UCAN PRESENTATION to:

UCAN is not: The Utah Cancer Action Network UCAN is : The Utah Communications Agency

Network Formed in 1997 by the Legislature Purpose: To construct and maintain a public safety

grade communications network to serve state and local government

Partnership between state and local agencies

Governor Leavitt: Task Force in 1993

Legislative Bill 96 & 97 passed in 1997

Agency Input !!! Management Board Executive Committee

First Staff: 1999 36 Months to Build 43 UCAN/20 Olympic

sites 16 E-9-1-1 Centers

interconnected 95% In-building

The system was designed to support public safety. With the 2002 Winter Olympic Games Bid, it

became a partnership event to support the games. Communications for 8 counties hosting the venues Communications for management of the Games by

SLOC Total of about 12,000 users $17M Bond, plus several Federal Grants Survived the turf battles, and politics going forward

And….. Transportation, Corrections, Hospital, Natural Resources, Ambulance, Public Works, Federal Users, and any others Involved in the protection of life and Property........

This was the largest public safety event ever in Utah

It was 4 Months after the largest terrorist event in the USA—with BAD interoperability and communications

We had to be prepared and it had to work

Olympics/Para Olympics: 10,600,000 calls or an average of 500K per day

Portable to Portable great coverage

Network Call Management is Critical

Trunked Radio allows the use of multiple channels autonomously by many users—while having the ability to use the same channel also……

System to System patch thru consoles Channel patch: FED/State/Local Unit to Unit Simplex—State and National Conventional Repeaters Operations channels--Trunked Regional Channels--Trunked (county wide) Events Channels--Trunked (system wide)

Success of the system motivated the move to expand the coverage

Successful consolidation with Salt Lake County Upgrade of the system network Additional Federal Funding thru PS Interoperability Grants

and DOJ grants Users quickly started to migrate to the new system Expanded the coverage into other areas/improved coverage Cache-Rich-Box Elder Washington Uintah, Duchesne I-15 Corridor US 89 to Richfield

THE UCAN SYSTEM SERVES 91AGENCIES CHALLENGES MET: Turf Issues, Wait and See, What are the costs? Shared Vision: What will it look like? Timing: build and serve at the same time Technology Obsolescence: build or wait How to Communicate with those who don’t

participate

The system has a presence in 25 Counties It serves 147 public safety agencies There are over 23000 radios on the system Agencies are continually adding radios to the network 33 of the 36-911 dispatch centers are connected The system has doubled in size: from 41 to 83 sites with 8

additional sites funded for installation The system has grown from 293 to 650 Repeaters (talk

paths) Approximate Investment 85 Million Infras. and radios We are 10 years into a 20 year life cycle—its time to plan and

fund the replacement Future systems are all digital and IP Based

Additional 10 or so sites planned for more coverage Laying the Political Groundwork for funding What to do about funding, options?? Agency input and awareness Which system do we choose?? How do we continue to maintain what we have?? New Partnerships—what will they be Timing of the Change: “we have to keep the airplane

flying while we change the wings!”

Next Generation 911: whatever products, services and access that will create will require more bandwidth

Same connection facilities for Rural Utah D Block Initiative: Broadband services to public safety

providers: nationally and locally Public Safety must have Priority Service Connecting the dots: Public Safety networks traditionally

have multiple nodes to connect ▪ -Dispatch Facilities

▪ -Transmission Facilities

▪ -Field Unit access to Data and Communications

• We identified a “Common Pain” which brought the stakeholders together

• A “Convener of Stature” supported the effort-Governor

• A committed leader was identified as a ”broker” to keep it together

• OPENESS, TRANSPARENCY, VOLUNARY PARTICIPATION

• Critical Mass--- We had a drop dead date: The 2002 Olympics

• Utilize representatives who can and will make decisions

• Agree on a clearly defined purpose and goal

• Have a formal charter outlining: Governance structure, outcomes, funding and levels of participation

• Recognize the solution requires continued “nurturing and management”—You don’t fix it one time and then it goes away

• We can’t do it alone, but we can do it together…….