing age? Okay. All right. Next slide. All right. Uh so the team has been working diligently on the new call handling contract, the new RFP. As as we know in California, we offer a um multi-purpose agreement. So we have several vendors that will get awarded so that our PAPs can have a choice of systems that they that they can select. Uh the the the state provides the contracting language, the pricing and and we we help through that process and of course we fund it. Uh the contract is being worked right now. We are we prom we we wanted 8:14 August 14 to be our final date for everybody. We almost got there. As you can see up here, we've awarded uh five vendors. So, these are vendors that have already signed and and we're working through the process of getting their, you know, getting their paperwork done uh on on the program side, not on the contracting side. Contracts are all signed and done. We've got Central Square offering uh cloud and on-prem system. We've got CompTEC offering on-prem system. Introdirect offering on-rem system and special order systems, which is a new player in California. We hadn't really uh they kind of came out and and and bid on this. We weren't really um hadn't really seen them before. They're offering a cloud system. I believe they're reselling carbine system. And so those are the the vendors that have been awarded. I'm sure you're looking at this wondering why it's a small list and where the other people are. They are still in negotiations. So we're still negotiating primarily over price. So we want to make sure that we get a competitive price for our paps, right? keep the keep the budget in line and make sure that you can can spend any extra money that you have on those important peripherals like logging, recording and and whatnot. So, there are more vendors on the way and there are more contract signatures that we're can that we're confident are coming, but right now we we can't really speak to those because they're they're actively in procurement. So, uh we're hopeful that uh two weeks maybe three weeks uh but we have to play out the process with CDT and make sure that we're doing this by the numbers. So couple more weeks those will be out. Aotment letters you can send in now. PAPS can go ahead and claim uh you know ask for an aotment. You will be put into a queue. We cannot issue aotment letters until we know all prices of all systems because your a lotment letters based on contract pricing. So we have to take the average price of the system, figure out the calculation of how much money we're going to be able to get to you. Without all those dollar amounts in, we we can't generate those letters just yet. But we're building a queue. you'll get placed in it and you'll get it'll be kind of a first come first- serve type type basis. Those vendors are installing all vendors are installing their systems in our lab uh right here in the building. So, everybody who is going to be on contract will be required to put in two workstations in our lab uh that anyone can can come and and you know work on get a demo on whatever they need to do. um they will be used primarily for uh troubleshooting for you know uh i3 updates that sort of thing so that we can work with the vendors to to work on their systems without it being in a live environment if needed. So that work is happening right now. The vendors who have been awarded are already in talks with uh our engineering team to get those systems installed. And then for a lotments and CP approvals, um this this is since the amendment went out last year on onrem systems. These are these are the the sort of the final numbers. We sent out 226 aotment letters over that period of time. Right? So we're still effectively this is a one-year time frame uh because now you know we're locked down. and we're not sending any more out until the new contracts in. So, this was about a year. So, we had 226 aotment letters, uh, 189 systems, uh, that were approved and and made it out the door. So, uh, the vendors have a a lot of work ahead of them to get all these in and installed and accepted and done, but, you know, we're seeing that they're they're getting to work on that. As of now, 14 of those systems are already accepted. We've already, you know, they're already off and running and invoiced. We're very happy to see that. We're expecting that number to continue to climb and the vendors will be working uh you know appropriately to get that done. But monumental effort by the team, just a fantastic effort by the team and uh really proud of them and the work that they've done to get this to get this you know completed. Uh there's more ahead, right? The new contracts coming and I don't think there will be any slowdown in in any of this. Well, maybe it won't be this fast, this busy, but we'll see. And we're we're excited for the prospect of of getting more call handling out there and moving forward. Any questions? >> Quick question. So you mentioned that you you need all the contracts to figure out that price. Do you have a cut off date for that or like a benchmark of when enough time has gone by? What you have is what you have >> unofficially? Yes. Uh we we spoke with the vendors. They submitted their final pricing. Uh I believe that it's due tomorrow. Their final pricing is due tomorrow. We're going to review those on Friday and whoever didn't make the cut didn't make the cut and that will be that will you know that that will be the the final list and we'll go into the process of signing those contracts after that which takes a week or two. Um we don't have a a drop deadad date but this is the last round of negotiations. >> Yeah, we made that very clear. Yeah. So as far as um features on the system, so if a PAP is looking for like uh either uh call transcription or you know language translation, something like that, is that included in these contracts or would they be able to use the residual funds for it? How how will that work? >> Yeah. So uh what we wanted to do in an effort to keep pricing as competitive as possible, we made most of these op these optional. Most of these features you're talking about AI translation, transcription. We've got uh logging recording, of course. We've got um non-emergency AI call handling. We ask the vendors to provide that for folks. Uh you know, in an effort to help with the staffing levels, right? Doing what we can to provide a technology platform to help. Uh they will all be extra. They'll all be on the side. So, when you buy a base system, right, that will give you that'll give you the the functionality that you need to answer those calls. But if you're looking for something else, you need AI for your PAP, it'll be on a separate list that you'll have to, you know, you have to make sure you have enough money left to negotiate that. And and if you don't, if we don't have enough money for you because some of these items are very expensive and we do still have to keep our budget, you know, kind of intact for CPE. Uh you'll still have that contract language there that you can utilize and you could pay for yourself if if you know, you were to go over your a lotment. But yes, those items are all included. We tried to be as inclusive as we could with as many technologies as we could think of. We're trying not to we're trying not to chase vendors uh in and advancing technology. We're trying to to offer the the most stable and and reliable platforms that we can for you. Um but we want to we want to be there to help. So yeah, we tried to include everything we could for those residual purchases. Yeah. >> Uh any other questions from the board on this report? >> All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> All right. Um, we'll move on then to the next sub agenda item. Uh, this would be part D of this agenda item. Uh, this will be the NextGen 911 project update. We'll start off um, I think sort of paying off something I talked about at the last board meeting. I mentioned that we would be uh, endeavoring to bring on board a project director for this project. And I had high hopes at that time that we would have them here in a in a few weeks time. And I'm happy to report that we were successful in hiring a project director. And so unfortunately due to prior commitments, they weren't able to actually be here in person today, but they are online. And so I'd like to virtually introduce Julie Whitten who is our project director and she can come on uh come on the line and u introduce herself and and talk a little bit about her role. So Julie, are you there? >> I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we got you loud and clear. >> Great. Good morning advisory board members and meeting participants. As Mr. Yarborough mentioned, I'm Julie Whitten, the NextGen 911 project director. Some of my previous experience working on large technical projects includes transforming the California Health Alert Network system while working for the Department of Public Health. At the time, the system was unreliable and our public health constituents lacked confidence in it. My team and I rebuilt that trust while ensuring the system became reliable and secure. I also worked at the franchise tax board as a technical operations manager for the enterprise to data revenue project, the EDR1 project, and more recently while at the California Operations Agency worked with DMV to enable Californians to pay for services with a credit card. So, I look forward to working with you on the successful implementation of NextGen 911. Thank you. >> Thank you, Julie. And and I think one of one of the parts of our conversation at the last board meeting was around the reporting structure for this project director. And um so to pay that off as well, this uh Julie reports directly in uh to our chief deputy director um in the office of the director here at OES. So it's a highly placed, highly visible reporting structure, making sure that she has all the authority and support she needs to to carry out her role. Um, so I I think um we're happy to have her on board and I think it's going to make a great difference. So, uh, any questions from the board, uh, for the new project director? All right. Thank you. Um, and so with that then we'll move on to the report out on the implementation project itself and I'll invite uh JB Bivvens to the microphone to talk a little bit about the progress that's being made. Good morning. Uh first I want to just voice that we heard you at the last board meeting. We heard that um the priorities of the board were migration of live traffic to the ATOS network, LA28 readiness, transparency, PAP engagement and communication, service reliability and discipline project execution. So, those are the really the topics I'm going to cover today through our update. Um, first of all, I'm happy to report that all of the originating service providers or what we call OSPs voice traffic have been migrated from all regional networks to our network as of June 25th uh which completes a key milestone uh in uh that was addressed during the June advisory board meeting. Uh that effort replaced hot standby connections with direct connections to all the major wireless uh carriers with us. Uh we've also updated our tariff that was filed and accepted by the CPU. Callas issued a letter of agency or LOA and it was passed to the requesting service providers and that actually uh allows authorization for carriers to progress with migration to us uh on the to the NextG 91 network. This month, uh, we aggressively began additional wireless migrations at the live PAP locations, including AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile, and Verizon at Kern County PAPs, and Bakersfield PD. We are currently at 31 a.5% complete total carrier migration at the live PAPs. Uh, and we've seen an increase in calls being delivered over the NextG 91 network from about 1,400 calls a week to over 6,000. So, a pretty significant increase. There have been no network or core service disruptions experienced in June and July. Service levels are actively u monitored by the 91 branch on an ongoing basis. From an engagement perspective, director Thomas Jacobs addressed the advisory board in June uh on the importance of PAP engagement and communications. ATOSS and Callowas have established an ongoing structure, communication and engagement model and that provides early notification, ongoing touch points and a clear expectation of what they're going to experience through the process. Uh the standardized PAP outreach sequence is now in place uh and for all PAP assessments, rack installations, carrier migrations and that is really three key components. an initial outreach of 30 days, a meeting around 15 days to talk about the PAP experience, let them know what they're going to experience, how many touch points they're going to have, and then just prior to the on-site assessment, uh, we'll reach out and remind them that that we're coming, make sure everything's still okay, uh, and that we'll see them in a couple days. Consistent with the board's focus on LA28 resess, uh, LA area engagement has expanded significantly. Initial contacts been made with all PAPs uh that have uh opted into the the uh effort. 64% have had their kickoff meeting which is that 15-day mark and 21% are complete uh of their PAP assessment. Joint LA stakeholder on-site meetings continue with Callaways and ATOSS. The last held just uh last week August 11th in Glendale with over 50 participants both on site and virtually. The meeting uh fostered a really good conversation, very interactive. Uh in fact, we spent about 45 minutes on the first slide. So uh just to kind of gauge the the level of interest in the LA area, it's very high. Uh the meeting um we also joined the LA County Coordinators meeting yesterday uh at Glendale PD. And then just so that uh you have a full understanding of ongoing efforts as we look forward we are advancing LA28 readiness continuing PAP engagement activities. So in the August September time frame PAP equipments being delivered and then in the September October time frame we're doing uh equipment buildouts at the staging centers that OES has uh and I have we have jointly um partnered together with their logistics team. Uh in October, network resiliency and redundancy enhancements will begin. And then finally, uh PAP rack installations will begin in November and continue uh until they're complete. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Right. Uh any questions from the board members on that report out? >> All right. Thank you very much, sir. Um so the the next sub item here is to talk about the progress of the RFP for the long-term network provider. Um I think it's been an ongoing conversation we've been having uh you know over the previous several meetings and uh we had previously reported that we intended to uh put that solicitation on the street and award later in 2026 in the fall of 2026 is what our expectation was. Um during the course of the of the budget cycle this last time there was some language put into the budget act that required us to accomplish a couple of reviews first before we could put that solicitation on the street. So one of which being the independent technical evaluation that we've contracted with the Rand Corporation to do. Um, so that is is now going um to have to be completed upstream of us putting that RFP for our long-term provider out onto the street. And so that uh will sort of go onto the back burner until we get that evaluation back and um figure out, you know, what what the evaluation says and recommends and how we move forward from there. So RFP is still on our radar but not on the front burner for us to u actively put something out right now. So any questions on that part right thank you. Um okay so the then one other element I wanted to talk about here pertaining to that RFP is um we've been actively working with uh another state entity. This is the office of data and innovation at the state level here. And um the idea is we asked them to perform some user research and analysis for us. Um, and I think this was in direct response to some of the comments that I've heard from the board here about how do these transitions impact the actual PAPs themselves and um the telecommunicators experience is obviously one of the key things that uh we need to be mindful of as we're rolling out any new technology not to uh unduly impinge on their you know ability to perform their role. Um and so we had uh the office of data and innovation do some user research. They've gone out and talked to you know frontline telecommunicators from a few different places. They've talked to executives from those same places and managers from some U paps as well to get a sample a representative sample hopefully of you know some of the concerns and issues that have been experienced or that people are concerned about experiencing as they would move through this transition process. And the idea behind this is that we have an independent view of what those issues are and then we can figure out a way to address them and mitigate them so that the overall experience is smoother and better as we go through this transition process going forward than it has been in the past. Um I know you know in the past we um have perhaps you know required more of uh you know very busy PAPs and telecommunicators out there than uh we reasonably should have. And so I want to make sure that we're doing it better this next time than any time uh previously. So uh we're getting uh that user analysis performed. There'll be some recommendations. Our engagement with the office of data and innovation uh is through the end of August. So, we're expecting to get a final report out from them. So, that will help inform what goes into our project plans and what goes into our RFP when we put that out on the street, making sure that we have the best ideas included uh and the best tools in our toolbox to make sure that we're doing our job well and not adversely impacting people. So, I wanted to update the board on that fact as well. Um, so any any questions from the board on any of those uh topics? All right. And um we'll open it up now uh to the members of the public. If the public would like to make comment on uh this um this report out concerning the NextG 911 project or the branch uh activities, now would be the time. We'll start here in the room. Same rules apply. uh if you be mindful that there might be other people who want to make a public comment. So keep your remarks to three minutes. If there is someone they can make their way to the podium to make their remark on the microphone. >> Good morning everybody. This is Alicia Fuller with CHP. Just a mic check real quick. Good. Excellent. Um, quick question. It's a little bit in the weeds, but I think it has relevance for the advisory board now that ATOSS is able to start moving forward with NextG 911 deployment throughout the state of California and that's kind of gotten underway in Kern County. Um, one thing that has come back up among the PAP community is policy based routing. um and how some of those initial policies are going to be deployed. One of which is some overarching policies. Currently in the state of California, 911 calls do not overflow anywhere. Um when 911 calls exceed the system capacity, they receive a busy signal currently. And I think uh we need to determine if that policy is going to stay in place initially as the state rolls out uh nextgen 911 and some of those other arch overarching statewide policies that have been in place but now have the capacity to be policy routing rules within the system. Are any of those rules going to change? Is Callowas still going to make the determination on those rules initially? Um, and then how is the overall PAP community going to get involved in that conversation as we start moving that forward. >> Right. Thank you. >> Yes, for consideration. Thank you. Any other uh any other comments from the public in the room? Seeing none, how about uh online? Any hands raised online? Don't see any other ones. All right, then we will move through our agenda to the next item. This is the uh agenda item number five on independent project oversight. Um we've alluded to this a couple of times already um or I think yeah, briefly. And so, um, this is having to do with the Department of Technology providing independent project oversight. And so, I've asked, uh, Andy Wartton, who is the deputy director and deputy state chief project officer from the Department of Technology, to come give us a little overview of how that works. Uh, and so, please sir, unmute your microphone and tell us what you what you normally do. >> Good morning, chair. Good morning board members. My name is Andrew Wart. I am the deputy state chief project officer and I run a unit of 37 project oversight managers underneath the authority of the state chief information officer. Bit about myself. I have an engineering degree and background a master's degree in teleprocessing science. I spent about 15 years in the army signal corps. So I have a sweet spot for telecommunications and have a good uh sense of the importance of this particular system for your program area and for the state of California. I worked as a pro a program manager and project manager as well on the development side. So I understand and have been involved in design development and acquisition of large-scale systems, communication systems, information technology systems and about 15 years ago I came to the state uh to do this oversight work. uh when that became a functional activity within the uh office of the chief information officer. Our project oversight framework is aligned with what we know to be project challenges. Projects that are planned well and executed well depend highly upon the very mature area of project management. And our pro uh in uh information technology uh protocol and engagement is designed specifically to be an active participant and observer of project activities. uh working day in and day out with the project development team and providing early insights and uh recognition of risks, recommendations to mitigate those risks and to make recommendations to resolve issues as they arise throughout the project life cycle uh starting with planning activities all the way through final development. So it's our intention based upon the legislation and the authority uh to do that and to work directly with the project team, the project director, project sponsor executives and executive leadership. It's important to mention that our role is also in concert with something else that you may have read in the legislation, the independent validation and verification team. That team has a focus area that is slightly adjacent to ours and they focus on the quality of the technical build activities. We focus on the project management activities in those processes. But there is a very very clear and distinct interface between the technical quality of the activities and the and the quality of the management activities using the project management frameworks that exist and are quite mature. As I said, we intend to be with the project throughout the entire project life cycle, day in and day out, and providing what assistance and recommendations we can based upon the experience and background that we have. We've done oversight over 700 projects within the state of California as an independent entity on behalf of those departments. And uh we bring many many many years of project management experience with our team uh to try to help identify as early as possible anything that looks like it may threaten the the question that we're really trying to get to and provide on a on a regular basis. Is this project on track? Will it deliver the value within the schedule and cost parameters? Uh and uh to provide recommendations to make sure that that stays on track. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you may have this time. Any of the board members have questions on the independent project oversight? All right. Not seeing any. We thank you for that report, sir. Uh similarly, um in cropping out of the the budget act, we also in our next budget item have uh independent technical evaluation as being one of the the new requirements. And so I think um we talked a little bit about this earlier. We were directed to engage the Rand Corporation for that independent technical evaluation. And so um we are happy to report that we have done so. We had uh we were required to enter into contract with the Rand Corporation by August 15th and we've already accomplished that. We've had a kickoff meeting last week with them uh virtual kickoff meeting. will have an in-person kickoff meeting with them next week. Um, and I think it's important to note here that, you know, this will be a look at the architecture of the system. Um historically what that architecture was was that regional structure and particularly around the concerns of reliability, resiliency um making sure that we have a system that serves the the mission here of you know being a public safety mission critical system. And so, um, this independent evaluation is going to do a handful of things, but I think it's going to answer a lot of questions that we've all been working through over the, you know, the last several months at least. Is what are the state's options for delivering the NextG 911 system? How do each of those options impact the PAPs themselves both during and after transition? How would each option address uh the problems that we've encountered up to this point in time, including interoperability challenges? And uh you know, how how would each option affect the length of time to decommission the legacy 911 system? And of course, touching on that redundancy, resiliency, privacy, and and security of course are all parts of what the evaluation is is going to take into consideration. And then um it will it will seek to answer some of these questions to identify and justify what the recommended option should be to deliver a cost-effective, safe and reliable nextG 911 system and to assess whether the regional network structure uh could deliver a reliable next-gen system and if not why not and then assess the best method for uh providing redundancy that preserves you know the cost effective safe and reliable services that we require. Um so all of those relevant factors that we've been toiling with uh these many months um are going to be independently evaluated and addressed in this final report. Um the expectation in in fact it's written right into the into the legislation but also into the contract that we have with the Rand Corporation is they deliver a preliminary report by December 15th of this year and then provide a final report by May 1st of next year. Um then I think one of the things I wanted to note for the board's attention here is it requires Calloes, the advisory board, public safety answering points and uh the 911 system vendors to provide RAND with any requested assistance that they ask for. So um we intend to be good partners. We expect all of the all of the elements of the 911 system within California to work cooperatively with this evaluation because we want to make sure that we end up you know getting the full benefit of this independent technical evaluation so we have a lot of those questions answered uh from an independent source. So that um I think you know touches on this independent technical evaluation I think many people have been wanting for a long time. So um it's in flight. We expect to have you know those reports produced to us. Obviously when those reports are produced um you all will be included as members of this board. Um and then the legislature as well will get a copy of those reports. So it will be available in in in those ways. Um I think uh I mentioned the kickoff meeting that we had last Thursday and the one we'll have next week on Tuesday or Monday and Tuesday actually. So are there any comments uh from the board about the independent technical evaluation at this point? Not seeing or hearing any questions on that. How about members of the public? Uh, do any members of the public like to make a public comment on this independent technical evaluation? Um, if you want to step to the podium over there, sir, that would be great. >> Good morning. My name is Stephen Sprag. I'm a former firefighter and paramedic and I've attended the past several meetings here and also capital. I've said before that California is too big and 911 is too important to put in the hands of one provider. We don't rely on one provider for our electricity, our water, or our communications. Why would we do it with 911? I applaud the legislature for requiring independent oversight, but that oversight needs to happen before irreversible decisions are made, not afterward. There are serious questions that need answers. I became interested in who the state was handing such an important project to. So, I started looking and what I found raised four questions. Sir, they can't hear you online. Have you pressed the button? >> It's screen. Oh, I was covering it up. That's for Okay, we need to start over. Okay, we'll start over then. Sorry about that. Um, former firefighter and paramedic and I've attended past several meetings and also hearings at the capital. I've said before that California is too big and 911 is too important to put in the hands of one provider. We don't rely on one provider for our electricity, our water, or our communications. Why would we do it with 911? I applaud the legislature for requiring independent oversight, but that oversight needs to happen before irreversible decisions are made, not afterward. There are several questions that need answers. I became interested in who the state was handing such an important project to. So, I started looking and what I found raised more questions. Caloes's own documents identify Prometheian 1 and 911 Authority together working on this program. People involved with these organizations have subsequently gone to work for ATOSS, a French company. That's a revolving door involving consultants, project management, and a company now positioned to take on a much larger role in California's 911 system. How does that not warrant an independent look at conflicts, procurement, and who was influencing these decisions? And then I looked at ATOSS itself. ATOSS went through a major court supervised financial restructuring involving billions in debt during this same general period. Was that financial instability independently evaluated? Did it affect this project? And then there's experience we keep hearing about the Olympics. The Olympics are not 911. Olympic IT is not emergency call routing, next generation core services, PAP integration, emergency location services, or operating a permanent statewide 247 life safety network. As that former firefighter and paramedic, supporting an event is not the same as carrying someone's call for help. And now the legislature has ordered Rand to independently evaluate the alternatives. The legislature didn't decide that statewide is better or regional is better. That's the whole point of the independent review. It specifically preserved California's ability to return to a regional network and warned against unnecessary disruption while that evaluation is underway. So why make changes now that could prejudge RAND's work, disrupt PAPs, cost taxpayers more money, or make one of those options harder to return to? Let Rand and the state auditor finish their work. Follow the relationships and follow the money. Determine what actually failed and why it did so. Then make the decision. Don't decide the outcome first and investigate it afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment in the room? All right. Not seeing any takers there. Any online public comment concerning the RAND independent technical evaluation? Right. Not seeing any there. Thank you everybody. We'll move on to the next agenda item. Uh this is agenda item number seven wherein we will discuss the impending advisory board changes. Um I think deputy director Swanson uh alluded to this earlier in the meeting. The budget act made changes to how the chair of this board will be deter determined. Um the goal here is to revise the board membership and uh have the chair of this board uh selected from among the non- voting members of the or from the voting members of the board, sorry. Um and so it stipulates that the first meeting of each calendar year or at another time that the board deems appropriate to elect one of its voting members to serve as the chair. And so, um, in order to, you know, advance that, it occurs to me that the first thing we must do is update, um, our advisory board bylaws. And they had stipulated that the, uh, the bylaws, um, said that the chair was, um, the chief of the public safety communications office um, which would be me at this point, the deputy director of public safety communications. So those need to be updated accordingly and and I think in all fairness they probably um could stand a refresh even if that hadn't been the hadn't been the case. So we published the uh proposed I had the staff draft up a set of proposed advisory board bylaws and published those along with the agenda. I think each of you have a copy of that in your uh binders there and hopefully you've had an opportunity to look at those. So um at this time I wanted to you know sort of get feedback from each of you if you have any remarks around these bylaws um and specifically the the part about uh the board membership and then selecting the chair of the uh of the board as we go forward. No, no comments. >> I This is the first time I've seen it, so I haven't had time to digest it. >> Understood. Um, so um yeah, I think that being said, and that might be true for more than one uh more than one person. So, u apologize for not calling that out uh as we posted it on the website. Um so I think the key the key elements here are you know that the board still consists of the people it consists of. Um but the the key change obviously is the um the selection of the chairperson. And so in in moving towards selecting a chairperson, I think it would be useful uh for us to, you know, take nominations on that. And um and agendaize that for a vote. And my sense of it is like number one, I I wouldn't want anybody to be uh conscripted into service if they didn't want to be conscripted into service. And so a nomination and then an acceptance of a nomination is probably the the right course of action before we then vote to put somebody into a role they don't necessarily want to serve in. So, that's kind of how I'm looking at this is if if you all have ideas about who you would like to nominate. Um, I think uh submitting those um we could probably then have a a bio a biography from that person posted as well and then we could uh agendaize a vote on that topic at the next meeting if that's uh agreeable. >> Okay. So, um, in order to facilitate that, I'm hoping, um, that you will take some time to think about who you might nominate for that. And, um, if you can submit your nominations to the, uh, board liaison, Samantha Barton, ahead of our next meeting, um, and then we can have a discussion and, uh, potentially vote someone to be the chairperson at that point. Does that sound like a good plan? >> One request. Uh, can somebody on your staff let us know where people are in their term? Yes. Because I'd hate to nominate somebody that's not going to >> Yes. Entirely valid. Um, and so I think yeah, we'll be refreshing our our list of of people when they were first appointed. Obviously, um, the bylaws stipulate that you can serve two terms of of two years each. And so yeah, if somebody was entering the last three months of service, we would they have at when they're considering who they might like to nominate. Excellent point. Um let's see. So do we have uh any other comments from the board on this topic? Uh, so I have a question actually. Sorry. I >> I just want to go I just wanted to clarify. Can we do or suggest a nomination now or do you want to wait for us to send it to Samantha? >> No, you could you could make a nomination now if you'd like. >> Okay. I would like to nominate Mark Chase um as a chairperson of the board. um you know historically he's been on this board for quite some time um working in the industry and he has that IT perspective um and he knows that from the beginning of the end when this first project started so I think historically he has that knowledge and I think he'll be a good fit for it. >> Thank you. Uh I I had a question as far as the bylaws and so this is an amendment to existing bylaws and so is that something that the board will vote on or take an action on to accept that language first before we do nominations or how does that work? Well, >> so um just to just to clarify, this was emailed with your agenda, so it's not like you're just seeing it for the first time today, but um the uh the way that the bylaws work is before we would take a nomination, although nominations can be considered. They're not like no one has made a motion on the nomination. Um it's not formal. It hasn't been seconded. So technically you can raise that now and then at the next meeting when or at this meeting if you decide to um uh edit, amend or you know approve the bylaws as they were presented um you can absolutely do that and then take a nomination or if we're planning on doing it at the next meeting then you would do it there. But to um uh the nominations, excuse me, to the nominations, um that would mean that we raised this nomination. There's been no motion on it and it hasn't been seconded or accepted, but we can't do that until we get the by bylaws amended because as they are now the the chair is >> so yeah so getting the bylaws squared away is a precursor to being able to take any action on a nomination and uh uh so yes that's the order of operations bylaws update then we can actually make the make the official nomination take a vote uh at that time. Is that right? >> Okay. So that's the sequence. >> Chair, can I speak? >> Yes, absolutely. >> So based on the way that the agenda is written today, it says that we may discuss, consider, and potentially vote on amendments to bylaws. So there is a potential for us to make the vote today on the changes to the bylaws. Okay. >> Yes. Um yeah. and understanding that, you know, there might be additional um alterations to this proposed set of bylaws, um you know, if if there were things that any of the board members were thinking should be included in the bylaws that aren't, um then there's an opportunity to continue to develop those um before then voting on them. So, both of those are paths forward. Right. Any other any other comments concerning bylaws or the potential uh selection of a new uh chairperson? >> Was that the only change? Was the chairperson in this or were there other changes made? >> Um to my knowledge that was uh that was it there. Um yeah, like I said there there wasn't a change to the composition of the board, just that one feature that we would uh select from among the voting members. >> So that's for the chair, >> correct? >> Uh but we do have added language regarding code of conduct in the bylaws. >> Yes. Yeah. So that was a proposed addition to the to the u to the new bylaws that we would be adopting. Obviously, you know, adopting the bylaws requires a vote amongst the the board itself to accept those. And so um if there were proposals in this set of of bylaws that were objectionable, then we could adjudicate those before we take the vote. All right. Um, any other comments from the board on that topic? Seeing none, um, we'll make an opportunity for the members of the public uh, who would like to offer comment on the impending advisory board changes. Um, here in the room, are there any members of the public who would like to make comment on the impending advisory board changes? If so, step to the podium to make your comments heard. And I'm not Oh, perhaps. Yes, we have a taker. Again, it's Alicia Fuller with CHP. Um, I did review Sorry, I'm short. I did review the bylaws um that were listed online. They were not done in track changes. Is there an opportunity to present those to everybody with track changes or notes as to the changes just to clarify what was and was not modified. >> So um not exactly. Uh question did come up before and uh the version of the bylaws that we have is just a scanned PDF copy. um the source document in a word processing software was not available to us. So um what we can do is highlight in it wouldn't necessarily strictly speaking be track changes but it would be annotated that these are the new additions or uh you know essentially recreating what track changes would have shown. So we can do that. Yeah. >> Excellent. Appreciate that opportunity. Thank you. All right. Uh, any other members of the public in the room? All right. How about online? All right. Seeing none there, um, we'll move to our next agenda item. Agenda item number eight. This is the long range planning committee report. And so I'm looking to see, do we have the committee chair Jeff Logan available to give a report out? Yes. All right, let's make sure we got this microphone on. See if we can maybe liven this meeting up here a little bit. Uh, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Jeff Logan. I'm the executive director of Hartland Communications uh down in San Diego County and I currently sit as the chair of the long-range planning committee. Uh I'm welcomed here by a couple of our long-range planning committee members as well. We've got a newest member uh Josh Armstrong is here in the audience. Hello Josh. Casey Young and we've got Alicia Fuller who's uh you guys have got to meet here already with a couple of comments. So good stuff. Yesterday we had our uh regularly scheduled meeting and there's a couple of updates that I want to provide uh for the group here and maybe looking for some uh support or encouragement from the 911 advisory board. So topic number one that we've been uh working on is the um staffing and retention study, which I know is also your guys's next agenda topic here as well. Um and really from the longrange planning committee point of view, we've gotten to this point of um we want to find a way to take some action and and the age-old saying that we know familiar is that nothing changes if nothing changes. So we've had this report here for a couple of years and we're trying to um look for ways to engage and lean into that. So, we met with OES yesterday and talked about uh revitalizing a program that has been used on the technology side and establishing uh regional uh working groups. uh task force is probably a more appropriate term for how it's been used in the past. But uh trying to um take a regional approach to small working groups um to look and have a focus on um learn from and share with our peers the successes and wins that we've had in this area of recruitment and retention. Um there's some key areas that we would like this working group to be focused on on there. um recruitment and retention strategies, uh mental health wellness resources, um and employee development pathways uh for advancement or tracks uh for employee development. Those are just a couple of things that we highlighted out of the uh recruitment and retention survey as gaps. Um but they're not the only ones. So what we talked with OES yesterday is about uh if they're willing to uh take on the lead of helping us form these working groups uh regionally. There's already a base model in place where there was a northern uh working group, there was a central, there's a LA County, there's a Southern California one and uh we may look to expand that a little bit more to isolate some of the areas um where they'll be more in line with their their peers such as like LA is called out as one area maybe like Bay Area being like a called out area where it's similar agencies, similar structures uh to learn from each other. Um we talked with OES about partnering with agencies like Cal Nina, California APCO, county coordinators to find the right participants to be a part of this group. Uh find where the winds are and how do we share that information. Um and uh we would also like to encourage just like they did with the previous task task forces is to have uh someone from each of these working groups to come out to the long-range planning committee meeting and report out on uh topics that they covered and things that they've uh had success with. So what does that look like going forward? You know what we think is that if we have regional uh collaboration uh starting where it doesn't currently exist, that would be a good thing for everyone. Uh we would also like to use that opportunity to develop uh from a statewide perspective a best practices document of of these areas that have been challenges with recruiting recruitment and retention. Um we know there's no uh magic wand that we're going to be able to wave. It's going to take hard work but uh essentially we're looking to try and take action and start encouraging some of these discussions especially uh while we know there's a large part of our state that is struggling in these areas. there are centers who are finding right ways to do it in different ways and and how do we uh learn from that. So that's really one of our uh big goals that we have coming out of that meeting and uh it's going to be starting uh very soon uh at least some of the work group of trying to get the names together the list and planning out meetings on there. So, um, what we talked about yesterday is just looking from, uh, support from the 91 advisory board to continue to pursue this or if there's other additions that maybe we have missed as a blind spot, we're we're open to, uh, any, uh, recommendations. Secondly, uh we talked a little bit about we've had a topic assigned here from the advisory board on consolidation uh reorganization um of PAPs and this project has actually taken a lot of different turns on it. So our group continues to work on this project but the scope continues to grow. What started out as talking about consolidation with agencies uh you know at some point moved into facilities moved to operations now it's developing into technology and uh security and continuity of operations and so our group continues to work through these challenges and these issues with our goal of presenting a document to the 91 advisory board of um basically a recommendations list or something that uh you know we can move on from there. We know uh that the idea of consolidation or regionalization um comes with some uh challenges and and maybe uh some push back. So we're trying to stay away from some of the things that we can't control and focus more on what we can control as as it pertains to recommendations. And then the last thing uh that we spent a lot of time yesterday working on is uh we had a task for the past year uh to look at what does 911 call taking uh look like if it was to be handled remotely or offsite. Um and as I mentioned in a previous uh advisory board meeting, our group has decided to pause that aspect of it because there's so many factors. It's like we're chasing ghosts a little bit, especially with everything that we've got going on in the state of California with the 911 network. Instead, what we've transitioned to is we've been meeting with and talking with organizations who are looking at ways to offload um their non-emergency call taking. And so, there has been opportunities where some agencies are doing that uh offsite uh with, for lack of a better term, like real people, humans. Um and then there are also uh agencies who are offloading some of that workload via AI. And so uh with the agencies that we've been meeting with who have successfully deployed that in California, we are from the longrange planning committee uh working to invite them to one of our LRPC meetings to start talking about what the success looked like, what lessons they learned with those solutions inside of their centers. And so um that is the end of the report that I have from our meeting. I'm happy to answer any questions or uh any additional comments. >> Thank you for that. I think um I I for one think it's a great idea the direction your work group is going or the committee is going. Um and I think your point about you know defining the regions uh in a specific way that makes sense. I think bit large geographic chunks don't necessarily all have this experience the same you know drivers in terms of what makes hiring uh competent people you know possible in in one area of that region might not be true in the other and so I think defining your regions in ways that where they're experiencing the same issues and uh could benefit from the same answers is is the right way to go. So I I think that's a a good thing and I think anything that creates more context and puts tools in the hands of decision makers would be wellreceived and beneficial. So I think that's an excellent approach. Does any member of the board have any comments they would like to make on this topic? >> Yes. Um I do have a comment regarding the staffing um study. One of my concerns was how do you get it out to all of the centers within the state? uh when you look at just the CPE aotment with so many centers that's over eight to 10 years you wonder are they really engaged with what's going on um when it comes to hiring retention because you look at their CPE it's like so why is it sitting there for so long so reaching out you know getting teams and regionally so we can start that engagement and starting with the county coordinators because I I feel like that's the best list where you have representatives you know who represents each county but I really think it's a great idea a because it gives a chance to sit down, have those discussions with those centers who are doing so great and with those who aren't doing as great. So, I think it's a it's a wonderful idea. >> Jeff, I appreciate your uh your report again. Thank you and your group for what you guys do. Uh I also appreciate that you brought a solution to the problem and not just the problem. And so, you have my support on this task force idea. I like it and whatever I can do to support it moving forward. Thank you, >> Jeeoff. I think the LRPC is doing a great job. Uh you guys are hitting the nail on the head going regional round because each region has its own unique issues and roadblocks that they face. Um the state uh partnering with the state is a great idea as far as Callowas. uh they used to have task force for the nextgen 911 task force prior to implementing or moving forward with anything when they were looking at technology. Uh they're a good resource on how they did that and how they set it up. I also think it's an opportunity for the LRPC to get out there when you start talking about retention and recruitment. you can have these made up of people with various levels of uh tenure uh in our industry that would give you different ideas on what's going to work for all the generations in the workforce because that's some of the roadblocks that we have now is getting all the different generations in the PAPs to work coherently. So, I think it's a great idea. You guys are on the right path. I fully support it. If you need anything, give me a call. I'd just like to hop on the the bandwagon with my colleagues. Um, I think that the work that the LRPC is doing to support staffing and retention is probably one of the most important things that we as a a group can do because despite all the attention to the technology and the systems, without the people that are doing the work, I think we're in dire straits. And so getting the message out which I think is a large lift. I think the regional idea is fantastic but it's a huge lift to get that message out to the people particularly to people who are listening and can do something with it. Um so I just want to say thank you to the LRPC and I fully support this. Any other comments from the board members? All right. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, we will open it up at this point for a comment from members of the public. Uh, we'll start in the room. Um, if you would like to make a public comment on the long range planning committee's report. Uh, now would be a great time to do that. Step to the microphone if you would like to do so. Not seeing any movement in the room. How about online? Any hands raised? We don't see any of those either. All right. We will then uh move to our next item on the list which is uh I think has been referenced here, the staffing and retention study. Um so we've elected to keep this item on the agenda to ensure the discussion continues. Uh do do any of the members of the board have uh some new remarks they would like to add to this? It occurs to me it kind of dovetales very closely with what we just heard from the from the long range planning committee. And so uh if there's any staffing and retention study specific comments that the board members would like to make, you may have the floor. All right. Um don't see any hands online to that effect either. So I think yeah it is obviously um an ongoing issue um and it is not something likely to just be fixed by some small tweak here or there. And so I think uh continuing to have it on our radar and develop new ways as the LRPC has attempted to do to address that issue. Uh anything we can do will help and so I think um it's good to keep that on our radar. So, thank you everybody. Um, next item on our agenda, agenda item number 10, this is the closed session. Um, for the advisory board. Um, and so we will step outside to another room for the closed session. But before we do that, uh, in this in this agenda item, we have to have the public comment taken before we step out to do that closed session deliberation. So, if there's any agenda or any public comment in the room uh that we want to receive before we go into the closed session, now would be the time to do it. So, anybody in the room who'd like to make public comment on closed session items or something that would be a closed session item. All right. Not seeing any. Um then we will step out to the other room for that conversation. Thank you. All right. Uh, welcome back everybody. Um, we'll continue continue with the, uh, agenda items that we have. Um, next agenda item is agenda item number 11 wherein uh, we ask if there are agenda items for future meetings that anybody would like to add. Um, happy to hear those from the board. So, uh, I open it up to you if you have any such agenda items you'd like to see added. Of course, you always have the opportunity to send them into the board liaison by email. Um, but if you have it now, I'm happy to write it down. All right. Not seeing or hearing any there. Um, we'll move on to agenda item number 12, then. This is public comment for matters that were not on the agenda today. So, if there are any members of the public who would like to make a public comment for a matter that was not on the agenda, now would be a good time to step to the podium and uh make your remarks into the microphone. And I'm not not seeing any takers in the room. How about online if we got any hands raised out there? Not seeing any comments from online uh as well. So that moves us then to agenda item number 13 which is the adjournment. So having conducted all of the business that we have uh for the board today I think I will declare this meeting of the 911 advisory board to be adjourned. Thank you everybody. >> What is it? So it's a public comment. >> You just adjourned though. >> We just adjourned. >> No call. >> Yeah. So the meeting is adjourned. So that means that the >> he can direct uh his public comment to >> Yeah. You can the public comment that uh is out there could be directed to the board liaison Samantha Barton. Um, and so in the agenda you will find the uh email address. It's Samantha.ban@caloes.ca.gov. So that public comment can be submitted there. Thank you.