Meeting of the NORCOM Governing Board Packet 06 12 2015.pdfKurt Triplett made a motion to approve...

Meeting of the NORCOM Governing Board Bellevue City Hall, 450 110th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004

Friday, June 12, 2015 • 09:00 a.m. Room 1E-108

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Open Communications from the Public

4. Action Items A. Consent Calendar

1) Minutes from the 05/08/2015 Governing Board meeting 2) May Accounts Payable Approval Report

5. Old Business

A. Fire Projects Update B. Police Projects Update C. E-911 Financial Stability Discussion D. Executed HIPAA MOU

6. New Business

A. Resolution 98 – Ratification of Logging Recorder RFP

7. Staff Reports A. Executive Director (Tom Orr) B. Deputy Director (Mike Mandella) C. Accreditation, Facilities & Continuity of Operations (Sheryl Mullen) D. Human Resources (Marla Smithhisler) E. Finance (Gwen Pilo) F. Interim Technology (Karen Furuya) G. ICRM Program Manager (Jerry Holcombe)

8. Committee Reports

A. Joint Operating Board (Mike Johnson) B. Finance Committee (Michael Olson) C. Strategic Planning Committee (Future Meetings Pending completion of ICRM, E911 Review) D. IT Committee (Future Meetings Pending)

9. Executive Session

The Governing Board will hold an Executive Session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.

The Executive Session is expected to last one hour.

1

Meeting Minutes NORCOM Principals Assembly Bellevue City Hall – Room 1E-108 May 08, 2015

Page 1 of 4

Governing Board Representatives Present: Mark Risen, Bob Van Horne, Bill Archer, Marilynne Beard, Kurt Triplett, Steve Burns, Bob Larson, Bud Backer, Chris Connor, Jim Torpin, and Tim Dahl.

1. Call to Order The NORCOM Principals Assembly was called to order by Jim Torpin, Governing Board Chair, at 0901 a.m. on May 08, 2015.

2. Roll Call

Jim Torpin initiated roundtable introductions of Principals Assembly Representatives, Governing Board Representatives and NORCOM staff.

3. Open Communications

None.

4. Employee Recognition This was deferred to the June Governing Board Meeting.

5. Action Items

A. Consent Calendar Kurt Triplett made a motion to approve the items on the Consent Agenda. Items included on the Consent Agenda were: Minutes from the April 10, 2015 Governing Board Meeting, Voucher Approval for April 1 through April 30, 2015 and Surplus and Disposal of Equipment. Accounts payable total: $1,171,974.00

Motion carried. 6. Old Business

A. ICRM & Project Prioritization Update Fire Mobile The Gobi modem issue is still ongoing. NORCOM stands strong that they will not accept this project until this issue is fixed. TriTech has expressed frustration with NORCOM for not accepting, as the issue is deemed minute. The fourth hot-fix was recently provided. NORCOM is actively monitoring the error logging.

System Upgrade Project The TriTech proposal/sales quote has been signed. Professional services work on the pre-production and interim environments is complete. A test run of the upgrade process has been conducted. It took a total of 17.5 hours with three teams working independently. The projected timeline for completion remains early Q3 2015.

New World 10.2 Upgrade NORCOM has paid the 2014 SSMA payment. The 2013 SSMA payment has not occurred, as there are still remaining priority issues. NORCOM and New World have begun discussions about next steps once the priority issues are addressed, which include trading existing, unused modules for more desirable options.

2


Page 2 of 4

LInX Interface NORCOM has not been able to upload to LInX since October 2014. As Bothell Police has experienced the same, it is believed the issue resides with LInX. NORCOM has no direct contact with Northrop Grumman, so all communications are vetted through the Sheriff’s Office. A meeting will be scheduled shortly to discuss upload issues and new interface options. If all five police agencies are able to agree on the same setup, it’s possible Northrop Grumman with lower the original quote. Archer inquired as to the amount of the quote provided by Northrop Grumman. NORCOM did not have an exact number, as the quote entailed all PSAPs, not just NORCOM. There is work to try and delineate costs for just NORCOM agencies.

B. E911 Financial Stability Discussion

The participation agreement with KCE911 expired April 26, 2015. The PSAPs and KCE911 have been in negotiations to sign an extension and/or amendment. Until an agreement is reached, both parties have agreed to continue operating under the spirit of the previous contract. The sticking points seem to be language based; the PSAPs believe the provisos should be included while KCE911 does not. Both the technical and financial audits are complete. Drafts are expected late May or early June. The PSAPs have been asked to respond to those drafts as a group, rather than individually. Orr spoke about the Seattle PD news article.

7. New Business

A. Resolution 93 – Joint Integrated Prioritization List Orr recapped the purpose behind, and history of, the creation of the joint integrated prioritization list. The presented list has been approved for recommendation to the Governing Board by Police Stakeholders, Fire Stakeholders, and the Joint Operations Board. Backer made a motion to approve. Backer advised Eastside Fire and Rescue supports the joint integrated prioritization list, however believes NORCOM should continue to look at the needs of technical staff for daily IT requirements that are too small or insignificant to include on the prioritization list. Orr advised in order to create a new position for IT, a business case will need to be created. Larson expressed the opinion that it may be hard to differentiate between the larger and small projects. Dahl mirrored Backer’s request for the available resources to address daily utilities. Triplett advised he believes this should be handled through the budget program. Orr confirmed there are two IT positions open, which may alleviate some of the concern once filled. Triplett inquired about the process if emergent technology projects presented once Resolution 93 is passed. Orr confirmed the essence of this process is to re-evaluate quarterly. Amendment of the work plan would be vetted through the Governing Board. Risen inquired as to the status of the Service Level Agreements. Orr confirmed this would be part of the end-of-smoothing discussion. Motion carried.

3


Page 3 of 4

B. Resolution 94 – Approval of the 2016 Budget Policy Pilo recapped the risks, considerations, and opportunities of the 2016 budget policy. The 2016 Budget Policy has been approved for recommendation to the Governing Board by the Finance Committee and Joint Operating Board. Dahl made a motion to approve. No discussion.

Motion carried.

C. Resolution 95 – 2015 Budget Amendment Pilo presented programs to be carried forward from the 2014 ending fund balance, which

included the 2014 New World SSMA, Deputy Director’s office, workload capacity study, and

Sotebeer agreement. New projects include a transfer to equipment replacement, transfer to

rate stabilization, and recruitment for IT staff. Capital funds projects to carry forward from the

2014 ending fund balance are the New World, TriTech, and OBS contracts. New requests include

Microsoft licensing and the TriTech upgrade PS.

Larson inquired as to whether NORCOM’s policy was to project ending fund balances for future

balances. Pilo confirmed that is done in some funds, but not the operating fund. Larson also

inquired about whether the new projects were necessary to complete in 2015, or whether they

could be pushed out to 2016. Pilo confirmed the capital projects are necessary. Backer inquired

about the cost of the Deputy Director’s office. Orr advised the cost that, as a tenant, the cost is

out of NORCOM’s control.

Torpin inquired if NORCOM has targets for the ending fund balance and where the process is

based on those. Operating expense reserve is 5% of operating fund less payroll; NORCOM is on

target and will not need to add to this through 2016. NORCOM attempts to keep the escrow

fund keep as close to zero as possible. The rate stabilization fund cannot be more than 10% of

the operating fund, which includes payroll. Kurt made a motion to approve. No discussion.

Motion carried.

D. Resolution 96 – Ratification of TriTech Sales Proposal/Quote Execution Orr recapped the electronic vote made by the Governing Board allowing NORCOM to execute a

pass-through payment from King County EMS to TriTech for the development of the eCBD

interface. King County EMS budgeted and committed $91K to reimburse NORCOM the TriTech

quote of $89K. Backer made a motion to approve.

Triplett inquired as to why the listed amount is $238K versus $91K. Orr confirmed that is

KCEMS’s budgeted category, which includes other projects. The $91K committed to NORCOM

was added to that amount.

Motion carried.

4


Page 4 of 4

E. Resolution 97 – Amendment to Executive Director Employment Agreement Torpin explained that the amendment presented splits the current agreement into two sections; automatic COLA adjustments and merit based increments. The CPI in the language of the resolution is the language established for the NORCOM Associated Guild. The CPI could be more, less, or not available if the Guild contract has not been settled. Torpin has created alternative language for the Board to consider, if necessary. Dahl clarified that the CPI is not an established CPI, but rather based on the NORCOM Associated Guild negotiations. Overall, the goal is to assure cost of living is separate from merit. Larson clarified that the term COLA was going to be used in negotiations, rather than CPI. Orr confirmed CPI will be referenced in negotiations, but not mentioned in the contract. Triplett made a motion to approve. Motion carried.

8. Staff reports:

Individual staff reports from NORCOM staff were included in the Board packet. Chair Torpin asked if Board members had any questions regarding the reports or if NORCOM staff has anything further to contribute.

9. Committee Reports

A. Joint Operating Board No discussion

B. Finance Committee No discussion.

C. Strategic Planning Committee No discussion.

D. IT Committee Orr advised Dee Hathaway has passed the background check. Mr. Hathaway will begin the polygraph and psych shortly. An estimated start date should be established by next week – potentially June.

Meeting adjourned at 0950 a.m.

Approved by:

_________________________________________________ Chair Attest: ___________________________________________ Secretary

5

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING

PROTECTED HEALTH INFORMATION

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, dated as of ________, 2015 (this “MOU”) is entered into by and among the North East King County Regional Public Safety Communications Agency (“NORCOM”), a consolidated public safety communications agency formed by its member public agencies under the Washington Interlocal Cooperation Act (chapter 39.34 RCW) and organized as a nonprofit entity under chapter 24.06 RCW, and the Member Agencies that execute this MOU from time to time (each, a “Member Agency” and together with NORCOM, the “Parties”).

WHEREAS, the purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding between the Parties with respect to the security and confidentiality of certain “protected” health information (“Protected Health Information” or “PHI”) under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations thereunder by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other applicable laws including chapter 70.02 RCW, the Washington Uniform Health Care Information Act, as amended; and

WHEREAS, 45 CFR § 164.504(e)(1) requires a written agreement between a “covered entity” and a “business associate” limiting the use and disclosure of PHI and requiring certain assurances that the information shared will be protected in the hands of the receiving agency; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to 45 CFR § 164.504(e)(3), if a covered entity and a business associate are both governmental entities, such governmental entities may make the required assurances pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, rather than within a business associate agreement; and

WHEREAS, depending on the nature of the activities conducted, certain Member Agencies may be considered “covered entities” for purposes of HIPAA, and NORCOM may then be considered a “business associate” of such covered entities; and

WHEREAS, to the extent that certain Member Agencies are “covered entities” for purposes of HIPAA, and to the extent that NORCOM is a business associate of those Member Agencies, this MOU is intended to provide assurances that NORCOM will appropriately safeguard PHI in conformance with HIPAA and the regulations promulgated thereunder;

NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually understood that:

I. DEFINITIONS.

Except as otherwise defined herein, any and all terms used in this MOU shall have the same meaning as those terms in the HIPAA Rules (as defined below). As used in this MOU, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

“Breach” shall have the same meaning as the term “breach” in 45 CFR §164.402.

“Designated Record Set” shall have the same meaning as the term “designated record set” in 45 CFR §164.501.

April 10

18

2

“Electronic Protected Health Information” or “Electronic PHI” shall have the same meaning as the term “electronic protected health information” in 45 CFR §160.103, except that Electronic PHI shall be limited to the information created, received, maintained, transmitted, accessed, used and/or disclosed by NORCOM or its subcontractors or agents on behalf of a Member Agency.

“HIPAA” shall mean the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, as the law and regulations may be amended.

“HIPAA Rules” shall mean the Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules at 45 CFR Part 160 and Part 164, as they may be amended.

“Individual” shall have the same meaning as the term “individual” in 45 CFR §160.103, which includes any person who is the subject of Protected Health Information.

“Interlocal Agreement” means the North East King County Regional Public Safety Communications Agency Interlocal Agreement dated as of November 1, 2007 by and among the parties thereto.

“Member Agencies” mean the public member agencies of NORCOM that execute this MOU from time to time.

“NORCOM” means the North East King County Regional Public Safety Communications Agency, is a consolidated public safety communications agency formed by its public member agencies pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement under the Washington Interlocal Cooperation Act (chapter 39.34 RCW) and organized as a nonprofit entity under chapter 24.06 RCW

“Protected Health Information” or “PHI” shall have the same meaning as the term “protected health information” in 45 CFR §160.103, except that PHI shall be limited to the information created, received, maintained, transmitted, accessed, used and/or disclosed by NORCOM or its Subcontractors or agents on behalf of a Member Agency.

“Required by Law” shall have the same meaning as the term “required by law” in 45 CFR §164.103.

“Secretary” shall mean the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services or his or her designee.

“Security Incident” shall have the same meaning as the term “security incident” in 45 CFR §164.304.

“Unsecured Protected Health Information” or “Unsecured PHI” shall have the same meaning as the term “unsecured protected health information” in 45 CFR §164.402.

19

3

II. OBLIGATIONS OF NORCOM

a. Permitted or Required Uses. NORCOM will not use or disclose Protected HealthInformation other than as permitted or required by this MOU or as Required by Lawincluding compliance with chapter 70.02 RCW.

b. Appropriate Safeguards. NORCOM will use appropriate safeguards to prevent use ordisclosure of Protected Health Information other than as provided for by this MOU, andwith respect to Electronic Protected Health Information to comply with Subpart C of 45CFR Part 164 (45 CFR §164.302 et seq.). Such safeguards may include, but are notlimited to, implementing administrative, physical, and technical safeguards thatreasonably and appropriately protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of theElectronic Protected Health Information that NORCOM creates, receives, maintains,transmits, or accesses on behalf of a Member Agency.

c. Mitigation. NORCOM will mitigate, to the extent necessary and reasonably practicable,any harmful effects of which NORCOM becomes aware that have resulted from anyunauthorized acquisition, access, use or disclosure of Protected Health Information byNORCOM, its subcontractors or agents.

d. Reporting Unauthorized Use or Disclosure. NORCOM will report to the relevantMember Agency, in writing, any unauthorized acquisition, access, use or disclosure ofthe Member Agency’s Protected Health Information by NORCOM, its subcontractors oragents in violation of this MOU of which NORCOM becomes aware as soon asreasonably practicable.

e. Notification of Breach of Unsecured PHI. As applicable, NORCOM will comply withthe requirements of Subpart D of 45 CFR Part 164 (45 CFR §164.400 et seq.), includingbut not limited to the requirement that, following the discovery of any Breach ofUnsecured PHI of a Member Agency, NORCOM shall, without unreasonable delay, andin no event later than sixty (60) days after discovery of any Breach of Unsecured PHI,notify the Member Agency in writing of any such Breach, unless a delay in suchnotification is required by 45 CFR § 164.412 with regard to a delay for law enforcementpurposes.

f. Subcontractors and Agents. NORCOM will ensure that all of its subcontractors andagents that create, receive, maintain, transmit, access, use and/or disclose ProtectedHealth Information of a Member Agency on behalf of NORCOM, agree in writing to thesame restrictions, conditions, and requirements that apply to NORCOM with respect tosuch information.

g. Access by Individual. NORCOM will provide access, at the request of a MemberAgency, and in a reasonable time and manner, to Protected Health Information of theMember Agency in a Designated Record Set, to the Member Agency or, as directed bythe Member Agency, to an Individual or Individual’s designee in order to satisfy theMember Agency’s obligations under 45 CFR §164.524, provided that NORCOM hasProtected Health Information of the Member Agency in a Designated Record Set.

20

4

h. Amendment to PHI. NORCOM will make any amendment(s) to Protected HealthInformation of a Member Agency in a Designated Record Set that the Member Agencydirects or agrees to pursuant to 45 CFR §164.526 at the request of the Member Agency oran Individual, and in a reasonable time and manner, and to take other measures asnecessary to satisfy the Member Agency’s obligations under 45 CFR §164.526, providedthat NORCOM has Protected Health Information of the Member Agency in a DesignatedRecord Set.

i. Request for an Accounting. NORCOM will document any disclosures of ProtectedHealth Information, and information related to such disclosures, as would be required forthe Member Agency to respond to a request by an Individual for an accounting ofdisclosures of Protected Health Information in accordance with 45 CFR § 164.528.NORCOM will make available to a Member Agency or an Individual, in a reasonabletime and manner, information collected pursuant to this Section II(i) in order to providean accounting of disclosures as necessary to satisfy the Member Agency’s obligationsunder 45 CFR §164.528.

j. Additional Restrictions on PHI. If a Member Agency notifies NORCOM that it hasagreed to be bound by additional restrictions on the uses or disclosures of certainProtected Health Information of the Member Agency pursuant to the HIPAA Rules,NORCOM will be bound by such additional restrictions and will not disclose such PHI inviolation of such additional restrictions.

k. Carrying Out Member Agency Obligation(s). To the extent that NORCOM is requiredby this MOU or requested from time to time to carry out one or more of a MemberAgency’s obligation(s) under the HIPAA Rules, NORCOM shall comply with therequirements of such HIPAA Rules that would otherwise apply to the Member Agency inthe performance of such obligation(s).

l. Access by Secretary to Determine Compliance. NORCOM will make its internalpractices, books, and records, including policies and procedures, relating to the use anddisclosure of Protected Health Information created, received, maintained, transmitted, oraccessed by NORCOM on behalf of the Member Agency, available to the MemberAgency and to the Secretary, in a reasonable time and manner or as designated by theSecretary, for purposes of determining compliance with the HIPAA Rules.

m. Indemnification. NORCOM agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless eachMember Agency and its officials and employees against any and all claims, demands,causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities, judgment, costs and expenses (includingreasonable attorneys' fees) asserted against or incurred by the Member Agency or itsofficials and employees as a result of any violation of, or failure to comply with, theprovisions of this Agreement by NORCOM.

III. PERMITTED USES AND DISCLOSURES BY NORCOM

a. Use and Disclosure for Performance. Except as otherwise provided in this MOU,NORCOM may only use or disclose Protected Health Information of a Member Agency

21

5

to perform services, functions, activities, and/or duties for, or on behalf of, the Member Agency as necessary to carry out NORCOM’s powers, functions and duties under the Interlocal Agreement, any other agreement or law, or as necessary to perform its duties under this MOU, the Interlocal Agreement, any other agreement, or as Required by Law, provided that such use or disclosure would not violate the HIPAA Rules if done by the Member Agency.

b. Minimum Necessary Use and Disclosure. In accordance with the HIPAA Rules, whenusing or disclosing Protected Health Information of a Member Agency, or whenrequesting PHI from a Member Agency or another covered entity or business associate,NORCOM agrees to make reasonable efforts to limit the PHI to the minimum necessaryto accomplish the intended purpose of the use, disclosure or request.

c. Use for Management, Administration and Legal Responsibilities. NORCOM may useProtected Health Information of a Member Agency if necessary for the propermanagement and administration of NORCOM or to carry out the legal responsibilities ofNORCOM.

d. Disclosure for Management, Administration and Legal Responsibilities. NORCOM maydisclose Protected Health Information of a Member Agency if necessary for the propermanagement and administration of NORCOM or to carry out the legal responsibilities ofNORCOM, provided that (1) the disclosure is Required By Law, or (2) (A) NORCOMobtains reasonable assurances from the person to whom the information is disclosed thatit will be held confidentially and used or further disclosed only as Required By Law orfor the purpose for which it was disclosed to the person, and (B) the person notifiesNORCOM of any instances of which it is aware in which the confidentiality of theinformation has been breached.

e. Data Aggregation Services. NORCOM may use or disclose Protected Health Informationof a Member Agency to provide data aggregation services relating to the health careoperations of the Member Agency as permitted by 45 CFR §164.504(e)(2)(i)(B).

IV. OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER AGENCIES

a. Notice of Limitation(s) in Privacy Notice. Each Member Agency will notify NORCOMof any limitation(s) in the notice of privacy practices utilized by the Member Agencyunder 45 CFR §164.510, to the extent that such limitation may affect NORCOM’s use ordisclosure of Protected Health Information of the Member Agency.

b. Notice of Changes in Individual’s Permission. Each Member Agency will notifyNORCOM of any changes in, or revocation of, permission by an Individual to use ordisclose Protected Health Information of the Member Agency, to the extent that suchchanges may affect NORCOM’s use or disclosure of such Protected Health Information.

c. Notice of Restriction on Use or Disclosure. Each Member Agency will notify NORCOMof any restriction on the use or disclosure of Protected Health Information of the MemberAgency that the Member Agency has agreed to or is required to abide by under 45 CFR §

22

6

164.522, to the extent that such restriction may affect NORCOM’s use or disclosure of such Protected Health Information.

d. Impermissible Request by a Member Agency. No Member Agency will request thatNORCOM use or disclose Protected Health Information in any manner that would not bepermissible under the HIPAA Rules if done by the Member Agency.

V. TERM; PARTIES; MATERIAL BREACH; TERMINATION

a. Term; Parties. This MOU shall become effective on the date set forth above and shallcontinue in effect until the effective date of (1) any subsequent memorandum oragreement that supersedes this MOU, or (2) any change in applicable law that results inthe elimination of the requirement for this MOU, whichever occurs first. MemberAgencies agreeing to be bound by these terms may sign this MOU from time to timewithout amending or restating this MOU and with the prior consent of or notice to theother Parties hereto.

b. Material Deviation. Upon a Member Agency’s knowledge of a material deviation byNORCOM of any of the terms and conditions of this MOU affecting the Protected HealthInformation of the Member Agency, the Member Agency shall provide NORCOMreasonable notice and an opportunity to cure the identified issue. If the issue cannot becured or waived within a reasonable time period, as determined in the sole discretion ofthe Member Agencies, the Member Agencies may terminate this MOU.

c. Termination. Upon any termination of this MOU, any PHI received from, or created orreceived by NORCOM, shall, if feasible, be returned or destroyed; and if such return ordestruction is not feasible, then the protections of this MOU shall continue to extend tothat PHI and limit further uses and disclosures to those purposes that make the return ordestruction infeasible.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

a. Agency. The employees or agents of each Party who are engaged in the performance ofthis MOU shall continue to be employees or agents of that Party and shall not beconsidered for any purpose to be employees of the other Party.

b. Records. All records and reports relating to this MOU shall be retained by NORCOM inaccordance with the Washington State Archives Records Retention Schedules, unlessreturned to the applicable Member Agency; provided, however, all records and reportsshall be retained for a minimum of six years.

c. References to Law and Rules. A reference in this MOU to any section of law,regulations, or rules (including but not limited to the HIPAA Rules), means the section oflaw or rules as in effect or as amended.

d. Amendment. The Parties will take such action to amend this MOU from time to time asis necessary to ensure that this MOU at all times remains consistent with applicable law

23

7

and rules regarding use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (including but not limited to the HIPAA Rules).

e. Interpretation. Any ambiguity in this MOU shall be resolved in favor of a meaning thatpermits a Member Agency and NORCOM to comply with the HIPAA Rules or chapter70.02 RCW whichever is more protective of patient privacy.

f. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing express or implied in this MOU is intended toconfer, nor shall anything herein confer, upon any person other than the Parties and therespective successors or assigns of the Parties, any rights, remedies, obligations, orliabilities whatsoever.

g. Severability. If any provision of this MOU shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall notaffect the other provisions of this MOU that can be given effect without the invalidprovisions. If such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and thefundamental purpose of this MOU, the provisions of this MOU are declared severable.

h. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts each of whichwhen so executed will be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken togetherwill constitute one MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this MOU has been executed and agreed upon by NORCOM and the Member Agencies below.

[signature pages to follow]

24

By

NORCOM________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________ ______________________________

Bothell Fire Department Snoqualmie Fire Department

Duvall Fire District #45 Eastside Fire and Rescue

Fire District #27 Kirkland Fire Department

Mercer Island Fire Department Northshore Fire Department

Redmond Fire Department Shoreline Fire Department

Bellevue Fire Department

By

25

9

By By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

_____________________________

By

______________________________

By

______________________________

By

Skykomish Fire District #50 Snoqualmie Pass Fire Department

Woodinville Fire and Rescue

26

NORCOM Governing Board Agenda Summary

MEETING DATE: June 12, 2015 SUBJECT: Resolution 98 – Ratification of Logging Recorder RFP FROM: Gwen Pilo, Finance Manager Reviewed by: ___X__ Director __X___ Finance Manager ___X__ Attorney

HISTORY: In 2009, the logging recorder was transferred from the City of Kirkland to NORCOM. The logging recorder is a critical piece of emergency communications equipment. It records and stores communication systems including telephone, radio, text, and future Next Generation 911 communications information and allows for retrieval of those records. The logging recorder reached the end of its estimated useful life in 2014 and the process began to look at options to replace it.

The attached RFP was drafted and posted on April 24, 2015. 6 responses were received and scored; 4 were selected for demonstrations on May 28th. The selection committee scored the demonstrations and has made a recommendation to the Executive Director selecting the apparent successful vendor as WesTek Marketing.

The selection committee is now requesting authorization to begin negotiating a contract for a logging recorder with WesTek Marketing.

PROPOSAL: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with WesTek Marketing for a logging recorder. FISCAL IMPACT: The logging recorder is enrolled in the Equipment Replacement Fund and $207,060 is budgeted for replacement in 2015. RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Ayes_________ Nays_________

DRAFT

27

Resolution 98

A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF NORCOM

APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FROM QUALIFIED

VENDORS TO PROVIDE A LOGGING RECORDER SOLUTION

FOR NORCOM.

WHEREAS, NORCOM, a consolidated, regional public safety communications

center serving police, fire, and emergency medical service providers in northeast King

County, seeks to acquire a Logging Recorder and support relationship from a vendor

interested in long-term partnership with NORCOM; and

WHEREAS, NORCOM has prepared a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for such

work and now desires to approve and release the RFP to qualified vendors as provided

herein; and

WHEREAS, the release of the RFP is within the authority of the Executive

Director, and the Executive Director has released the same; and

WHEREAS, the Governing Board desires to approve issuance of the RFP and

ratify all actions taken with respect to the RFP prior to the date of this resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Governing Board of

NORCOM as follows:

Section 1. Authorization. The Governing Board hereby approves the

Logging Recorder Request for Proposal (RFP # 2015-01) (the "RFP"), in

substantially the form on file with NORCOM staff and incorporated herein by this

reference. The Executive Director of NORCOM is hereby authorized to release the RFP

to qualified vendors in accordance with its terms. The Selection Committee (as described

in the RFP) is hereby authorized to receive and review proposals from vendors as

described in the RFP.

The Executive Director is further authorized to enter into negotiations with a

vendor selected by the selection committee. The negotiated agreement will be submitted

to the Governing Board for consideration and approval.

Section 2. Further Authority; Prior Acts. All NORCOM officials, their

agents, and representatives are hereby authorized and directed to undertake all action

necessary or desirable from time to time to carry out the terms of, and complete the

transactions contemplated by, this resolution. All acts taken pursuant to the authority of

this resolution but prior to its effective date are hereby ratified and confirmed.

DRAFT

28

Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon

its passage and adoption.

Passed by a majority vote of the Governing Board in an open meeting on this 12th day of

June, 2015.

Signed in authentication thereof on this 12th day of June, 2015.

_____________________________

Chair

Attest: _____________________________

2

DRAFT

29

Governing Board

Executive Director Report Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM To: Governing Board

From: Tom Orr, Executive Director

Date: June 8, 2015

Subject: General Update – Governing Board Meeting – June 12, 2015

1. Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) – Sessions Continue in May: Interest Based Bargaining continues and good progress is being made.

2. King County E-911 Financial Stability Process The PSAP Participation Agreement expired on April 25, 2016. Eight of the twelve PSAPs have been negotiating a new Agreement with King County. King County and the eight PSAPs have continued to exchange and negotiate draft revisions. The most recent activity occurred on June 5, when the eight PSAPs responded to King County with the attached proposed contract and letter of explanation. With respect to the ongoing Technical and Financial audits by the King County Auditor’s office, all King County PSAPs received copies of the draft report from the County Auditor as well as the Technical and Financial Audits on which the report was based. The PSAPs were given six business days to identify and request technical corrections. The eight PSAPs collaborated on a joint response that is attached. The PSAPs intend to submit additional technical and financial corrections once a full and proper analysis can be completed. The eight PSAPs also worked with their respective members on the Recommendation Committee to submit a joint technical correction response from the Recommendation Committee. A copy of the Recommendation Committee’s letter is also attached. It is the PSAPs understanding that the Auditor will be presenting the report to a committee of the King County Council on or about June 23, 2015. We will be forwarding more precise information when it is known. Attendance by NORCOM agencies will be very important.

3. IT Director On Board

Robert “Dee” Hathaway joined the NORCOM team as our IT Director on May 29, 2015. Dee made an impact in his first week meeting with New World Systems, IT Staff and King County.

30

June 5, 2015 Caroline Whalen County Administrative Officer Office of King County Executive Dow Constantine 401 5th Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98104-2391 RE: PSAP Participation Agreement - Contract Extension Dear Ms. Whalen: Thank you for your E-mail response of June 1 with attached suggested revisions to our proposal. You were responding to our revisions whereby we agreed to accept two of four changes that you proposed and, as to the other two items, we proposed acceptance of our previous language. After careful review, the undersigned would respectfully suggest the following as reflected in the attached revised agreement:

1. Good Faith Implementation of Audit Recommendations: We previously replied that the language in the cooperation section as proposed was too ambiguous. We suggested alternate language that clearly transmits intent to act in good faith to plan, develop and implement technology on a collaborative basis in alignment with opinions of experts in the field. Specifically, we asked for an agreement to work in good faith in alignment with the soon-to-be released recommendations of the Auditor and the Technical Audit. You responded by stating that the Executive cannot agree to implement a future audit report’s technology recommendations. Although we believe the Executive has received a draft of those recommendations, we understand the reluctance to commit to a future document. Therefore, we propose to retain the language we offered and to delay formal execution of the Agreement until after the formal acceptance of the Auditor’s report by King County Council on or after June 23, 2015.

2. Incorporation of Recitals. In your response, you stated that “recitals are not terms” and should not be incorporated in the Agreement. We respectfully disagree. It is black letter law that recitals may or may not be incorporated as terms of an Agreement. It is up to the parties to reach an Agreement as to what effect, if any, the recitals should have. We continue to believe firmly that the recitals are an important and integral component of the Agreement and constitute not only a key background statement but also a major portion of the consideration by which the PSAPs are willing to enter into an extension of the PSAP Agreement. Moreover, the insertion of the phrase “to consider” with respect to implementation of the Audit findings and the continuing efforts to excerpt the terms of the recitals from the actual terms of the Agreement only serve to heighten our already serious concerns regarding a “meeting of the minds” of the parties to this Agreement. Accordingly, our draft language on recitals includes additional language by which all parties attest to the truth and accuracy of

31

the recitals. As we stated in our previous correspondence, we are unable to accept any language that does not incorporate the Recitals as actual terms of the Agreement.

Overall, we have moved considerably towards the County’s position on most issues but cannot move further than as indicated in the attached draft. Accordingly, we would offer the attached revised Agreement for your consideration. Signed,

King County PSAP Directors:

Commander Erik Scairpon Commander Chris Wilson Redmond Police Communications Issaquah Communications Sue Carr Lora Ueland Technical Services Director Executive Director University of Washington Police Department Valley Communications Center Thomas R. Orr Micki Singer Executive Director Support Services Manager North East King County Regional Bothell Police Department Public Safety Communication Agency (NORCOM) Jo Baumgartner Bob Huebler Communications Manager Operations Captain Washington State Patrol – District 2 Bellevue Enumclaw Police Communications

32

1 of 6

CONTRACT AMENDMENT

PROJECT NAME: King County Enhanced 911 CONTRACT NUMBERS: D40251D, Participation Agreement D40252D, D40253D, D40254D,

D40255D, D40256D, D40258D, D40259D, D40260D

(New Oracle Contract Purchase Agreement Numbers 525866, 525868, 525871, 525873, 525874, 525876, 525897, 525900, 525907)

PSAP AGENCIES/CONTRACTORS: DATE ENTERED: April 26, 2010 Northeast King County Regional

Public Safety Communications Agency, (Contract No. 525907)

Address: 450 110th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004

Valley Communications Center (Contract No. 525897)

Address: 27519 - 108th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98030

University of Washington Police Department (Contract No.525876)

Address: Mail: Bryants Box 355200, Street: 1117 NE Boat St., Seattle, WA 98105

City of Redmond (Contract No. 525874)

Address: 8701 160 Ave NE, PO Box 97010, Redmond WA 98073-9710

City of Bothell (Contract No. 525866)

Address: 18410 101st Ave NE, Bothell, WA 98011

City of Issaquah (Contract No. 525871)

Address: 130 E. Sunset Way, Issaquah, WA 98027

City of Enumclaw (Contract No. 525868)

Address: 1705 Wells St., Enumclaw, WA 98022

Washington State Patrol – District 2 Bellevue: (Contract No. 525900)

Address: Washington State Patrol – District 2 Bellevue, 2803 156th Avenue SE, Bellevue, WA

98007

Port of Seattle (Contract No. 525873)

Address: PO Box 68727, Seattle, WA 98168

33

2 of 6

AMENDMENT #: 1

DATE EFFECTIVE: _________________

AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY:

E-911 Program Office ORGANIZATION Marlys Davis

NAME

WHEREAS, the County and each PSAP entered into an Enhanced 911 Participation Agreement regarding the provision of 911 emergency telephone service that took effect on April 26, 2010 (“Participation Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, Section 2.A of the Participation Agreement provides that the Agreement shall continue

from year to year as a one-year Agreement, but shall in no event continue for more than five (5) consecutive years; and

WHEREAS, the County and each PSAP agreed that services would continue to be provided under

the terms of their Participation Agreements while written extension agreements were being finalized; and WHEREAS, the King County Council adopted General Budget Ordinance No 17941, Section 24, P1

(“Proviso”) which provided that: “Of this appropriation, $500,000 shall not be expended or encumbered until the executive transmits an ordinance establishing the King County regional public safety answering point oversight committee and the ordinance is adopted by the council.” (“Oversight Ordinance”); and

WHEREAS, the Proviso further provided that the Oversight Ordinance “shall reference the subject

matter, the proviso's ordinance, ordinance section and proviso number in both the title and body of the motion”; and

WHEREAS, the Proviso further provided that the Oversight Ordinance “shall include, but not be

limited to: A. A description of the purpose, processes and role of the committee relative to

recommending a strategic plan for the implementation, governance and operation of the Next Generation 911 system in King County, to include proposed governance structures, operating rules and infrastructure for countywide Enhanced 911 operations; and

B. Committee membership including the chair of the council, the vice chair of regional coordination of the council or the vice chair’s successor, the chair of the law, justice, health and human services committee, or the committees successor, the executive or his designee, a city of Seattle elected official appointed by the mayor, three elected officials from other jurisdictions to be appointed by the council, a representative of the Sound Cities Association, a representative of a public safety agency, which is police, fire or emergency medical services, to be appointed by the council and a nonvoting technical and facilitation consultant selected by the executive.

AMENDMENT EFFECTS: X Scope of Services ___Method of Payment X Time of Performance ___Reliance ___ Compensation ___Terms and Conditions ___ Results of Services

34

3 of 6

The department of executive services and the office of performance, strategy and budget shall provide any necessary support to develop the ordinance required by this proviso.

The executive must file the ordinance required by this proviso by July 1, 2015, in the form of a paper original and an electronic copy with the clerk of the council, who shall retain the original and provide an electronic copy to all councilmembers, the council chief of staff, the policy staff director and the lead staff for the committee of the whole, or its successor.”; and

WHEREAS, the King County Auditor is conducting a financial review of the King County

Enhanced 911 program, its reserves and financial policies, including an evaluation of the county’s systems compared to national best practices; and technical audit of King County’s implementation of Next Generation 911 policies, standards, technology and implementation timelines, including evaluation of King County’s program compared to state requirements and actions and national best practice, and

WHEREAS, it is vital to continue 911 emergency operations; and WHEREAS, the County and Contracting PSAPs (“the Parties”) wish to extend their Participation

Agreements for a sufficient period to allow the process set forth in the Proviso to be completed; and WHEREAS, the process set forth in the Proviso will utilize the National Emergency Number

Association’s Next Generation 911 Transition Plan Considerations Information Document (NENA-INF-008.2-2013 (previously NENA 77-501));

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed as follows: Contract Numbers 525866, 525868, 525871, 525873, 525874, 525876, 525897, 525900, 525907, between King County and the undersigned PSAPs are each hereby amended as follows:

1. Paragraph 2. A. “Term of Agreement” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following

text:

2. TERM OF AGREEMENT

A. This Contract Amendment shall take effect upon execution by the contracting parties. The Agreement shall continue through June 30, 2016, unless terminated earlier or extended by mutual agreement.

B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, this Agreement shall be deemed to have remained in effect, without termination and with the contracting parties continuing to operate under terms of the Agreement, through the date this Contract Amendment takes effect.

2. The following provisions are hereby added to the Participation Agreement:

24. COOPERATION: The Parties agree that, in light of their decision to extend the Agreement through June 30, 2016, they will work cooperatively together with regard to the testing of Interim Text-to-911 and other E-911 system and PSAP technology implementation activities and will act in good faith to consider how tto plan, develop, test, schedule, coordinate and implement all technology in alignment with recommendations in the the forthcoming King County Auditor report.

35

4 of 6

25. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT/SIGNATURE IN COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement amends the respective individual PSAP Participation Agreements entered into for the period of 2010 to 2015 as identified by the aforementioned Contact Numbers, reflecting contracts between each of the undersigned individual PSAPs and King County. Each of the individual PSAPs may sign this Agreement in counterpart, and each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original instrument, amending the individual PSAP’s respective Agreement. 26. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: The Recitals set forth in this Amendment are hereby incorporated as and added in order to provide background regardingas terms of the original Participation Agreement, as amended and the signatories acknowledge and agree that each of the recitals is true and correct.

3. All other terms and conditions of the Participation Agreement remain the same.

This Amendment shall be effective as of the date it has been executed by the respective contracting parties hereto.

36

5 of 6

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be executed as of the last date signed below. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & ACCEPTANCE

AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833

KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & ACCEPTANCE

AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833


AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833


AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833

37

6 of 6


AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833 KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & ACCEPTANCE

AGENCY/CONTRACTOR

By: _______________________________ _______________________________

By: _______________________________

Title: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________

Date: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________

833

38

May 29, 2015 Mr. Ben Thompson King County Auditor's Office 516 3rd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-3272 CC: King County Council RE: May 20 Request for Comment on Draft Technical and Financial Audits Dear Mr. Thompson,

Thank you for your email of May 20, 2015 attaching three detailed and comprehensive drafts of the Technical, Financial and internal audits. We appreciate the opportunity and invitation to review and make comments on technical accuracy and tone in the draft. Your email requested that we collaborate and provide comment no later than Friday, May 29, 2015. We would note that your proposed timeline allowed only six business days to review, analyze and respond on the technical accuracy of audits that have taken months of work to complete. The timing of your request also coincided with Memorial Day weekend – a time when many are out of the office on an extended weekend.

Our initial review indicates several areas where extended comment and analysis will be required. Based on our first read through, we assess that our review of the technical audit will proceed relatively quickly as we were included in the technical audit process and have a good baseline. We applaud your audit team, and the technical consultant for your accessibility and engagement with the PSAPs in getting into very complex subject matter.

In contrast, contrary to assurances given during our individual meetings with your office, we were not included in the financial audit process. Accordingly, it will take some time for us to conduct a thorough analysis connecting your draft statements and conclusions to the financial consultants work and documentation and comparing the issues/concerns that lead to our original request to King County Council for a financial audit with what has been addressed by the draft you submitted.

We will not likely be prepared to brief our full analysis until the Council hearing in late June. In the interim, we can at least give you some preliminary observations regarding our first-read of the DRAFT Technical Review submittal

1. Incorrect reliance placed on Recommendations Committee drafts and minutes. Throughout the reports (see Appendix 1 and report from Financial Consultant) there is an assumption that RC drafts and minutes were accurate and can be relied upon as a foundation for their further analysis and conclusions. For example, the discussion at pages 10-11 of the Financial Audit states that, “the

RC provided 28 different alternative scenarios for consideration.” To the contrary, the scenarios were never presented for final action or approval. Rather, the Technical Committee (TC) developed 29 different scenarios in several “brainstorming” sessions facilitated by a contract facilitator retained by the E-911 office. During those sessions, no ideas were analyzed or evaluated – all were simply noted down in keeping with general “brainstorming” concepts. The E-911 office and the facilitator assured the TC that the alternatives would be revisited individually for full analysis and discussion.

39

a. As previously communicated to your office on several occasions, we would again reiterate that any reliance on TC and RC minutes as historical records is misplaced. RC and TC minutes and other documents were not accepted as valid. For example, the minutes of the TC do not reflect the many occasions when PSAPs in attendance objected to the accuracy and completeness of the minutes. The minutes also do not reflect assurances by County staff, at the time that objections were made, that the minutes would not be used as a “formal record” of discussion or actions taken at such meetings. There was no consideration of the 29 alternatives by the RC.

b. The actual history of the 29 alternatives shows that the alternatives were in a very early stage of development and discussion. The TC had just begun the detailed analytical process when the E-911 office unilaterally selected 4 of the 29 options and moved them forward as part of the 2015-16 budget. Following this unilateral action, neither the TC nor RC took further action. Instead, a majority of PSAP members of the TC and RC appealed to King County Council for intervention in the unilateral process with a request, in part, for this audit.

c. You should expect to receive shortly a letter from the RC members confirming that no

decisions or recommendations were made on the initial brainstorming list of 29 options. Rather, the RC will confirm that they had asked the TC to conduct further analysis on funding issues related to the E-911 fund and to report back to them. The TC never made a formal report to the RC.

2. No quantifiable explanation or supporting analysis of “high and rising levels of PSAP

support” and no quantifiable explanation or supporting analysis of how the amounts attributed to PSAP support were calculated. No adjustment for expenditures attributed to PSAPs that were in actuality expenditures but for costs related for NG-911 technology. It is incorrect to describe these funds as funds provided to the PSAPs. When adjusted for this fact, the PSAPs only receive $2.3 million out of the approximate $25 million collected annually. This calculates to approximately 9.2% of total annual revenue. As indicated in Appendix 1, reducing the $2.3 million by 62% would not resolve the funding shortfall.

3. The proposal to eliminate funding of technical FTEs at the PSAPs to save $27.6 million as a means to resolve the funding shortfall is misleading and would not achieve the desired effect. The E-911 office funds those positions to support its many NG-911 technology projects. No savings will be realized as the “work” represented by those positions will still need to be performed by someone. The PSAPs are not in a position to fund $27.6 million in the technical support needed for E-911 projects.

4. As the financial report indicates at page 8, no deficit spending is allowed so there is no funding shortfall. Rather, the problem is one of appropriate allocation of actual funds received. Choices must be made as to how best to allocate future funds. Over $30 million has been invested or committed in NG-911 technology since 2005. The TC options to reduce, prioritize and phase technology expenditures were not factored or considered as a possible solution to the fund allocation issue. Overall, there is little or no supporting analysis or data provided by E 911 Office to allow for examination of individual scenarios reportedly authored by the Recommendations Committee (Miller & Miller P. 11).

40

5. No budgetary context regarding the statutory role of the E 911 Program Office. No audit of E-911 expenditures for compliance with state law limitations on use of E-911 funds. Particularly with respect to any E-911 funds used for the OEM Administrative Function. (Miller & Miller Page 2). The source and authority for collection of 911 tax funds begins with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and ends with King County Ordinance. These authorities restrict the use of E-911 funds to specific categories.

6. PSAPs meet every other month. Page 4, 1st paragraph states that the PSAP Director’s Group provides a monthly forum. We meet every other month, i.e., bimonthly pursuant to the terms of the PSAP Participation Agreement. This is an advisory meeting only where PSAPs are briefed by the E-911 office and do not have a vote.

7. Delay in deployment of Smart 911 and Interim Text-to-911. The delay is due to unresolved security issues not due to relationships as stated at page 4 in the second paragraph.

8. Valley Communications is an Agency not a Consortium. Valley Communications is a separate legal entity formed under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 39.34). The footnote at page 5 should read “a governmental administrative agency formed pursuant to RCW 39.34.”

In conclusion, we would concur with the reports observation that for two years the PSAPs received conflicting and erroneous information not only about what was spent but what it was spent for. The report concludes that what the E-911 office reported as part of King County’s internal CAFR report “closely matches” what the E-911 office reported externally in other statements. Therefore, the audit fails to address the very concerns that led to our original request for the financial audit. As to what the report does cover, i.e., comparison of what the E-911 office reported in internal King County CAFRs to other documents prepared by the E-911 office, the report does note discrepancies but fails to detail them sufficiently.

We will follow this up with a more detailed analysis that we will submit to your office and the King County Council.

Please feel free to call Tom Orr at 425-577-5671 or Erik Scairpon at 425-556-2611 to discuss this matter.

Signed,

King County PSAP Leaders:

Commander Erik Scairpon Commander Chris Wilson Redmond Police Communications Issaquah Communications Sue Carr Lora Ueland

41

Technical Services Director Executive Director University of Washington Police Department Valley Communications Center Thomas R. Orr Micki Singer Executive Director Support Services Manager North East King County Regional Bothell Police Department Public Safety Communication Agency (NORCOM) Jo Baumgartner Bob Huebler Communications Manager Operations Captain Washington State Patrol – District 2 Bellevue Enumclaw Police Communications

42

June 10, 2015 Mr. Ben Thompson King County Auditor's Office 516 3rd Ave. Seattle, WA 98104-3272 CC: King County Council RE: May 20 Request for Comment on Draft Technical and Financial Audits Dear Mr. Thompson,

We are writing in response to your offer to the PSAPs to conduct a technical review of your draft E911 Program Office audit report. Collectively, we served (as well as our alternate designees) as members of the Recommendation Committee referenced in your report.

Overall we wish to commend you for the effort and professionalism with which you have carried out the audit. We particularly would like to thank you and the technical consultant for your accessibility and engagement with the PSAPs in delving into the many complex issues.

There is one important technical correction that we would offer to your report and the other documents. The correction would be to the statement that the Recommendation Committee took action on 29 proposed alternatives for resolving financial issues related to the E-911 fund administered by King County. For example, Appendix 1 references “13 financial scenarios the Recommendation Committee identified as appropriate to consider.”

Throughout this process, it was the Recommendation Committees’ direction and expectation that the Technical Committee would thoroughly analyze all ideas that were offered as potential alternatives and provide us with results of that research and recommendations for us to consider. We never reached that point as the entire unilateral process was ultimately abandoned.

Neither our recollection nor the written records support any statement that the Recommendations Committee acted upon, considered or selected from a list of alternative options. We have carefully reviewed the common folders that currently store all records of the Recommendation Committee (RC) and Technical Committee (TC). Attached you will find relevant RC and TC documents that substantiate that no such action was taken. It simply did not happen.

Rather, those documents establish that the RC’s last meeting occurred on March 13, 2014. All meetings after that time were cancelled. Therefore the “draft” minutes and records from that meeting were never subsequently adopted or approved by the RC. Regardless, those “draft” documents indicate that the RC made three decisions as follows:

1. “Accepted the recommendation of the Technical Committee to conduct a fiscal analysis of E-911 Program reserve accounts;

2. Accepted E-911 Program financials for future discussion and planning (specifically 2009-2013 actuals and 2014 estimates); and

43

3. Requested a consultant (like SCGI) that would develop a recommendation to integrate this ongoing PSAP planning process with a strategic planning process. The result of that strategic planning process would come back to the Recommendation Committee. In the interim, the Recommendation Committee requests the Technical Committee to:

a. Continue refining E-911 and PSAP options and policies; and b. Continue looking at E-911 Program financial projections through 2016.”

As is clear from the foregoing statement in bold type, the work of the TC in developing the list of options was incomplete and not ready for consideration by the RC. Even more significantly, “draft” documents from TC meetings in June, July and August 2014 conclusively establish that the TC was still conducting analysis on what, by then, had grown to a list of 29 options. Indeed, the “draft” PSAP Planning Process timeline submitted by the consultants at those TC meetings clearly indicates that the RC would not consider the TC’s initial recommendations until sometime between “September & October 2014”. Since the RC’s last meeting was in March, 2014, it is self-evident that the RC never “identified . . . 13 financial scenarios . . . as appropriate to consider.”

Therefore, there was no final selection of 13 alternatives. Indeed, many of our members continue to have strong interest in exploring a variety of possible strategies such as virtual consolidation as well as other funding mechanisms (e.g. 1/10 of 1% sales tax already implemented in a number of counties in Washington State). These types of ideas must be explored in the context of a coordinated, regional planning and evaluation process, as you have pointed out.

We offer these suggested technical corrections to your report to assure there is no misunderstanding. Although there may be other references to the work of our committee, we specifically noted that corrections would need to be made to Appendix 1 to your report as well as the underlying report from the financial consultant on which Appendix 1 is based. We would also note that if your office is relying on any RC business records that are not included in the electronic public folders that were the official records of the RC, such reliance is inappropriate because such documents were never received, reviewed or considered by the RC.

Please feel free to call Kurt Triplett at 425-587-3020 if you have any questions or would like to discuss our concerns in detail.

Signed,

Ron Gibson Scott Behrbaum Chief of Police Chief of Police City of Redmond City of Issaquah

John N. Vinson, Ph. D. Denis Law Chief of Police Mayor, City of Renton University of Washington Police Department Valley Communications Center Administration Board Chair

44

Kurt Triplett Kathie Oeser Kirkland City Manager Senior Management Analyst 2014 NORCOM Governing Board Chair City of Bothell

Jo Baumgartner Jim Zoll Communications Manager Chief of Police

Washington State Police City of Enumclaw

45

Board Report

Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM

To: NORCOM Governing Board

From: Mike Mandella, Deputy Director

Date: June 12, 2015

Re: General Update – Governing Board Meeting – June 12, 2015

Current/Ongoing Events

911 Phone System Upgrade: Bi-weekly conference calls with Century Link, Intrado, King County and Washington State 911 Program Office staff continue. Phone system issues continue to decline, and the majority of problems have been resolved. The few open issues continue toward resolution. Progress on the QoS solution continues, with testing at the King County 911 Program Office this month. NORCOM staff will assist technicians from Century Link and Intrado with the testing.

Tri Tech CAD Upgrade to v 5.5: This CAD upgrade is scheduled for completion, including robust testing, in the third quarter of 2015. NORCOM Operations staff is working with the tech team to develop testing scenarios and to develop a training outline and plan.

Contract Negotiations: Negotiation of the NORCOM Associated Guild collective bargaining agreement continues, with six (6) sessions having been completed at the date of this writing. The initial negotiation sessions were focused on non-economic issues. There are few remaining language items to be resolved. A comprehensive comparability review by members of the negotiations team from NORCOM and the Guild is in progress. The Interest Based Bargaining method appears to be working well.

Recruitment Committee: The Recruitment Committee hosted a NORCOM booth at four (4) college job fairs over the past several weeks. The committee also hosted a booth at the Public Safety Testing Career Fair on June 3rd and will have a presence at a Diversity Job Fair on July 22nd. In addition, we have been invited to speak to returning military veterans at JBLM. To date, the committee has made contact with approximately five-hundred potential telecommunicator candidates and almost 50 of those contacted have taken the test with Public Safety Testing for the position. Our goal is to conduct a recruit academy in July and to establish an eligibility list from which additional candidates may be hired as needed.

46

Board Report

Page 2 of 3

Activity Since Last Report

Recording System RFP: As reported last month, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued for the replacement of our out-of-date recorder system. The Recorder system is used to record all radio transmissions captured on the new logging radios and, phone calls from 911 or 10-digit emergency lines. The RFP requires the system to be capable to save the recorded voice for up to 90 days. In addition, and to be in a position to accommodate text-to-911 in the future, the RFP specifies that the system be expandable to record and retain this type data for 90 days as well. Six “compliant” responses were received by the RFP deadline and have been reviewed by a small team at NORCOM. Four (4) highly qualified vendors were invited to demonstrate their product to the review team on May 28, 29 and June 2nd. The team has rated the products based on best match to the needs as described in the RFP, as well as to overall cost, including maintenance support for five (5) years and has made their recommendation to the Executive Director. Funding for this project is in the equipment replacement fund.

Upcoming Activities:

Active Shooter – Kirkland PD Training Module: NORCOM’s training division has been working with Kirkland Police Department’s Sergeant Brouelette to design an Active Shooter Training module for Kirkland Police Officers. This training program demonstrate to Kirkland Officers how dispatch handles an active shooter incident with emphasis on what resources are available and the steps needed to get them. In addition to the practical and academic portion, this training will pair NORCOM instructors with Kirkland officers, reinforcing team cohesion by putting faces and personalities with the names on both sides of the radio.

Of Note:

Great Call – Great Outcome: NORCOM call-receivers and dispatchers take emergency calls and dispatch units to a very

wide variety of incidents, ranging from routine to very complex. From time-to-time, there is

a particular call that stands out. Having listened to this particular call, and having read the

note from the responding Fire Lieutenant who handled the call, I thought those of you

reading the electronic version of this report may enjoy listening to the call. In short, a 12

year-old girl, on a trail near Union Hill Road, collapsed in cardiac arrest. Her friend, also 12,

administered nearly perfect cardiac compressions while receiving telephone CPR

instructions on the cell phone from which she called 911. To reduce any anxiety, this

patient recovered at Children’s Hospital in two (2) days and is now doing fine! The following

is copied from the note we received from the crew…..”On Sunday, June 19 at 17:01 units

responded to a 12-year old girl in cardiac arrest. After one shock and several rounds of CPR

the patient was resuscitated. After only 18 minutes on scene she was transported to

47

Board Report

Page 3 of 3

Children’s. Two days later she was awake and eating and giving the nurse’s a hard time.

She’s hoping to be released sometime next week if all continues to go well. Looking at the

times it appears that the first units were dispatched in only 37 seconds. The location of the

incident was then correctly updated from the original address provided by the caller

(another 12 year old girl) to the patient’s actual location some one-quarter mile away from

the original address via a trail by the side of a lake. Because the actual patient location was

directly next to a road (238th Ave. NE) that updated location shaved precious minutes off our

response that would otherwise have been lost. In fact, based on where the house was in

relation to the patient, the delay that would have followed determining access, and the fact

that everyone at the house had left to help the patient prior to our arrival, I believe updating

the patient’s location for us was one of several factors that made the difference between

life and death for this patient. Your call receiver also provided telephone CPR instructions,

difficult in the best of circumstances, but even more stressful when given over a speaker

phone to two 12-year old kids doing CPR on their friend outside on a trail.

In short, every link in the chain of survival worked as it needed to for this girl to survive,

including and especially the roles your people played. Please pass along a “job well done”

from the crews involved and from the parents of the patient and the kids your call receiver

coached. I spoke with the kids and their parents and the first thing they asked about was

the call receiver”.

https://soundcloud.com/norcom911/cardiac-arrest-refd00249015/s-6A3r9 FYI – our call-receiver was Chris Perez.

48

https://soundcloud.com/norcom911/cardiac-arrest-refd00249015/s-6A3r9

MEMORANDUM

To: NORCOM Joint Operations Board

From: Sheryl Mullen - Accreditation, Facilities, and Continuity of Operations Manager

Date: June 3, 2015

Re: Staff Update as of June 3, 2015

Performance Measurement Data through May is included in packet.

1. Activity Since Last Report

a. Facilities

i. NORCOM is continuing to work with the City of Bellevue on the construction of a second men’s

restroom in an existing shower facility (scheduled for 2015). Drain work for an ice machine in

the kitchen will also be completed at this time in support of the City of Bellevue Refrigerator and

Freezer replacement project. Architects are working on the design and the project will be

scheduled once those drawings are approved. No Update on this project.

ii. Construction has completed on the new Deputy Director office. The Deputy Director has moved

into the office. The IT Director’s office was updated and he moved in last week.

iii. New furniture has been picked up and installed in the kitchen/break room. Special thanks to

Finance Manager Gwen Pilo and my husband, Paul, for coming in on a Saturday to assemble the

new furniture and move it into the space.

iv. Worn seats on the Herman Miller chairs in the communications room have been replaced while

under warranty. They have a 12 year warranty and NORCOM is taking advantage of the

opportunity to have them refurbished.

49

Board Report

Page 2 of 3

b. Facility Needs Assessment

i. A draft has been received of the Workload Analysis Report and is being reviewed. A meeting is

scheduled at NORCOM on 6/4 to discuss the report. Once finalized, this information will be

used as we move forward with the facility needs assessment.

c. Accreditation

i. Continued monitoring of NORCOM practices and procedures for CALEA compliance in

anticipation of NORCOM’s beginning of the self-assessment portion of the CALEA accreditation

process.

d. Continuity of Operations

i. Draft 1 has been completed. I am working with the Deputy Director to create a more compact

version that personnel can flip through quickly to gain needed information. I met with the City

of Bellevue Emergency Management Coordinator to discuss gathering of information needed for

the NORCOM COOP Plan.

ii. A meeting was held involving operations supervisors, the Deputy Director and me to discuss

COOP and the related Emergency Operations Plans. Work is ongoing to review existing

documents and plans and prepare for exercises to test our preparedness.

iii. I attended the Statewide Resilience Initiatives Workshop in Everett on May 12. It included a

presentation about FirstNet (a dedicated data internet exclusively for public safety).

e. Miscellaneous

i. I participated in the TCOMM (Thurston County’s 911 Center) Strategic Positioning Process on

May 6/7. Strategic Positioning is a facilitated approach in which key agency personnel, board

members, and subject matter experts identify trends, strategies, and initiatives designed to

prepare that agency for the future. It was a fascinating process and I believe that the results of

that process will position TCOMM to be able to respond more quickly in the face of constant

changes in funding, technology, and personnel.

ii. I have been reviewing “Safe Choices Training” a program through www.justculture.com

designed to provide training similar to the Manager training for employees. There is online

training, a video with discussions, and a book to download.

iii. Continued involvement with Employee Recognition Committee, Health & Wellness Committee,

and Safety Committee.

iv. Participating in negotiations with NORCOM Associated Guild.

v. Continued attendance at City of Bellevue Emergency Management Committee meetings.

vi. I attended the State 911 Advisory Committee meeting on May 21st at Camp Murray. Items

discussed included: Text-to-911 in WA State, Public Education, State fund balances, revisions to

bylaws.

50

http://www.justculture.com/

Board Report

Page 3 of 3

f. Recent Recognition

Angel Francois was presented with her Emergency

Medical Dispatcher of the Year for Sustained Superior

Performance.

Andrew Johnson was presented with 1st Quarter IT

Employee of the Quarter.

2. Upcoming Activities

a. June 22-26 – Washington

b. APCO-NENA Public Safety Communications Conference in Kennewick.

51

Performance Measurement Data –June 1, 2015 Prepared by: Sheryl Mullen, Accreditation, Facility, & Continuity of Operations Manager

[email protected] 425-577-5676

NORCOM Performance Measurement Data

June 1, 2015

The following performance data is included with this report:

911 Call Answer Standards

911 Call Answer Standard by Month and by Year

NORCOM Actions (phones, police, and fire counts)

CAD Calls by Year

Fire CAD Incidents to Date AND Call to Dispatch Times

Police CAD Incidents to Date AND Call to Dispatch Times

52

mailto:[email protected]



King County 911 Call Answering Standard

Standard: 90% of 9-1-1 telephone calls will be answered within 10 seconds or less during each hour of a calendar

quarter. This graph represents the % of incoming 911 calls that were answered within the 10 second threshold for each

quarter.

Quarter 2 shows through May.

Monthly 911 Calls

650 Most 911 Calls received in a day (May 28, 2915) 353 Fewest 911 Calls received in a day (May 23, 2015)

468 Average Number of 911 Calls received per day in May 2015

857 Average Number of all calls per day in May 2015 (Includes 911 calls) 14,519 Total number of 911 calls received in May 2015 26,559 Total number of all calls received in May 2015 (Includes 911 calls)

99.40% 99.59%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4

Standard (90%)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

53




911 Call Answer Statistics 2010 – Present

The NORCOM adopted standard is 90% of 9-1-1 telephone calls will be answered within 10 seconds or less during each hour of a calendar quarter (barring major disasters or other extraordinary events)

Source: King County Enhanced 911 Participation Agreement

2015 911 Call Answer Statistics compared with Number of 911 Calls Received

99.33% 99.55% 99.33% 99.72% 99.46%

85.00%

87.00%

89.00%

91.00%

93.00%

95.00%

97.00%

99.00%

101.00%

STANDARD

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

100.00%

11000

11500

12000

12500

13000

13500

14000

14500

15000

Number of 911 Calls

GOAL - 90% of calls answeredwithin 10 seconds

NORCOM Monthly 911 AnswerStandard

54




2015 NORCOM Phone Actions Calls Dispatched & Field Actions **

911 Calls

911 Answer %

7 digit EMER

Non Emergency (Secondary) Business

Fire Calls DPd PD Calls

Traffic Stops

Officer Initiated Incidents

January 13775 99.33% 7453 2747 1488 5211 8719 2920 383 February 12283 99.55% 6844 2530 1339 4457 7387 2512 310 March 13675 99.33% 8991 2863 1537 4946 8023 2572 254 April 13078 99.72% 7535 2886 1627 4753 7994 2582 262 May 14519 99.46% 7885 2918 1707 5069 8686 2254 324 June July August September October November December Totals 67330 99.48% 38708 13944 7698 24436 40809 12840 1533 55182

911 Calls = Landline, Wireless, & VoIP Calls on 911

911 Answer % = % of hours 911 calls were answered 90% of the time within 10 seconds

7 digit EMER = 425-577-5656 (alarm companies, transfers from agency phones, public safety agencies)

Secondary Queue = Calls have come in as 911 or 7 digit EMER, been screened, determined to be non-emergency, and transferred to the secondary queue

Business = 425-577-5600 (officers, family members, etc)

Fire Calls DPd = Priority 0-5 calls with a unit assigned

PD Calls = All calls in CAD with unit assigned excluding TS & Officer Initiated

Traffic Stops - field initiated, included NORCOM involvement

Officer Initiated = Traffic Stops via MDC (not called out & no NORCOM action needed) and all other field initiated calls

** Test calls, cancelled calls, and calls with no unit dispatched are not reflected (not billable calls for service)

55




2010 2011* 2012 2013 2014

Total

Calls (3

years)

3 Year

Average of

Police Calls

3 Year

Average of

All Calls (P/F) 2015

2015 % of

police calls

to date

Bellevue PD 64425 73673 54113 53057 58889 166059 42.00% 29.13% 25305 45.86%

Clyde Hill PD 3073 2880 2829 2746 2514 8089 2.05% 1.42% 1567 2.84%

Kirkland PD 44863 62925 63787 53499 54993 172279 43.57% 30.22% 20172 36.56%

Medina PD 2434 2034 3670 4218 3093 10981 2.78% 1.93% 1827 3.31%

Mercer Island PD 11705 13035 12745 10830 14428 38003 9.61% 6.67% 6311 11.44%

Police Totals ** 126500 154547 137144 124350 133917 395411 100.00% 69.37% 55182 100.00%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total

Calls (3

years)

3 Year

Average of

Fire Calls

3 Year

Average of

All Calls (P/F) 2015

2014 % of

fire calls to

date

Bellevue Fire 13141 12652 13357 13487 14346 41190 23.59% 7.23% 5695 23.31%

Bothell Fire 4456 4243 4513 4747 5386 14646 8.39% 2.57% 2263 9.26%

Duvall Fire 801 739 776 772 847 2395 1.37% 0.42% 302 1.24%

Eastside Fire 7943 7661 8127 8286 8600 25013 14.33% 4.39% 3451 14.12%

Fall City Fire 480 416 505 457 498 1460 0.84% 0.26% 177 0.72%

Kirkland Fire 6323 6510 6998 6854 7163 21015 12.04% 3.69% 3050 12.48%

Mercer Island Fire 2242 2120 2153 2104 2364 6621 3.79% 1.16% 911 3.73%

Northshore Fire 2866 2514 2802 2831 2870 8503 4.87% 1.49% 1048 4.29%

Redmond Fire 6598 6150 6342 6318 6899 19559 11.20% 3.43% 2708 11.08%

Shoreline Fire 6730 6355 6769 6837 7472 21078 12.07% 3.70% 3209 13.13%

Skykomish Fire 323 280 295 274 266 835 0.48% 0.15% 104 0.43%

Snoqualmie Pass Fire 236 278 311 305 311 927 0.53% 0.16% 101 0.41%

Snoqualmie Fire 801 778 802 906 863 2571 1.47% 0.45% 366 1.50%

Woodinville Fire 3285 3019 2963 2990 2821 8774 5.03% 1.54% 1051 4.30%

Fire Totals ** 56225 53715 56713 57168 60706 174587 100.00% 30.63% 24436 100.00%

This chart includes all calls entered into the CAD system with a unit dispatched on them (NOT calls for service by budget definition)

** Police Calls include only calls with a unit dispatched on them

CAD Calls by Year Updated 6/1/2015

** Fire Calls include only calls with a unit dispatched on them

* 2011 includes calls entered into New World & TriTech - some overlap exists.

56




NORCOM Fire/EMS Call Received to Call Dispatch Statistics & Incident Counts

This report includes all priority 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 fire/EMS incidents with a unit dispatched on them. Data is gathered based on the time the call is picked up to the time a unit is dispatched on the incident.

% of Fire/EMS Calls under 60 Seconds Call Received to Call Dispatched (Goal = 90%)

# of Priority 0-4 Calls Dispatched in May 2015 - 4480

% of Fire/EMS Calls under 90 Seconds Call Received to Call Dispatched (Goal = 99%)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

2012 94% 95% 95% 93% 94% 96% 95% 95% 96% 94% 97% 96%

2013 96% 95% 96% 96% 95% 95% 95% 96% 96% 95% 96% 97%

2014 97% 97% 97% 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 97% 97% 97%

2015 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

GOAL

2012

2013

2014

2015

90%

92%

94%

96%

98%

100%


GOAL

2012

2013

2014

2015


2012 85% 86% 85% 83% 83% 87% 86% 86% 87% 84% 87% 88%

2013 88% 87% 88% 87% 87% 86% 87% 88% 88% 87% 88% 89%

2014 89% 88% 90% 89% 88% 87% 87% 88% 89% 88% 90% 89%

2015 91% 91% 90% 90% 90%

5 months at or above

standard!

57




NORCOM Police Call Received to Call Dispatch Statistics & Call Counts

This report includes all calls with a unit dispatched on them with the exception of officer initiated (mobile) and radio initiated calls. Those incidents have been pulled from the reporting numbers because they do not accurately reflect call received to call dispatch times. In most cases, the unit was immediately dispatched on the incident (traffic incidents, on-views, etc).

Average Call to Dispatch Times (MM:SS) for Police P1 and P2 incidents (Goal = 60 Seconds)

All Police priority 1 and 2 calls are screened through NORCOMs Quality Assurance process. In addition, all calls over the 60 second threshold are reviewed to determine the circumstances which contributed to the apparent delay.

12 Incidents


2011 1:22 1:26 1:28 1:33 :59 1:08 1:09 1:10 :59 1:27 1:11 :54

2012 :54 1:05 :58 1:05 1:05 1:08 1:12 1:05 :54 :55 :57 1:03

2013 1:00 :52 : 57 1:05 1:06 :53 :42 :51 :58 :60 :59 :52

2014 :57 :53 :50 :52 :55 :50 :65 :51 :58 1:02 1:04 :54

2015 :52 1:01 1:05 :54 1:13

00:00

00:17

00:35

00:52

01:09

01:26

01:44


Goal

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

58




Average Call to Dispatch Times (MM:SS) for Police P3 Incidents (Goal – 3 Mins)

Dispatch times on priority 3 police calls are frequently dependant on field units being available for dispatch. Calls of this type include traffic accidents, alarms, etc. Priority 3 calls are held until sufficient information is documented in the call to provide basic response information to field units. NORCOM continues to meet this performance standard.

2323 Incidents


2011 1:57 2:02 2:00 1:51 1:47 1:57 1:47 1:55 1:55 2:32 1:33 1:44

2012 1:43 1:17 2:05 2:06 2:21 2:06 2:05 2:13 1:57 2:05 2:00 2:08

2013 2:09 1:55 1:50 2:00 1:53 2:10 1:51 1:51 2:16 1:54 2:05 1:56

2014 1:54 1:48 1:39 1:48 1:55 2:15 1:55 1:54 1:55 2:15 1:50 1:50

2015 1:49 1:50 1:49 1:49 2:09

00:00

00:43

01:26

02:10

02:53

03:36


GOAL

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

59




Average Call to Dispatch Times (MM:SS) for Police P4 and P5 Incidents (Goal 60 Mins)

NORCOM is easily meeting the expectation of non-emergency calls being dispatched in 60 minutes or less

from the time of the call.

4040 Incidents


2011 15:12 14:26 16:18 13:52 14:32 16:07 16:50 17:41 17:40 22:47 14:44 16:53

2012 17:33 10:17 26:36 29:19 27:44 22:28 23:27 23:05 27:52 24:56 24:05 20:31

2013 25:33 17:40 16:54 17:24 18:54 18:41 18:21 16:47 18:37 17:58 18:42 18:10

2014 20:10 19:52 17:36 21:43 20:11 20:20 18:40 17:11 19:04 21:46 19:14 17:59

2015 18:47 18:50 18:17 20:02 23:42

00:00

07:12

14:24

21:36

28:48

36:00

43:12

50:24

57:36


GOAL

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

60


Governing Board Report

Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM

To: Governing Board

From: Marla Smithhisler, HR Administrator

Date: Current as of June 5, 2015

Re: Staff Update

1. Current/Ongoing Events

Recruitment o Telecommunicator - continuous recruitment

1 applicant completed the hiring process and began academy May 10th – welcome Jessie Moore!

1 applicant ready for polygraph (scheduling in process) 7 applicants currently in the background investigation process 3 applicants completed or scheduled to complete Suitability

Assessment (reports pending) 4 applicants scheduled for preliminary interviews 5 applicants scheduled for Split-Ear/ Multi-Task Test New applicants are contacted and moving through the testing and

recruitment process as soon as their scores are delivered through Public Safety Testing.

A recruitment focused cross-team recently met to brainstorm new and effective ways to recruit and retain top candidates. Many excellent ideas were shared and the group is developing new recruitment strategies. The group is currently planning an open house recruitment night for June 17th.

o IT Director – Position Filled Dee Hathaway began May 28th. Welcome Dee!

o MTS – Open positions There are 29 applicants for the MTS – Applications Analyst position.

Application materials are under review and preliminary interviews will be scheduled soon.

Investigations o One active investigation.

Personnel management o Approximately 20 -25% of time is spent addressing personnel issues,

questions, and/or concerns via email, telephone, and in person

61


Page 2 of 5

NORCOM On Track - o The committee is in the middle of a 5 week Focus on Nutrition campaign.

Each week there is a new nutrition-related topic, with recipes, food samples and a lot of information. The group continues to work on planning activities for the rest of the year, including activities challenges, health screenings and promoting EAP services.

2. HR Metrics:

Retention Report-2015 Department Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Down

Administration (Authorized 8FTE's)

8 8 8 8 8 0

Supervisors (Authorized 7 FTE's)

7 7 7 7 7 0

Technology (Authorized 10 FTE's)

8 8 8 8 9 1

Telecommunicator (*Authorized 62FTE's)

56.25 56.25 56.25 56.25 56

6

Summary of Authorized Telecommunicators

Telecommunicator Authorized FTE's vs. Actual FTE's

Year Average Staffing Level Authorized FTE's % of Authorized FTE's

2009 55.66 66 84.34%

2010 58.16 69 84.29%

2011 59 72 81.94%

2012 58.39 72 (Jan-Mar)→ 70 (Apr-Dec) 81.09% → 83.41%

2013 58.5 60 97.50%

2014 60.42 60 100.69%

2015 56 62 90. 3%

Overall Average 58.05 N/A 88 %

62


Page 3 of 5

Turnover Statistics

Telecommunicator Workgroup

Calculating the Average Turnover Rate Year

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

A total number of employees at the highest staffing level for that year 62 70 65 60 61 62 59

B Number of new hires that failed to complete the probationary period 5 11 17 4 2 3 1

C Number of experienced employees who left for any reason 4 18 4 10 7 7 0

D Turnover Rate (Turnover= B + C / A) 14.52% 41.43% 32.31% 23.33% 14.75% 16.1% 1.69%

E Retention Rate (Retention = 1-Turnover) x 100 85.48% 58.57% 67.69% 76.67% 85.25% 83.9% 98.3%

Notes: Includes Employees who were promoted as well as department transfers.

Telecommunicator-Monthly Turnover Rate

Calculating the Average Turnover Rate May 2015

A Total number of employees at the highest staffing level for that month 59

B Number of new hires that failed to complete the probationary period 0

C Number of experienced employees who left for any reason 1

D Turnover Rate (Turnover = B + C/A) 1.69%

E Retention Rate (Retention = 1- Turnover) x 100 98.3%

63


Page 4 of 5

Organizational-Turnover

Calculating the Average Turnover Rate

Year

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

A

total number of employees at the highest

staffing level for that year 81 91 87 81 86 87 82

B

Number of new hires that failed to complete the

probationary period 5 11 17 4 2 3 0

C

Number of experienced employees who left for

any reason 4 18 5 19 7 8 1

D

Turnover Rate

(Turnover= B + C / A) 11.11% 31.86% 25.28% 28.39% 10.46% 12.64% 1.22%

E

Retention Rate

(Retention = 1-Turnover) x 100 88.89% 68.14% 74.72% 71.61% 89.54% 87.36% 98.8%

64


Page 5 of 5

Exit Interview Data – All Personnel Reason for

Leaving 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

*Pursue School 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

*Pursue Another Field

0 4 1 2 2 2 0

*Pursue Another Communications Center

2 1 1 1 1 2 0

*Working Conditions

1 1 0 2 0 0 0

*Stay at Home 0 1 1 2 0 0 0

*Moving 0 6 0 3 0 1 0

*Retired 0 0 0 2 1 0 0

*Family/Personal 0 1 1 1 0 0 1

Voluntary Quits 4 18 5 19 4 2 1

Terminations 5 11 17 4 0 0 0

Discontinuation of Training

0 0 0 0 2 3 0

Promotions 0 0 0 3 3 2 0

Personnel Allegations (2015 to date) Allegation Number Unfounded Exonerated Sustained Disposition Pending

Violation of Rules &

Regulations

1

Unsatisfactory Job Performance

Total 1

Details: Rules and Regulations: Job Performance:

1 pending investigation •

65

Come talk to current dispatchers about what we

do!

See our operation first hand and hear some calls

and radio traffic!

Have you ever wondered what happens behind the scenes of 911?

Come find out!

Please join us anytime between 6:00PM and 8:00PM Wednesday

June 17th, 2015.

Refreshments will be provided.

Come Experience Emergency Dispatch

Event highlights

Speak directly with Human Resources about

process, benefits, and much more!

Ask a Dispatcher

Benefits and Human Resources

See Dispatch in Action

Bellevue City Hall

450 110th Avenue NE

Bellevue, WA 98004

Room 1E-108

D a t e : 6 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 5

T i m e : 6 : 0 0 P M—8 : 0 0 P M

For more information

please email

[email protected]

NORCOM Open House

Location Details

Directions:

From 405 North or South

Take the NE 4th St exit West bound onto NE 4th St

Turn right (North) on to 110th Ave NE

Turn right in to the Bellevue City Hall parking

garage .

66

Finance Board Report Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM


From: Gwen Pilo, Finance Manager


Re: Staff Update

Current/Ongoing Events

MEBT Audit – Clark Nuber has requested additional information for the on-going 2014 audit

on the Municipal Employees Benefit Trust accounts. All items requested are for Participant

Data Testing and Control Testing and have been uploaded to the Web Portal.

RFP 01-2015 Logging Recorder – The RFP for a new Logging Recorder was posted April 24th.

We received 6 responses, and 4 were selected for demonstrations May 28th. The team has

made a recommendation to the Executive Director and a resolution has been presented to

the Board to begin negotiations with the apparent successful vendor.


Annual Financial Reports – Annual Financial reports were due to the State Auditor on May

30, 2015. I posted the final reports on to the Web Portal on May 18th.

Upcoming Activities

2016 Budget - The Finance Committee reviewed New Program Request funding options

for the 2016 Budget in order to make a recommendation to the Joint Operating Board

for their June meeting. We will also be taking a look at the three possible User Fee

options that were presented last June to further identify the pros and cons of each

option and how implementation may impact participants. It is not anticipated that User

Fee structure will change in the 2016 Budget. The Governing Board will get the first look

at the Proposed Budget at the July 10th meeting.

Highlights

NORCOM On Track – Formerly known as the Wellness Committee, NORCOM on Track is

hosting “Focus on Nutrition-5 weeks of Food and Fun”, which started the evening of

May 15th with a “Mocktail Party”. Four different Mocktails were be served throughout

the week.

67

Finance Board Report Page 2 of 2

Each week has a different food and educational activity and participants can enter to

win a cookbook at the end of each week. All funding is provided through an AWC

Wellness grant.

Week 1 – Mocktail Party & AMA Health Quiz

Week 2 – Recipe Exchange & Help Start the

On Track Library

Week 3 – Eat Your Greens & Submit Your

Favorite Health Magazine

Week 4 – Eat This Instead of That; Food

Exchange & Portion Plate Photo Contest

Week 5 - Fruit a Day & Healthy Food Choices

on the Go AWC Webinar

68

Board Report

Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM


From: Dee Hathaway, IT Director


Re: Staff Update - Technology


ICRM – New World Systems, TriTech Major Upgrade, TriTech Fire Mobile

See ICRM report for project details.

King County Phone System Replacement Project – VIPER NG911

NORCOM IT and Telecommunicators are participating in a Quality of Service test at the King County E911 Program Office on Tuesday, June 9. Nathan Way from IT will also be intimately involved in the testing and evaluation of the results. NORCOM also participated in a Text-2-911 test on Friday, June 5 also at the E911 Program Office.

(The phone system replacement is part of King County’s initiative to upgrade the Enhanced 911 (E-911) systems to Next Generation 911 (NG911) technology. The Phone System Replacement project will be replacing the VIPER NG911 system and CISCO UCM for the Administrative and Business lines. The new phone system is required for use of NG911 technologies such as Text to 911, Voice of Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Automatic Collision Notification Systems i.e. OnStar.)

Intrusion Detection System

The Intrusion Detection System is installed and working well. It is currently configured in a Detection-only mode and is evaluating NORCOM network traffic. No abnormal traffic has been discovered thus far. (#69 – Intrusion Detection. This project will increase our security posture by evaluating traffic on NORCOM’s internal network looking for suspicious activity.)

Fire CAD Pre-plans for CAD and Mobile & Premise Updates

The next agency the Operations team will be updating is Eastside Fire and Rescue. Work with Bellevue and Bothell Fire Departments are in progress. Pre-plans have been loaded on Mobile MDTs for: SQFD, NSFD, SHFD, WOFD. (NORCOM and agencies will validate, update and load premise information with corresponding pre-plans in TriTech CAD. The completion of this work will provide the ability for pre-plans to be available in mobile. Review and completion of the premise updates and pre-fires are left to discretion of each agency. Some agencies may elect to hold off until the Zone 1 pre-fire standardization work is complete.)

69

Board Report

Page 2 of 2

Advanced Authentication – Kirkland Police

The infrastructure required to support the project has been completed and initial internal testing has begun. Next steps are to work with KIPD to set up the test cases and begin agency level testing. (The FBI’s updated CJIS Policy 5.2 requires that Advanced Authentication be used for all computers and MDCs accessing CJI data from an unsecure location. NORCOM will be hosting an Advanced Authentication server for its police agencies that opt for a hosted solution.)

LInX Interface

This project is currently on hold until KCSO and Northrop Grumman finalizes a new agreement. (LInX stands for Law Enforcement Information eXchange and serves as a nationwide repository of RMS data used by a wide variety of public safety personnel in their day to day activities. NORCOM’s current connection to LInX requires the legacy RAIN system, which is about to be end of life, therefore we are pursuing an updated interface from New World direct to LInX.)

Upcoming Activities

King County Phone System Replacement Project – CISCO UCM

This project remains on-hold pending the acceptance of the VIPER upgrade project. King County E911 and Century Link are still researching a solution to give us backup phones on the UCM system for dispatch positions. The backup solution should allow us to transfer 911 calls to these phones in the event of a failure in the VIPER system. (The phone system replacement is part of King County’s initiative to upgrade the Enhanced 911 (E-911) systems to Next Generation 911 (NG911) technology. The Phone System Replacement project will be replacing the VIPER NG911 system and CISCO UCM for the Administrative and Business lines. The new phone system is required for use of NG911 technologies such as Text to 911, Voice of Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Automatic Collision Notification Systems i.e. OnStar.)

Highlights

10G Backbone Upgrade

The 10G backbone has been implemented and is working well. There are now redundant high-speed fiber links between our servers in Row 7 and client network switches in Row 1. (#91 – 10G Network Upgrade. This project upgrades the backbone between computer racks to eliminate potential network bottlenecks.)

70

North East King County Regional Public Safety Communications Agency

PO Box 50911 Bellevue, WA 98015-0911 phone 425-577-5700 FAX 425-577-5701 www.norcom.org

MEMORANDUM To: Governing Board

From: Jerry Holcombe, Integrated Communications & Records Management (ICRM) Program Manager

Date: June 5, 2015

Subject: ICRM Program Update – Governing Board Meeting June 12, 2015

Fire Projects (Project Manager – Karen Furuya with oversight by Victor Lohr)

Fire Mobile-CAD Implementation Project o The project is now complete. o Official Software Acceptance (targeted for December 23) has been delayed due to one

system issue: MDC loses connection to GPS port. (first occurred December 22) – To date, TriTech

has provided 4 “hot-fixes”. NORCOM continue to work on this issue. Software will not be officially accepted until these issues are resolved. TriTech closed the Issue ticket from the project on their end and “cloned” it to a

new ticket.

Fire CAD (TriTech) Major Upgrade Project o The project will implement TriTech Inform CAD and Mobile-CAD V5.5. o Pre-Production and Training environments (excluding CBD interface) have been built and

testing is in progress. o TEST environment and associated interfaces (excluding CBD interface) are complete and

testing is in progress. o Projected timeline is completion by early Q3 2015. o CBD Interface

Sub-project (with strong interdependency) Operational Scenarios Document (OSD) under final stages of review with KC-EMS,

TriTech, Operations and IT. Approval and submission of OSD will generate a development timeline from TriTech. Based on preliminary estimates, TriTech indicated that the interface will be ready

for testing in early to mid-August. If so, our target deployment date moves into early to mid-September.

Risk: NORCOM’s upgrade date is dependent on the completion of the eCBD interface. Delay in TriTech providing a commitment for a completion date may delay go-live due to unknown duration of TriTech development.

Mitigation: Working in earnest on a contingency plan.

71

http://www.norcom.org/

Governing Board NORCOM Program Manager Update

Page 2 of 2

Police Projects (Project Manager – Mike Prill with oversight by Jerry Holcombe) o 10.2 Upgrade Project

Deployed to Production - February 24th Post Deployment Results:

We are up to one open Priority 1 issue and 7 open Priority 2 issues o Monitoring fix for one issue in Production. o Testing script to address historical records for two issues; root cause

of these issues have been addressed.

May 12, 2015 New World Systems Outage (Priority 1) o Began at 12:10 hrs on 5/12, service restored 16:20 hrs on 5/13. o Outage occurred shortly after NORCOM began testing a fix

developed by NWS and authorized by NWS for installation. o Still working with NWS to determine root cause.

o Next activities following 10.2 Upgrade Project closure include:

Exhibit Q review

Revisit Exhibit Q to identify the requirements that have been fulfilled and which ones have not

Work with NWS on how to move forward with those requirements not yet fulfilled

o LInX Interface

The invoices recently sent out by KCSO IT are for 2014’s RAIN/LInX maintenance and can be paid

NORCOM’s LInX interface has not uploaded since 10/2014. Attempting to work with KCSO IT and Northrop Grumman on the fix

Will soon schedule a LInX meeting to discuss upload options. If all 5 agencies can agree on the same setup we should be able to lower the cost NG has quoted us for the new interface

Should you have questions or suggestions, please contact me at phone 503.505.1469, or email [email protected].

72


Meeting of the NORCOM Governing Board Packet 06 12 2015.pdfKurt Triplett made a motion to approve...

Documents

Transcript of Meeting of the NORCOM Governing Board Packet 06 12 2015.pdfKurt Triplett made a motion to approve...