2606 Addendum 1.pdf

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 1 of 7

Yes.

Questions and Answers:

Q. RFP Page 3, Section Introduction and Objectives - Is the “Kenosha County

Simulcast Assessment and Feasibility Study - Revised 1/17/2017” available for reference?

A. We have attached the study to this addendum.

Q. RFP Page 3, Section Introduction and Objectives - Please provide the FCC Call

Sign and license information for the current simulcast system. This includes the TX and RX frequencies, channel descriptions and modulation type (analog/digital).

A. WREK281

County Fire – Analog – 151.235 TX/153.345 RX KESO1 – P25 Digital – 155.995 TX/153.875 RX KESO2 – P25 Digital – 155.0175 TX/159.1575 RX

Q. RFP Page 3, Section Introduction and Objectives - Please provide site location information for the current simulcast system. We understand this might not match the FCC license.

A. The site locations match the current FCC license.

Q. RFP Page 5, Procurement Phase Oversight - A project like this could have many components. How many bids is the County planning on issuing? We understand there will be one for tower construction, but what about generator, equipment shelter, fencing, tower compound civil enhancements, regulatory work, etc.?

A. The plan is to issue one bid that contains all the project construction components including the site work, shelter, generator, etc.

Q. RFP Page 5, Procurement Phase Oversight - Item 2 states "Assist with responses to bidder questions and addendum review (addendum drafting remains responsibility of Designer)". Is the Designer (Baycom) writing the tower procurement RFP or is the County writing it?

A. The Designer (Baycom) is drafting the plans and specifications. The County produces the front end bid documents and facilitates the bid process.

KENOSHA COUNTY

RFP #2606 ADDENDUM ONE DATED 3/3/2026

PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SIMULCAST COMMUNICATION TOWER EXPANSION –

COUNTY’S TECHNICAL OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 2 of 7

Q. RFP Page 5, Design Review and Compliance Monitoring - Should pricing for regulatory work such as site survey, geotechnical, environmental, FCC/FAA, SHPO, land use permitting and Section 106 be included in the Consultant scope or will the County or Designer be procuring those services separately?

A. No, those costs are not the responsibility of the Technical Owner’s Representative and should not be included in your cost proposal. We will procure these services separately.

Q. RFP Page 5, Design Review and Compliance Monitoring - Should pricing for frequency licensing be included in the Consultant scope or will the County or Designer be procuring those services separately?

A. No, those costs are not the responsibility of the Technical Owner’s Representative and should not be included in your cost proposal. We will procure these services separately.

Q. RFP Page 6, Deliverables - The RFP asks for "Independent performance verification summary at commissioning". Will the Designer (Baycom) be conducting a formal coverage acceptance test?

A. Yes, but we would like the Technical Owner’s Representative to review and verify that the method used is accurate.

Q. RFP Page 5, Design Review and Compliance Monitoring - The RFP asks the consultant to "Provide on-site or virtual progress meetings with County, Designer, and Contractor". Section E also describes Project kickoff meeting;

attend technical work sessions; facilitate up to: 4 technical coordination meetings, 2 Task Force review meetings, 2 public information/open house sessions, 3 presentations to County committees or Board. Will any of those meetings (in Section E) be virtual or are they all in-person?

A. Most can be virtual except the presentations to County committees or Board.

Q. RFP Page 18, 21.4 EQUIPMENT AND/OR MATERIALS ON SITE - RFP states

"The successful Contractor or an authorized representative must be present to accept delivery at the job site of all equipment and material shipments that are part of the contract". Is this referring to the Tower provider?

A. This is a standard term that requires the Technical Owner’s Representative to be present to accept delivery of any equipment or materials (if applicable) that they would have delivered as part of their own contract work. The Tower provider will have the same term in their contract and be responsible to accept delivery of any equipment or materials that are part of their contract.

Q. Did Evans Associates develop the preliminary design, identifying Veterans

Memorial Park as the potential location for the new tower? If not, who?

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 3 of 7

A. In 2017, Veterans Memorial Park was identified as a potential location by Evans and Associates, but Silver Lake Park was ultimately used in the original rollout of the system. The County with the assistance of Baycom determined that Veterans Memorial Park was an acceptable location for this system expansion.

Q. Has the County already selected the Design/Engineer? If so, who is it? If not, will the Technical Owner’s Representative be involved in reviewing proposals from Design/Engineers?

A. The County is working with Baycom as the Design/Engineer for this project. The Technical Owner’s Representative will not be involved in selecting the Design/Engineer.

Q. Has the County already selected the General Contractor? If so, who is it? If not, will the Technical Owner’s Representative be involved in reviewing proposals from contractors?

A. The County will use a formal bidding process to select the General Contractor for the tower construction. The Technical Owner’s Representative will be involved in the bidding process per the scope outlined in the RFP.

Q. Does the County anticipate a single bid for the tower, equipment to be placed on it, and site/civil work?

A. The bid process will select a General Contractor for the tower and site work. Baycom will be responsible for the radio equipment and installation.

Q. Who is responsible for obtaining the permits – the General Contractor?

A. The General Contractor will be responsible for obtaining required building permits.

Q. Does the County want respondents to provide a description of our approach to completing the Statement of Work? If so, in which section (tab) of the proposal should we include it?

A. No specifically point by point. The response requirements are outlined in the table in section 13.5.

Q. What is the County’s budget for this project?

A. 1.2 million.

Q. The RFP requests submittal of the following forms, which are not included in the

RFP package. Can you please provide them?

• Vendor Acceptance Form

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 4 of 7

• Non-Collusion

• Debarment

A. Attachment A Signature and Authority Affidavit Form is the Vendor Acceptance Form. We do not have a specific form for non-collusion or debarment. By signing Attachment A, you attest that you are not debarred and that no collusion has taken place.

Q. Can we get a copy of the Baycom RF design?

A. The coverage and RF design is not complete for this new location. It is currently being worked on by Baycom.

Q. Can we get the information on the tools Baycom used for their design and coverage studies?

A. We do not have that information at this time. We will work with Baycom to provide more information once the Owner’s Technical Representative is selected.

Q. What is the performance specification from the County so that we can determine if the design meets or does not meet the specification?

A. The performance specification is for 95/95 radio coverage, and technically the system meets the specification as an average countywide.

The issue we have is that the west end of the County has coverage gaps and the intent for this new tower is to fill those gaps in coverage to 95/95 in those areas as well. Also we intend to increase the performance of pagers on the west end of the County as well.

Q. If the review of the design leads to changes of the design (perhaps there are assumptions made that we disagree with), and this becomes an iterative process, can we limit our review to a single design/tower location? If the tower moves or additional towers are required, will we be able to negotiate additional fee for the redesign of the system?

A. Assume a single tower location for the Cost Proposal. We will negotiate with the awarded vendor if a redesign and additional service is required.

Q. The RFP mentions a proposed tower at the Kenosha County Veterans Memorial

Park. However, the consultant is also responsible to review siting alternatives.

We are assuming the designer has already provided alternatives? How many alternatives are there? Additionally, if after the review of the RF design it is determined that additional sites are needed, we assume that this RFP would only cover the assumed single site at the Memorial Park and charges/fees to manage additional sites would be an additional charge.

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 5 of 7

A. Assume a single tower location at Veterans Memorial Park for the Cost Proposal. We will negotiate with the awarded vendor if a redesign and additional service is required.

Q. Statement of Work B.2: Confirming that we are not directly coordinating/ordering due diligence services (NEPA, Geotech, Survey, etc) and that we are just monitoring the designer who is paying for and ordering these services?

A. Correct, the Technical Owner’s Representative is not directly coordinating due diligence services, only monitoring.

Q. Statement of Work D.2: We are assuming that the Designer has (as part of their scope) responsibilities of actually replying to any shop drawing review requests and RFI’s? We are assuming we are just brokering these conversations and not directly responsible in replying.

A. Correct.

Q. Statement of Work D.6: Who is commissioning the project? Baycom?

A. Baycom will lead the commissioning with cooperation from the County.

The Owner’s Technical Representative will monitor the process and provide guidance to validate performance.

Q. What is the name of the Design Consultant’s company? Where are they located?

A. Baycom Inc., Green Bay, WI.

Q. Who is the supplier of the P25 radio equipment and microwave backhaul? Is this the Design Consultant?

A. The Design Consultant, Baycom is the supplier.

Q. Who is the Manufacturer of the P25 radio equipment that the County has purchased?

A. Motorola.

Q. Who is the Manufacturer of the microwave backhaul equipment that the County has purchased?

A. Aviat.

Q. On pages 5-6 of the RFP, it states the following Meetings, Documentation &

Reporting are required? Which of the meetings are required to be “in person” meetings and which can be accomplished “virtually” through a TEAMS or ZOOM meeting?

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 6 of 7

A. Most can be virtual except the presentations to County committees or Board.

Q. Can you tell me what you mean by Certified Radio Communications

Professional. It is written in on RFP’s 7th page, item# 6.

A. We are removing this requirement. We are looking for past professional experience regarding radio systems and public safety radio operation.

Q. Are you asking for asking for 95%/95% coverage on-street coverage, in-building, or both? If in-building, in order to provide a more realistic Level of Effort (“LOE”) we will need the exact name of those buildings for more accurate pricing.

A. Assume on-street coverage for RFP purposes. We will examine if we need to expand to in-building coverage at certain locations and will negotiate additional costs if required.

Q. How would the County like to be listed as a Certificate Holder on the insurance policies and should we reference this **address for the County in our insurance policy? **Kenosha County, WI, 1010 56th Street | Kenosha, WI 53140

A. Coverage afforded shall apply as primary with Kenosha County named as an additional insured on the commercial general, and excess/umbrella liability policies. The address listed in the question is correct.

Q. Is the existing consultant eligible to bid on the RFP?

A. Evans & Associates has retired and is unlikely to respond.

Q. The RFP requests an “insurance certificate or statement of insurability meeting

County limits.” Our primary business insurance policy meets the County’s $1M/$2M liability limits and already includes blanket additional insured status, waiver of subrogation, and primary and non-contributory coverage. However, we do not carry separate Excess or Umbrella liability coverage. Given that our existing policy meets the stated County limits, can you please confirm whether Excess or Umbrella liability coverage is still required?

A. If your firm does not carry excess or umbrella liability, then the general liability coverage would need to be $2M/$3M minimum.

Q. The RFP states that the County—not the Owner’s Representative—will directly procure and contract with the General Contractor under its own separate competitive process. It also notes that the release date for that RFQ/RFB has not yet been announced and will be issued by the County at a later stage in the project.

To support our internal planning and ensure alignment with the County’s anticipated project schedule, we respectfully request any available information regarding:

RFP #2606 Addendum One Page 7 of 7

• The expected timeline for releasing the General Contractor RFQ/RFB

• Whether the County anticipates issuing the construction procurement before or after the Owner’s Representative is selected

• Any preliminary milestones or sequencing the County can share at this stage

A. The intent is to have the Owner’s Technical Representative awarded before we bid out the tower in order for the Representative to be a part of that process.

We hope the timeline would be:

4/24/2026 Award of the Owner’s Technical Representative June 2026 out for bid on the radio tower July 2026 Award of the radio tower bid with construction to begin as soon as lead times permit.

Project completion quarter 2 of 2027.

End Addendum 1

Revision 2-17-17 Kenosha County Simulcast Study

Kenosha County Simulcast Assessment and Feasibility Study Revised 2/17/2017

Incorporating Comments Received up to 1/30/2017

Kenosha County, Wisconsin

Submitted to:

Ray Arbet

Kenosha Department of Public Works

Submitted by:

Ralph Evans

Evans Associates

Table of Contents

I. Kenosha Community’s Current Public Safety Radio Communications Network

A. Inventory of Public Safety User Agencies:

B. Overview of the Communications Network Architecture C. Radio Communications Network Equipment/Infrastructure Responsibilities D. “Related” Public Safety Communications Network Initiatives Currently In-process:

II. Summary of Network Issues and Performance Gaps A. East of I-94 Radio Coverage Issues:

B. West of I-94 Coverage Issues:

III. Issue Mitigation and Network Design Strategy A. Features and Advantages of a Simulcast Network

1. Overview of Simulcast radio communication network design and functionality

2. Summary of Basic Advantages of a Simulcast systems:

B. Requirements to Build an Effective (95%/95%) Simulcast System in Kenosha C. Other Strategies that Could be Taken into Consideration in Designing a Simulcast Network:

IV. Cost Estimate for a New Simulcast Network A. New East-End Tower Site:

B. New West-End Tower Site:

C. Support Equipment:

D. Frequency Work E. Decommission the Silver Lake Tower Site

V. Next Steps A. Tasks required for Permanent Re-Purposing of the Parks Frequency for County Fire Progress Report: Re-Purposing of the County Parks Frequency in Advance of the Kenosha simulcast project. .. Error!

Bookmark not defined.

The following is a summary of the tasks that have been completed or are in-process:

2. Licensing Actions Required

3. New Equipment that is Already in Place

4. Enabling Dispatch Functionality for New Frequency:

6. System Testing/Commissioning

7. Total Cost: Total cost is estimated at-$10,000 - $12,000 and a timeframe of 2-3 months

Appendix X-1 Summary Task List Appendix X-2 Detailed cost analysis – Sites #1, #2, #3, #4 Appendix X3. Tabulation of VHF Measuring and Interference Analysis Locations Appendix X-4. Agency Frequency Assignments

Kenosha Public Safety Radio Communications Plan Summary

This document represents the final report for the Kenosha County Simulcast Assessment and Feasibility Study. The purpose of this document is to:

• Provide an outline of how our community’s Public Safety Radio (voice) communications network currently operates, including but not limited to:

- An inventory of the Public Safety user agencies and their respective roles.

- Overview of the current communications network architecture.

• Summarize current network issues and performance gaps.

• Outline a network strategy designed to address the identified issues and gaps so to provide 95%/95% radio coverage (95% of the geographic area covered 95% of the time) and would be capable of meeting community Public Safety needs at least 15 years into the future.

• Provide radio network improvement cost estimates and implementation strategy options.

I. Kenosha Community’s Current Public Safety Radio Communications Network

A. Inventory of Public Safety User Agencies:

There are a total of 19 law Enforcement and fire protection/EMS agencies that operate in Kenosha County. Below is a breakdown by function:

1. Law Enforcement (9 total):

• Kenosha Sheriff’s Department*

• Kenosha Police Department*

• Pleasant Prairie Police

• Twin Lakes Police

• UW-Parkside Police

• Salem Public Safety

• Randall Water Patrol*

• Paddock Lake Water Patrol*

• Wheatland Town Police*

2. Fire Protection/EMS (10 total):

• Kenosha Fire Department*

• Pleasant Prairie Fire/Rescue Department*

• Somers Fire/Rescue Department*

• Bristol Fire/Rescue Department*

• Paris Fire/Rescue Department*

• Salem Fire/Rescue Department*

• Randall Fire Department*

• Wheatland Fire Department*

• Twin Lakes Fire/Rescue Department*

• Scout Leader Rescue*

(Note that the 9 agencies in “red” form a “communications consortium” referred to collectively as “County Fire”)

Kenosha Joint Services Dispatch has the ability to communicate with all of the above agencies. They also provide full radio dispatch services to listed agencies that are identified with an * (15 total). It is important to note that with regard to Twin Lakes Fire/Rescue and Pleasant Prairie Fire/Rescue, Joint Services only provides primary radio dispatch services for emergency medical calls.

The specific communications frequencies used by each agency are detailed in attached Exhibit X-4.

B. Overview of the Communications Network Architecture

1. Current Radio Communications Network Utilizes both “Simplex” and “Multicast” Modes:

a. Simplex Mode: This approach is utilized by the 9 agencies classified as County Fire. Simplex operation as presently employed by County Fire makes use of a single frequency for both transmit and receive functions. This technique uses the minimum of frequency resources, but limits communication to a single user – only one transmission is permitted at a time. Given that this frequency is used by multiple agencies that are required to coordinate separate but simultaneously occurring events, this shortcoming can present many contention issues.

b. Multicast Mode: This approach is utilized by the balance of the Public Safety agencies in the City and County. Multicast mode features:

• “Paired” Frequencies: As opposed to Simplex, in a public safety Multicast mode radio frequencies are “paired” into one transmit and one receive frequency for each communications channel. One of the advantages of this arrangement is that it enables relatively weak mobile and portable signals to be received, amplified and retransmitted at higher power, resulting in improved coverage. A disadvantage is that because two frequencies are used for each communications channel, this approach is frequency spectrum inefficient and often results in “transmission congestion” due to interference. This can negatively impact dispatch operations.

• Manual Transmit Switching: With the existing Kenosha County public safety Multicast network, each transmit frequency is broadcast using a single tower/antenna. Effective communications are therefore susceptible to limitations due to: the distance between sender and receiver, topography, building construction, and other factors. Manual switching, although possible, is virtually never used in the Kenosha network to compensate for Multicast transmit/receive deficiencies.

A pictorial representation of the current multicast system is shown on the next page. As can be seen, essential communications among base, portables and mobiles is limited to one path per channel at a time. As per the diagram below, once the radio signal is received at the public safety building dispatch center, it can be rebroadcast at higher power on a different frequency from the same tower site, or directed to a different tower to be rebroadcast.

Figure 1 – Current Simplex/Multicast System

C. Radio Communications Network Equipment/Infrastructure Responsibilities

This section provides an overview of “which agency is responsible for what” infrastructure segment with regard to the Public Safety Radio Communications Network, as noted by the following:

1. User Agency Responsibilities: Typically, each Public Safety agency is responsible for their own use of the network with respect to the following functions:

a. Licensing and protecting their frequencies,

b. Purchasing/maintaining their own base stations, tower-based equipment, mobile/handheld devices and dedicated or multiplexed send/receive antennas.

2. Joint Services Responsibilities: Joint Services is responsible for acquiring, maintaining and operating the county dispatch system, the 911 system and related software and hardware interface equipment.

3. County Responsibilities: The County is also responsible for the purchase/maintenance of the 4 primary tower sites, which includes: towers, support buildings and basic network infrastructure (electrical service, fiber/microwave connections, HVAC, multi-channel send/receive antennas and backup power). The 4 sites presently utilized are located at:

a. Public Safety Building Site - 2 towers at this site (1 on the building, 1 adjacent)

b. 60th Street Site – in Nash Park

c. 45/50 Site – in Bristol, on the Kenosha County Center campus

d. Silver Lake Site – near the intersection of CTH B and STH 50

e. County Fire – uses 60th St. tower equipment; county provides associated maintenance services

D. “Related” Public Safety Communications Network Initiatives Currently In-process:

A brief description of the other significant ongoing Public Safety Communications Projects is provided in this section, which should establish a context of how these key projects interrelate while addressing critical sub-systems of the Public Safety Communications network:

1. Public Safety Software Project: Joint Services is currently implementing an enterprise-wide, multi-agency public safety software project with a projected completion of 2nd quarter 2017. It is fair to describe this software as the Public Safety Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System – capturing and managing all of the records/data critical for all facets of Public Safety operations. It is replacing a roughly 20-year-old, minimally-supported and obsolete system.

2. Next Generation 911 Upgrade Project: Joint Services has recently completed an RFP/selection process to upgrade to a “Next Gen” 911 dispatch equipment software in 2017. This new system will display location information more effectively and will, upon implementation of supporting state and telephone company infrastructure, have the capability to support multi-mode voice, video and data from hand held wireless devices.

3. The 4.9 GHz. Project: The 4.9 GHz. network is Kenosha County’s high-bandwidth “mesh” system that supports video and data applications designed to store and forward data at high speed from base stations to mobiles. Typical applications include: streaming video with accompanying audio, efficient and near-instant field access to a multitude of databases and digital documents. The mesh system enables a basic level of redundancy, but requires additional tower sites to accomplish this redundancy. The KPD currently uses sections of the network to enable some voice communications.

II. Summary of Network Issues and Performance Gaps

Interviews with the following agency representatives were conducted to identify the extent that the present public safety radio communications system meets the needs of stakeholder agencies, and to identify performance gaps:

- Officer Andy Skowronski, Kenosha Police Department

- Charles Smith, Kenosha Sheriff’s Department, Chief Deputy (Retired January 2017)

- David “Mike” Slover, Salem Fire Department (County Fire Representative), Chief

- Josh Nielsen, Kenosha Joint Services, Assistant Director

- Paul Murphy, Kenosha Fire Department, Lieutenant

- Marty Lacock, Kenosha County IT, CIO

The following is a summary description of the functional issues and performance gaps identified as a result of the agency interviews and accompanying technical investigation:

A. East of I-94 Radio Coverage Issues:

The KPD, KFD, Somers, Pleasant Prairie and KSD have all experienced signal problems to the east when using the existing system. Typically, the issues become more intrusive closer to shores of Lake Michigan (from the Racine border to the Illinois state-line). Audio artifacts are evident in both mobile and portable receivers.

Additionally, there are portable radio in-building coverage issues at a number of commercial and hospital sites east of I-94, observed by the KPD, KFD, Pleasant Prairie and Somers Fire. This is due to weak signals that cannot penetrate large steel and concrete buildings.

All of these performance issues can be technically described as follows:

• Frequency Crowding - co-channel and adjacent frequency interference (transmit bases on the same frequency too close together physically);

• Skip Interference - long-distance co-channel interference (e.g. from Illinois, Indiana & Michigan);

• “Dead Spots” - radio wave refraction (“shadowing”) due to obstructions such as buildings;

• Weak signals due to the distance from the transmitter site to the receiver.

In an attempt to address some of the dead-spot issues within certain commercial buildings, the City of Kenosha has recently modified their commercial building code to require the use of radio signal booster amplifiers in buildings that meet specific size/construction criteria. This will assist in improving in-building Public Safety Radio Communications performance on a site-specific basis.

Additionally, given frequency band (wavelength) similarities inherent to the VHF frequencies used by the Kenosha agencies, it is not unusual for “adjacent channel interference” to occur among the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System (MABAS)/Interagency Fire Emergency Radio Network (IFERN) channels and the existing County Fire channel. Additionally, KSD’s #3 channel and KPD’s #3 are susceptible to co-channel (same-channel) interference.

Over the years, the KPD and KFD have developed several remote or “spur” receive sites throughout the city of Kenosha in an attempt to mitigate these performance issues; sites have included:

a. KPD:

- 64th Ave. & 45th St.

- 7400 block of 125th Ave.

- 8700 block of 22nd Ave.

- Fire Station #6 Site

- 60th St. Tower Site

- PSB Site

b. KFD (All are “receive” except for 60th St, PSB Site can also be used as back-up Transmit):

- Fire Station #6 Site

- Fire Station #2 Site

- 60th St. Tower Site

- PSB Site

- I-94 Site

B. West of I-94 Coverage Issues:

Agencies that operate west of I-94 experience many of the issues noted on the east side – but they may have different specific root-causes.

The KSD and a number of County Fire agencies have noted that there are also instances of frequency crowding, skip Interference and to lesser degree, dead-spots on the west side of the county. In addition to the east-side issues, Self-Interference is a performance deficiency which can be highly disruptive to dispatch, especially in an emergency when clear communications are paramount. Self-interference is a condition that can occur when a signal splits and travels two or more paths to a single receiver – in a multicast environment there is no ability to manage this condition when it occurs. In some cases, geographic features such as lakes and hills can affect propagation in this manner.

The skip Interference experienced on the west end of the County is typically induced by atmospheric and/or topographical anomalies. Signals from base stations can travel many miles, and sometimes a station a hundred miles away can suffer interference due to radio signals bouncing off of the ionosphere or refracting around a lake.

There are also numerous “dead-zones” throughout the west service area, as identified by the interviewees, including pockets in Twin Lakes, Silver Lake, Trevor, Salem and the Powers Lake areas. As these communities grow more populous, the demand for Public Safety services will increase. Typically, these dead-zones result from a combination of terrain blockage, insufficient antenna heights or improper antenna locations. Effective mitigation for any of these areas is not presently employed or contemplated

The map below shows a typical coverage when using a single site (Bristol at Hy 45/50 where the county fire antenna is located). We performed an experiment using the Bristol Tower site to determine if re-purposing a no longer used County Parks frequency for County Fire use would be advantageous. The experiment confirmed that the Parks frequency would provide benefits to County Fire because it would be less prone to interference from the adjacent channel IFERN. The experiment also gave solid insight into the coverage provided by a single, centrally located repeater site.

As noted in Section V. it will be recommended that the County Parks frequency be repurposed for permanent County Fire use. This action will provide County Fire with a frequency that is no longer subject to IFERN interference – but it would not resolve geographic coverage issues. Repurposing this frequency can be considered a necessary interim step toward building a network to resolve geographic coverage deficiencies.

Figure 2 below shows the performance of this frequency from a single, centrally located tower. This coverage performance can be compared to the 95% county coverage provided by the proposed simulcast system as shown in Figure 3.

Map Key - Coverage Contours

Black outline represents County boundaries

Green = Fully saturated coverage 100% intelligibility with no noise on the audio Yellow = Very good coverage and intelligibility (slight noise on audio) Red = Fair Coverage; occasional loss in intelligibility due to noise Blue =Frequent loss in intelligibility due to noise White – No coverage

Figure 2 – Coverage from a Single Tower (Example at Bristol)

C. Non-Geographic-Specific Performance Issues:

1. County-Wide Coverage: Kenosha’s Public Safety agencies with county-wide missions (e.g. Sheriff, County Fire), do not have consistent, robust county-wide coverage using the single assigned county-wide frequency;

2. Radio Signal Range: Signal range (distance coverage) is limited by individual tower antenna heights and local geographic topology;

3. Single Point of Transmit: One active transmit antenna per tower per frequency results in significant geographic areas with compromised or no service;

4. Lack of Flexibility: It is virtually impossible to effectively modify the existing multicast system to cover new geographic areas within the County as residential/commercial development occurs;

5. Support required for both analog and digital modulation is an expensive upgrade: Simulcast systems can be easily configured to utilize both analog and digital modulation. Analog is preferred by fire departments for its voice clarity, while digital modulation is desirable for enhanced security.

Multicast systems are less amenable to conversion because of costs for imbedded equipment

6. Long Distance Interference: Interference can originate from other base stations on the same frequency in Illinois, central Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan. This interference negatively impacts communication quality throughout the county.

7. Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination: Multi-jurisdictional coordination can be difficult due to Multicast self-Interference and Simplex operational limitations;

8. Seamless Coverage Issues: Present “seamless coverage areas” (maximum clarity) are compromised by industrial noise and the radio equipment technology currently in use. Field use of “on the hip” vs.

“on the shoulder” radios can affect radio performance.

9. IFERN/County Fire: County Fire’s present simplex frequency suffers adjacent channel interference from the IFERN frequency because the frequencies are too close together (see Appendix X-4).

D. Other Issues to Consider Addressing:

Other issues that had been inferred during the interview process or identified by the Consultant, include:

1. Tower Site UPS/Generator Remote Monitoring: All tower sites are equipped with an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) and generator back up sets. All tower sites should have “remote monitoring” capabilities to ensure prompt notification (to Dispatch and Facilities) of any interruption of utility supplied power and operation-status of back-up power systems. This lack of automated monitoring has hampered network operations and slowed problem resolution when loss of utility supplied power events have occurred.

2. Reduce the number of KPD and KFD spur receive sites: If the coverage for the KPD and KFD could be improved with a more robust network simulcast infrastructure. The number of “spur” sites and the associated cost and maintenance issues could be reduced, increasing reliability.

3. “Radio Systems Administrator” (RSA) Position: All agencies have limited internal resources to manage and technically support their portion of the radio systems network. There is no internal central source (i.e. at Joint Services) of technical expertise, test equipment or spare parts. Agencies rely on contract support for maintenance and repair services which has, in turn, resulted in a lack of coordination of agency projects. Currently, there is a vulnerability due to the non-availability of technical personnel when events occur requiring technical investigation, trouble-shooting or issue mitigation. This internal “skills-gap” poses some risks to the voice-component of our Public Safety Communications Network. Creating the RSA position would ensure:

a. Coordinated technical review of any proposed changes to the system and evaluation of impact on other users;

b. Eliminate resource redundancy and ensure overall system performance for all agencies;

c. As technology advances – the seamless integration of radio system and IT systems is imperative

– this position would assist in bridging the gap ensuring effective integration (an example is IP Phones and dispatch 911 calls);

d. The time required to perform technical issue investigation/mitigation would typically decrease;

e. More effective management of all network related documentation (manuals, schematics, etc.);

f. Management of equipment incident/repair history records;

g. Maintenance of equipment specifications to ensure inter-operability;

h. Utilize APCO,FCC and County Fire Frequency Registers.

4. Back-Up Center Enhancements: KJS should lead the development of a plan for updating the capabilities of the Dispatch Back-Up Center located at the Kenosha County Center in Bristol. This will involve coordination with all Public Safety agencies, County IT and County Public Works. Defining the level of functionality is required so the Back-Up Center will drive the strategy and planning for any updates to the Center.

III. Issue Mitigation and Network Design Strategy

In order to gather signal performance data to prepare this report, a test repeater was installed at the existing Kenosha County Center (KCC) Site in Bristol utilizing a frequency previously used by County Parks (Parks no longer has a need for this frequency) and one new frequency to form a duplex repeater channel. Base radio equipment was also installed using equipment that supports a Simulcast network so that it could be reemployed when necessary. The test parameters were as follows:

Repeater Input: 159.1125 MHz Repeater Output: 151.235 MHz Tone Squelch: 162.2 Hz.

Power: 80 Watts ERP Height: 285’ AGL

To accurately measure the effectiveness of re-using the re-purposed Parks frequency and related equipment, geographic signal mapping was conducted using both field-testing and computer-assisted signal-mapping software (“Raptr”) to measure mitigation-strategy effectiveness.

Results of these efforts provided the following information:

• East County - It appears that by utilizing a directionally focused signal from a location in the vicinity of the Public Safety Building – virtually all of the challenges to signal coverage in the eastern-most areas of the County can be mitigated.

• West County - It appears that with a more westerly located tower site that west-county “dead-spots” could be minimized, enabling attainment of 95/95 signal coverage for any frequency requiring county-wide coverage.

• Parks Frequency Re-Purpose - It appears that this re-purposed frequency would not be susceptible to, nor contribute to conflicts with surrounding area agency frequencies (confirming that it would be effective for County Fire use). A license has been issued by the FCC for this repeater pair, and the repeater is currently functional. APCO has been engaged to move the frequency to the 45/50 Bristol site.

• Simulcast Effectiveness Map: Coverage contours were calculated using the RAPTR program in order to determine if the existing tower sites (60th Street and Bristol) in conjunction with the new sites (PSB Vicinity and KD Park) can be formed into a 95/95 simulcast network. The map below outlines coverage effectiveness and feasibility using these four sites in a simulcast network (Figure 3). This map should be compared to Figure 1, coverage for a single site multicast network:

Figure 3 – Coverage from a Simulcast System Using Proposed Equipment

Black outline represents County boundaries Coverage assuming 6’ above ground level portables

Green = Fully saturated coverage 100% intelligibility with no noise on the audio Yellow = Very good coverage and intelligibility (slight noise on audio) Red = Fair Coverage; occasional loss in intelligibility due to noise Blue =Frequent loss in intelligibility due to noise White – No coverage

Taking all of this information/analysis into consideration, it appears that a network could be designed that would address all of the identified performance gaps and additionally provide a foundation for:

• Creating a robust 95/95 level of countywide coverage for all Kenosha Public Safety Agencies.

• Reducing (possibly eliminating) the number of KPD active “spur” sites now required to enable coverage in the easternmost area of the County.

• Enabling a second, robust 95/95 level of countywide coverage frequency for the KSD.

A. Features and Advantages of a Simulcast Network This section will provide an overview of the basic functionality of a simulcast network, and also provide insight into the advantages of the simulcast protocol network. An exploration of the prerequisites to construction of a simulcast network in Kenosha County will also be described.

1. Overview of Simulcast radio communication network design and functionality.

a. The Simulcast Architecture: features improved spectrum efficiency by making maximum use of each communications channel and increasing coverage area;

b. More “Traffic” Per Channel: Simulcast protocols allow the same frequency pairs to be utilized throughout the county by synchronizing the channels presently used at one site with the same channels at other county locations. This permits closely defined transmit sources with the ability to carry more data and higher density voice traffic over a wide area without interference;

c. “Trunked vs. Non-Trunked”: There are two types of simulcast network designs: Trunked and Non-Trunked (basic simulcast as described above). A Trunked Simulcast network has all of the advantages/functionality of a Non-Trunked system but can also pack up to 5 times as much voice traffic on each channel relative to a multicast repeater system. A trunked system features a comparatively higher cost at the agency level because new portable and mobile radios must be acquired;

d. Non-Trunked Simulcast System Cost: A Non-Trunked Simulcast System can provide a cost-effective approach to increasing radio communications capacity, quality and functionality, while allowing most of the existing portable and mobile radios to be used;

e. A Non-Trunked Simulcast System Can Evolve to Trunked System: A basic, non-trunked system can evolve to a trunked system as the county’s demand for additional public safety communications grows due to population expansion and commercial development.

f. Multiple Site Transmission: The simultaneous use of multiple sites increases the ability of portable and mobile radios to compensate for obstructions in the signal path, resulting in greater coverage and higher building penetration;

g. Digital Modulation: Digital modulation and interoperability is supported by simulcast systems.

This enables encryption and ensures inter-system compatibility with other state and federal network systems.

h. Backbone: To utilize a new simulcast system, the tower-to-tower backbone (whether microwave or fiber) must be GPS locked and the base station equipment must be designed for high-stability and low phase delay. This results in a somewhat higher interconnect cost.

2. Summary of Basic Advantages of a Simulcast systems:

a. Coverage: Multiple simulcast sites as described in this document would be designed to seamlessly cover 95% of the county 95% of the time (compared to approximately 32% for each frequency covered by the current multicast system).

b. Building Penetration: Higher penetration can be obtained in high-density buildings for better reception of fire communications (e.g. Meijer stores or Amazon warehouses);

c. Flexibility: A simulcast network, if properly implemented, is flexible and modular; it is normally designed to expand and evolve from a base system to a fully trunked system as information/communication demand increases;

d. Interference Reduction: receiving sites are “phase-locked” to multi-point transmitters thereby reducing interference and noise and increasing “received aperture”;

e. Migration Flexibility: simulcast can support both digital and/or analog equipment. For most of the county’s agencies, an entry simulcast system would require only changes to tower base stations and antenna coupling equipment to add the new frequencies.

As shown in the figure below, simulcast radio networks feature higher volumes of narrowband voice traffic over existing FCC frequencies with more complete coverage, less interference from surrounding radio base stations and better penetration into robustly constructed buildings such as hospitals, commercial, and manufacturing facilities.

Figure 4 – Higher Use of tower/antenna Resources by a Simulcast Network in Kenosha County

B. Requirements to Build an Effective (95%/95%) Simulcast System in Kenosha Evans Associates performed initial technical studies that provide insight into the functionality of a new Simulcast System. These studies show that it appears feasible to build a Simulcast network utilizing four distinct, geographically separated sites to meet the 95/95 seamless coverage target:

1. Two existing tower sites appear capable of accommodating the equipment necessary for the

Simulcast system:

a. 60th Street Tower

b. Bristol-STH 45/50 Tower (this tower may require some modifications to optimize).

2. Two new tower sites would need to be developed to complete the total of four required:

a. New West Site: KD Park has a location available that would be strategically effective.

b. New PSB Vicinity Site: a site near the PSB, possibly in a parking lot at the intersection of 13th

Avenue and 56th Street would be highly effective.

With regard to the western KD Park site, a number of alternatives were considered (e.g. existing Silver Lake tower, Twin Lakes PD tower) but they all had limitations and didn’t address all of the coverage performance issues that exist. The site at KD Park appears to address all coverage issues and as a bonus may allow for the de-commissioning of the Silver Lake Tower site if deemed advantageous.

On the east, we’ve performed load capacity studies that found the existing PSB Lattice Tower and Monopole Tower are, for all practical purposes, at full capacity. We also examined a number of alternate east-end sites and determined that developing a new tower site proximate to the PSB would accommodate the necessary simulcast system equipment, geographically enable robust coverage in the city and provide capacity for future tower-based technology needs.

Each tower site would also require a “support equipment” building similar to the building at the new 60th St. Tower Site. Following is a chart of the sites with parameters needed for the simulcast system:

Sites Height AMSL Height AGL Tower Type Latitude Longitude

KD Park 821’ 250’ Monopole 42° 33’ 29.1” 88° 14’ 15.6”

Bristol 771’ 310’ Lattice 42° 34’ 14.1” 88° 02’ 29.3”

60th Street 736’ 315’ Lattice 42° 34’ 55” 87° 52’ 54.0”

PSB Vicinity 628’ 199’ Monopole 42° 35’ 4.2” 87° 49’ 31.3”

PSB Link 637’ 199’ Monopole 42° 35’ 9.3” 87° 49’ 27.2”

C. Other Strategies that Could be Taken into Consideration in Designing a Simulcast Network:

1. Fire Departments – will continue to use analog modulation for intelligibility.

2. Channel Congestion - improvement techniques, such as split channel and wide repeater spacing should be used;

3. Tower & Building Aesthetics – may mandate the use of decorative aggregate building and monopole-type towers;

4. External Radio Interference - should be mitigated through antenna and filter design;

5. Internal & Mutual Radio Interference - should be mitigated using filter design and other techniques;

6. Agency Field Equipment - continued use is assumed of existing digital and analog field equipment that does not require high phase and power stability;

7. “Talk Around” Capability – County Fire agencies are requiring the ability to maintain use of a Simplex channel for “talk around” capabilities to be used in specific situations;

It is anticipated that the agencies with a countywide mission would be the first to migrate (KSD and County Fire). Depending upon the final configuration, these agencies may or may not be required to replace some mobile/hand-held communications equipment. The simulcast equipment is expected to accommodate a mix of analog and digital signals as the network grows. Other agencies could move to simulcast as they define their needs.

IV. Cost Estimate for a New Simulcast Network

The following discussion is a summary of the core components identified as necessary to construct the Simulcast system infrastructure and build-out a network that would address the identified performance gaps, target 95/95 county-wide coverage and provide for our Public Safety Communications needs for the next 15 years (extending the planning horizon beyond 15 years is considered unproductive – given uncertainties associated with both technology and the regulatory environment):

A. New East-End Tower Site:

Develop a new tower site (secure support building, primary and back-up power, and microwave/fiber optic network interconnect) in the vicinity of the PSB.

B. New West-End Tower Site:

Develop a new tower site (tower, secure support building, primary power, back-up power and microwave/fiber optic network communications) in KD Park.

C. Support Equipment:

Install base station and tower mounted equipment at all 4 sites (the 2 new and 2 existing sites) for KSD and County Fire.

D. Frequency Work:

Agencies will need to perform frequency licensing “house-keeping” and designate a second KSD repeater channel for county-wide coverage originating at all four simulcast locations.

E. Decommission the Silver Lake Tower Site:

The Silver Lake Site may no longer be required (other non-public safety radio equipment may have to be moved) and some of the existing equipment could potentially be re-purposed. There is one antenna and receiver installed that may be have to be relocated.

A summary of the building costs associated with these activities and how the costs could be allocated annually is tabulated as follows:

Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

KD Park Tower Site $296,283

PSB Vicinity Tower Site $221,043

Equipment, Install & Frequency Work $652,506

Total Base Project Cost $1,169,832

OPTIONAL – Add second Sherriff channel P25 Digital $ 367,536

TOTAL (including second Sheriff’s channel) $1,537,368

Detailed estimates for the total base project cost are included in Appendix X2 and they have been peer reviewed for accuracy. We have also identified some possible strategies for reducing costs that could be investigated further as design/RFP specifications are developed:

1. Tower design could potentially be modified to more closely match required load capacity;

2. A more visible tower design could be considered (lattice vs. monopole).

3. Identify all equipment that could be re-purposed for the new system.

4. Replace 1 or 2 of the proposed microwave links with County Fiber if determined to be cost effectiveve

(PSB Vicinity Site, 60th St. Site, Bristol Site);

5. Re-purpose the Silver Lake Building/generator for the PSB Vicinity Site;

6. One analog channel is assumed for County Fire;

7. One digital channel is assumed for the Sheriff;

8. A second Sherriff’s channel could be digital without P-25

9. A second sheriff’s channel is optional at extra cost.

V. Next Steps.

The next steps required to develop a Simulcast Network for the community’s Public Safety Radio Communications system are tabulated below. This program is designed to address all of the identified performance gaps and create a robust system that would effectively carry the radio system 15 years into the future:

A. Permanent Re-Purposing of the Parks Frequency for County Fire

County Fire had requested we pursue the interim step of repurposing the former County Parks frequency for their use in advance of building a…