Aldermen, Board of

A special meeting of the Board of Aldermen was held Tuesday, August 26, 2014, at 7:05 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. President David W. Deane presided; Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch recorded. Prayer was offered by Deputy City Clerk Patricia Piecuch; Alderman Schoneman led in the Pledge to the Flag. The roll call was taken with 12 members of the Board of Aldermen present; Alderman Sheehan, Alderman Moriarty, and Alderman McGuinness were not in attendance. R-14-052 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($750,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF A CITYWIDE TELECOM SYSTEM INCLUDING BOTH THE CONSULTANT PHASE AND EQUIPMENT As provided for in NRO 5-28, Mayor Lozeau gave a brief explanation on R-14-052. Mayor Lozeau The legislation before you is for the bond as it relates to telecommunications is about the city phone system. This year when preparing the budget the police department and the school department; their draft budgets as presented to me included funds for the telephone system and what I asked them to do was to take it out of the budget because it was our plan to come in with a comprehensive look at the telephones throughout the city. We’ve had our most serious problem at the police department with telephones followed closely by the school but only some schools and then the fire department. The city phones also have a problem because we can’t replace parts. We are looking at trying to take a comprehensive approach to this with a single funding source. We believe that it will best serve the city and Mr. Codagnone is here tonight to talk about the approach that we are going to take because it’s a little unusual to come in asking you for a not to exceed amount when we don’t have a proposal with a concrete number before you. We’ll talk about the reason for that and then what we are dealing with the phone system which, by the way, is just under 2,000 phones throughout the city. Mr. Codagnone, Director of IT Division The approach we are taking is to bring in a consultant to help us design an architect the solution. Going to voice over IP (VOIP) is very complex; however we should realize some cost savings as a result because we will be routing traffic internally through our own network rather than going out throughout all of the normal phone lines. The other thing we will be able to realize is the cost in reduction in duplicate phone lines. Schools have their own set of phone lines, police, and so and the city has quite a few as well. We’ve done some due diligence to go through and that’s how we came up with that rough swag of we think it’s around $500,000. We have brought in a few vendors and we’ve had some lengthy discussions and talked about what we have, what would be the best approach but in order for us to do that deep dive do the due diligence to understand exactly what we have, not even just from the phone network perspective but from the network infrastructure perspective. The network for all of the computers and interconnectivity, the voice component would be riding over that network. For us to architect a network we need to make sure the current internal network can support that. We have fiber running throughout the city so we know that that will support the voice over IP network. It’s a very complex environment and we want to make sure we do it right, we want to make sure that it’s scalable and we also want to make sure that we realize cost savings year after year by going to a new solution. As the Mayor said, we do have an immediate need. The city phone system was purchased in the late 90’s, the police phone system is about 10 years old but they have had numerous problems with it and it impacts their day to day operations. The schools have a mix of age phones. The phone system in the elementary and middle schools is roughly around 15 years old. They did for the high schools about 10 Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 2 years ago do a migration to voice over IP but that will probably need to be upgraded as well. We have to approach this in a phased approach and take care of the immediate needs right away which are obviously the police, fire, and some of the elementary schools and then tackle them as they come. Testimony in Favor – No one came forward. Testimony in Opposition Mr. Mike Broderick, 8 Boxwood Court I would like to know the procedure to find out how we present to the city to provide them with a system at zero cost? President Deane Can you say that again? Mr. Broderick I would like to know the procedure to present to the city; how we can provide the city with a phone system at zero cost. President Deane I guess you could call the Mayor’s office. Mr. Broderick I did. President Deane And nobody answered the phone? Mr. Broderick I spoke to the Mayor and she told me that she would exclude me from the bidding process but I’m not looking to bid on the system, I’m looking to provide an option to the city to provide them with a phone system at zero cost, which means they would not need a bond. President Deane Mr. Broderick, we have a Budget Review meeting that immediately follows this and we have a public comment section there and I think we would all be more than willing to listen to what you have to say. Testimony in Favor – No one came forward. Testimony in Opposition Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive I am here to speak in opposition to R-14-052 and it’s not because I am against telephone systems or because I don’t recognize the need to upgrade. The statement made by the Mayor said that “we have Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 3 an unusual approach.” Well, that’s to say it mildly. You ask to upgrade the telephone system which you say is complex, and it is. You mention 3,000 telephones and the PVX’s and the switches and everything else that goes with that. I have no question that it is a complicated system for a city this large. The point is how is it being done? I presume you have this in your packet, the Mayor distributed it in writing her strategy and as the Mayor always does, she’s very thorough and she’s got a strategy. The problem is the strategy. She is saying in the second page, “the consultant we will bring on board will provide implantation and management and oversight of the selected vendor/manufacturer to ensure the project’s design and functional attributes are met throughout the life cycle. Until a bond is secured we will not be able to bring in a consultant to assist us and (inaudible) requirements and develop the RFP.” That is completely backwards. The way the city always operates is that you get a consultant on board, an independent consultant with no allegiance to any of the vendors that would bid, develops an RFP, details the city’s requirements based on the study that the consultant does, the RFP goes out, the vendors bid, you look at the competitive bidding, you develop a source selection panel, depict the best bid for the city, find out what the cost is, present the cost to the Aldermen, and then you ask for the bond. Consultant first, RFP next, cost development next, and bonds last. Why? Because then you know what the cost is. In this strategy for example, the Mayor says “could cost of $500,000.” That’s just a guess. If she thinks it costs $500,000 then why are we asking for $750,000? Even to ask for a bond for $750,000, how do you even know it’s going to cost $750,000? This did not happen when the city developed the ERP, I forgot what you call it now, it’s a whole management software, I don’t know what you call these days, and it used to be called by ERP when IT Manager Barker handled it. Surely it wasn’t done with security system in the schools, I know because I was part of the selection panel. The school developed a very detailed RFP using a consultant and when out and bid. They got some 12 bidders, some of whom were not responsive, they got competitive prices, we evaluated all of those bids and prices, and we fact found. We came back to the city and said $2.1 million. The Mayor vetoed it however; it came back two years later after all of the killings in the schools. Not in New Hampshire, the one in Connecticut. That is the process that the city follows. I have a question to ask of the new director. I am allowed to ask questions since this is a public hearing. Why are we not following the standard proven procedure? Mr. Codagnone Right now we don’t have the money to bring in a consultant. We could take that approach. We have brought in a consultant that was working with us for free to a certain extent but…I agree with you, that would be a nice approach but we would need to allocate at least $30,000 or $40,000 to do that. The due diligence and the network design would cost a lot of money. We have gotten quotes on up to $60,000 to bring in a consultant. Mr. Teeboom Now I’m a literally flabbergasted because you just went through a budget hearing, you just approved a budget one month ago. If you needed a consultant, why was it not proposed to this Board for a consultant in your budget? President Deane We are taking testimony, I am not going to let it…you had a question, it’s a very good question and I tend to agree with you. I think putting our fingers on that kind of money is not a difficult thing to do at this point in time. I just don’t want it to turn into a question and answer session. These pieces of legislation will be in front of the Budget Review Committee which immediately follows this. This is strictly testimony on your position and I’d like to keep it at that. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 4 Mr. Teeboom Mr. Chair, I beg to differ with you. If you look at RSA O-528, Public Hearings, which was unanimously adopted by this Board back on September 23, 2008, it says we are allowed to ask questions, with an “s” at the end, plural. President Deane Is there an “s” at the end of that? Mr. Teeboom Yes. President Deane Okay, I stand corrected. Mr. Teeboom This is a public hearing it’s not public comment. This meeting is for the benefit of the public. President Deane Yes, I understand that. Mr. Teeboom So back to the question, why wasn’t this presented to the Board during the budget process? Mayor Lozeau It actually was presented during the budget that this was going to be something that we intended to do. There is an opportunity, and I’m sure that’s what we will discuss in the Budget Committee, whether or not we will look at potentially surplus funds or another source to cover the consultant if that’s the approach people want to take. When Mr. Codagnone and I presented it during the budget period, we talked about coming - because we talked about the fact that at that time we were working with a consultant because we were trying to get a better sense of those numbers and that we would likely come in with something that included the cost of the consultant as part of the project and part of the bond. It doesn’t have to be that way and one of the things that was very important and one of the things that the director pointed out to me is that in order to really get a good group of vendors that will respond to this, we really want to show them that the city is not out fishing looking for information but that we are serious about the project and we’ve allocated funds to do the project. We have had some trouble as of late getting vendors on different types of projects and we wanted to make sure that wasn’t the case here. It can be done either way. Mr. Teeboom Well, it should be done the proper way and the only way the proper way is to get an independent consultant to do a study and then develops the RFP. The RFP goes out to bid; certainly everyone knows you are serious if you have already paid for a consultant. The bids come back an you form a source selection team to select the winning bidder and then present the information to the Board of Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 5 Aldermen and try to get approval for the bond. That’s the only process that is a proven process and I urge the Board to take it in order. President Deane Mr. Broderick, would you like to come up again and ask your question? Mr. Broderick I just want to know what the procedure is to provide the city with a communications system at zero cost. It’s pretty simple. Mayor Lozeau Mr. Broderick, when you called me I was not under the impression that it was at zero cost but either way, the answer would have been this. When we develop the design of what we want for the city, people will be able to bid on it. I assumed that you would be a bidder when you told me you were going into a new business and I didn’t want to preclude you from being able to bid. Mr. Broderick Agreed. Mayor Lozeau So I told you what should happen is that you need to go to the purchasing department and get signed up as an approved vendor and then when the RFP went out you would be able to bid on that RFP. Now, I would suspect that if you came in at zero cost you may beat out the other vendors. It also depends on what your system is so you would still follow that same process so that you knew what our expectations were. Mr. Broderick Perhaps I wasn’t clear when we spoke, Mayor. However, I do not intend to bid on the system because I do not have the size of a business to provide the system with that opportunity. The opportunity that I can provide to city is regardless of what the cost is for that, it will cost the city zero. To me, I would think that the Budget Committee and this Board would want to at least listen to a presentation that would afford the city the not the cost of having to get a bond, which could reduce a lot of items in the city such as taxes which a lot of people here complain about. That is my point of being here tonight, to provide an opportunity regardless – it could include the cost of the consultant, the cost of the phone system, etc. But I would need information to provide a model to present. Mayor Lozeau You would still go through the same process of getting the document – so if the city said we need a truck and we want it to be a F-350 with a plow and this other stuff and you said well I’ll give you a truck for free, we’d still want to make sure that it met the criteria that we need. We may take a free truck for some other purpose but we are not going to take a free phone system that doesn’t meet criteria. Mr. Broderick I’m not standing here Mayor to give you a free; to provide you the free phone system. If you listened to me, I’m trying to tell you that whatever system, whatever vendor you choose, that cost can be zero. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 6 Mayor Lozeau Well I am sure that the purchasing department and the CFO will be anxious to hear about that. Mr. Broderick Okay well that’s what I am asking. What is the process so I can…I would need information from the city to provide that model. That’s what I am asking. Mayor Lozeau What I am trying to explain to you is that we have not developed the spreadsheet so to speak of what we need for you to be able to then respond. Mr. Broderick But wasn’t it stated here that the cost of the phone system would be “X” amount of dollars so you have an idea of what the city wants to spend for a communications system? Mayor Lozeau We are anticipating a cost but we don’t know yet. Mr. Codagnone has told us that he has spoken with a consultant who does this kind of work and that’s basically how he has been able to present the strategy and what we anticipate the cost to be. Mr. Broderick So we could base the model on your anticipated cost and that’s my point. Mayor Lozeau I guess I don’t understand. Alderman McCarthy I think there is some confusion here. It sounds to me like what you are proposing is not anything to do with the phone system itself but an alternative financing mechanism to the bond for the cost of the phone system. Mr. Broderick Correct. Mayor Lozeau Well then I guess when we know the actual cost. Mr. Broderick I just think it’s an opportunity for the city to save a lot of money especially after the budget has already passed. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 7 President Deane Well if you have any information on the radio bond that’s next. Mr. Broderick I don’t. What I need are figures from this Board on what the anticipated cost is and some other items in order to provide a model to provide the city with a zero cost. They can go to whoever they want, AT & T, I don’t really care who it is. It doesn’t matter to me if you get it from the ABC Company, I could care less. I’m interested in what the final bottom line is so I would think that everyone on this Board would want to look at that to provide the city a zero cost to keep taxes down, for example. President Deane So that only has to do with the phone system? Mr. Broderick No. President Deane So the next piece of legislation, would it pertain to that as well? Mr. Broderick It could. President Deane We have some pretty definitive figures for the radio. Mr. Broderick If I had a model I could provide it based on what you pay for your service, for your internet, for your electricity, for your cell phones; we include all of those costs in my model. The bottom line is that it comes back to the city at zero cost. President Deane Is there any other testimony in opposition? Mr. Bob Burgess The main thing I think is what the cost is going to be. It seems like too often lately we aren’t prioritizing what the needs of the city in here are. This resolution is going to cost us about $1 million for a life expectancy of 15 years. The other end of this is that it’s going to cost between the both of them, $8,321,000 for 10 years of service. That scares me as a taxpayer. It seems like if we have had a problem this long with our phone system in the city here, why is it just coming out? Were the sidewalks and the flowers downtown more important than a new phone system? It seems too often we are spending all kinds of money, moving money around and to me this is a lot of money for 10 years and I think it’s time to really look into it as to how severe the problem is with our phone system or whatever it Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 8 is, communications in the city here. This is a heck of a lot of money for only a 10 year warranty on it. Thank you. Mr. John Carroll, 77 Musket Drive Without taking everyone’s time up repeating things, I’ll just concur with Mr. Teeboom and your remarks, Alderman Deane, that I think this should be handled in the normal way and not make an exception to bond the consultant fee. Testimony in Favor – No one came forward. Testimony in Opposition - No one else came forward. President Deane I will close the public hearing on R-14-052 and open the public hearing on R-14-056. R-14-056 AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000) FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD PHASE OF THE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS UPGRADE As provided for in NRO 5-28, Mr. Bill Mansfield gave a brief explanation on Resolution R-14-056. Mr. Bill Mansfield, Radio Systems Manager This evening we are here to look at a proposal for a $6 million bond to replace the radio infrastructure within the city. I have handed you a PowerPoint presentation. I wanted to go back quite a few years to tell you where this all began because some of you were not on the Board at that point in time. Before 2000, probably in 1997 or 1998 the City of Nashua had several radio systems within the city. DPW had their own system, schools had their own system, & fire and police had their own system. The communications at that point in time were very poor so the city got together and formed a committee and established a citywide communications committee that looked at how we could improve communications within the city between entities as well as getting everybody all of the radio coverage that they needed. At that point we purchased an 800 megahertz trunk radio system from Motorola. It’s a three-site, 10-channel simulcast system and it’s both digital and analog and has been in operation since 2000. When we did this we increased radio communications throughout the city, we increased the amount of radio channels that were available to everybody in the city, we provided entities without radio communications with radio communications, and provided interoperability between every agency within the city. The system that is out there today is a system that police can talk to fire; fire can talk to DPW; DPW can talk to health; everyone can talk on the same system by utilizing what we have programed in every radio which is interoperability channels. There is a photo that shows you radio equipment at the PED. There are many different sites within the system. There are two facilities which contain radio equipment. This is the larger one at the police department. This is the system that is for the entire city, it’s shared by everyone in the city. Along with that, there is a facility at the fire department, there’s a dispatch center at the police department, there’s a dispatch center at the fire department, and there are five tower sites within the city. Three of those sites are what we consider to be RF sites or radio sites. All of those sites feed back into the police department and the information is disbursed from there to the dispatch centers or to the other radios that are out there within the city. All sites are connected via microwave links at this point in time and when I talk about all sites, I am talking about the RF sites; those three sites. There is another photo that talks about the remote sites. Each of Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 9 the remote sites has a building and that building is air conditioned and heated because of the computer equipment that is inside. All of them are secured by fencing, they are all in concrete buildings, and they are all backed up by generators. Currently, the budget for citywide communications is right around $300,000 and that includes all of the costs to maintain the system as it is today. The system is very old. The next photo is of the interior of the remote sites, it has some of the same equipment that’s at the police department. On the far right there are 10 channels that are stacked up there and those are Corner Tower Radios. Each of the sites also has 8 hours of battery back-up and those units are also 16 years old. The system users, fire; police; EMS; all DPW divisions; schools; plant operations; transit; health, and community development. There are approximately 1,500 users on the system today. In 2010, we began having failures with the system; again the system was never upgraded. As most of you know technology changes very quickly and because it does, they have stopped making products because they are making new products. In 2010 we started having failures with the system dealing with power supplies at our main site. These power supplies were key in keeping the radio system up and running. We tried to find replacements parts and had a company that came in that said they could re-build the units but nobody could duplicate what the power supply units were so we were in a bind. We were literally begging and borrowing from other parts of the country; the pieces and parts to try to keep this system running. The Mayor was made aware of this and she asked that a radio committee be formed to review and evaluate the state of the city’s radio communication system. The radio committee, some of the members have changed since then but for the most part, they are the same. From the Board of Aldermen, you have Alderman McCarthy; the CFO, John Griffin; Emergency Management, Justin Kates; Information Technology is Bruce Codagnone and Nick Miseirvitch; from GIS is Angelo Mario; from DPW is Andy Patrician; the fire department is Assistant Chief Steven Galipeau & Pete Collishaw; from the police department is Captain Scott Hammond and from their IT Division, Peter Sinfo; and myself as well as the gentleman that works with me, Brian Sherman from the Communications Division. That’s what the radio committee is comprised of. We reviewed the infrastructure life cycles. When we are talking about life cycles we are talking about end of life for different products that are in the system today. The infrastructure life cycles, as we continue going through these slides, I can better describe what is at the end of life cycle, what is well beyond life cycle and so on. We looked at the mobile and portable life cycles. Every mobile radio in the City of Nashua is considered to be non-repairable by Motorola and second party vendors. Portable radio life cycles, all the police and fire portable radios were no longer repairable and are at the end of their life. Since that point in time, we have replaced them. Non-system related life cycles, looking at microwave, batteries, generators, air condition units, everything that was not Motorola related but the things that we have within the system. The biggest priority we had was with the infrastructure. We weighed the options for replacement at that point in time, reviewed the equipment inventories, determined the immediate needs for the city and at that point in time, we requested to replace the network infrastructure. We also reviewed a multi-year plan for the replacement of the system. The options that we came up with were to stay with the current system and hope the infrastructure doesn’t fail, replace the entire system which would mean we would replace everything all at once. Upgrade the radio system with a phased approach over multiple years. Motorola offered a phased in approach where we would not have to replace our entire infrastructure. In 2012, we received a bond from the city to begin upgrading our radio system and we moved to Motorola SmartX System. This was a $1.6 million bond that allowed us to replace the networking infrastructure within the system, mainly the key components that were failing at the time. SmartX allows the city to replace the network infrastructure in one year phasing (inaudible) replacement over multiple years and phasing radio replacement over multiple years. The multiple year approach at that point in time was to replace the radio system network equipment which was $1.6 million. We also said we were going to replace 3 channels in the second phase, 3 channels of the radio system third phase, 4 channels in the fourth phase, and replace other system upgrades and software upgrades in the final phase. In 2013, Motorola came to the City of Nashua with a deal on portable radios. At the same time, the City of Nashua received several grants from the state to replace our portable radios. 85 portable radios were replaced by the state and those are dual band, there VHF radios that can operate with other entities around the city as well as 800 megahertz radio channels are in there as well where we can operate on our own system. At that time in 2013, again, I came before Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 10 the Board of Aldermen with a deal to replace the radios. We replaced 293 radios at a cost of a little less than $1 million. That kind of messed up the phased in approach that the committee initially looked at. In December of 2012, the city purchased the first phase of the project which is the network infrastructure. This was the first upgrade to the system in 13 years. Non-repairable components to the infrastructure replaced were dispatch console equipment which is at the end of its life in police and fire was replaced. The upgrading was completed in June of 2013. Within the police department there are two racks of networking equipment. The photo you have does not show you the work that was done at the other sites or the dispatch consoles. This took care of the main issue at that point in time. Phase II was to replace the fire and police portables; all of the public safety portable radios and all of the city’s mobile radios that were non-repairable. We purchased the public safety radios in December, 2013; we finished deploying those around May of this year. All of fire and police personnel were issued new radios and accessories that belong with them as well as every one of them was trained one on one by myself or in the classroom setting. The next picture is a photo of the new radios for police and fire. Phase II through Phase V purchase, budgetary figures in 2012 from Motorola basically said that Phase II through Phase V was going to be $7.5 million, recognizing that it was spreading out the portable radios over the years and the mobile radios over the varying years. The current proposal that Motorola has given to us, it has allowed us to include additional issues that we already have with the system including the power systems; replacing the power systems, the microwave systems, replacing all of the VHF radios at both police and fire. The previous system that we had was a 7.13 radio system. We would be upgrading it to a 7.15 system and we would also include the upgrade of the old equipment meaning the previous equipment that we bought in 2012. The most recent price from Motorola is $5.1 million. This would upgrade all of the radio channels at all of the sites, upgrade the radio system from 7.13 to 7.15 and when I say upgrade, I mean it’s basically adding features to the system which brings us up to date with the most current system that is out there. The system will be P-25 compatible. P-25 is a standard that’s set up by the FCC for interoperability communications between pretty much everybody with an 800 megahertz system with a P-25 radio would be able to communicate with us here in the city. The plan also includes replacing all of the mobile radios, upgrading remaining portable radios to P-25. We have 200 portable radios that are non-public safety portable radios that are issued throughout the city. Those radios would have to become compatible with P-25 and this proposal includes the upgrade that was required for those radios. Those radios are still serviceable for another 5 years. We just got the end of life notification from Motorola on those. This would replace the microwave system at each of the sites, replace all antennae and cabling at all sites, mainly the antennae that are on the towers, antennae on the side of the buildings, and all of the cabling that has been out there for 14 or 15 years at this point in time. It would replace the 134 VHF mobile radios in police and fire vehicles, it would replace the system alarming and monitoring which is not working at this point in time, it’s dead; it would replace all of the timing devices at the sites that synchronize all of the sites through GPS and it allows us to operate on a simulcast system. It would replace all of the control stations throughout the city. Control stations are what you would call a mobile radio in a box and it’s a miniature bay station. They are utilized mainly by DPW and they use those for dispatch purposes. We also use them at police and fire for back-up radios if our radio system fails. We would replace all of vehicle repeaters and fire apparatus. Each of the fire apparatus has a repeater inside the vehicle which basically floods a building with RF or radio frequency so that we can get penetration in the building when the fire fighters are mainly in the basement of a building and we can’t get radio communications out. It would provide radio management software which would allow us to manage our radios, it would allow us to program our radios over the air; right now we to physically touch every radio to reprogram it. Through the process of the fire department and I using them as an example; we went through and reprogrammed those radios at least 10 times before every one of those radios was set the way we wanted them. On the police side, I have reprogrammed every one of those portable radios at least 7 times. The only way you can be sure that the radio is operating properly is if you reprogram and send them out there and let the guys test them. This new system will allow us to reprogram them over the air. Motorola has put an inventive in there. The incentives are supplying us with 134 VHF radios for fire and police and increasing the warranty period on our previous equipment that we purchased which is still under warranty until June of next year; it would extend that warranty out to 2017 and the Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 11 entire system would be on that same warranty cycle. The warranty would also not go into effect until we have system acceptance. The reason why we have asked for additional money, the $6 million is because we have other things that are going to be needed for this process. The pricing from Motorola, I had them leave it out intentionally was because I wanted to get quotes for it. Additional costs are going to be for the removal and installation of all the mobile radios and that will be approximately $175,000 - $200,000 to replace. Basically, it’s just ripping out the old equipment and the installation all brand new equipment into the vehicles. Replacing the console furniture of the police department as the furniture that they have there now is falling apart to say the least. It would also allow us to have a project manager assigned on the city side to oversee the entire project. We are also looking at Genesis Reporting Software which would allow us to create a variety of reports off the system which is not offered by Motorola at this point in time. Then we also have specialty vehicles that we have to have people fly in to basically take the vehicles apart to reinstall these radios because they are built behind walls and things like that. Those are some of the additional cost that we are looking at and that’s why we added some extra money into bond. If you look at the photo of the non-public safety radio, that’s a mobile radio; that’s the interior of it. It’s all burnt on the bottom and most of the radios because they have been in vehicles for 14 years there’s a lot of wear and tear on them. I get them back burnt and I probably have 20 – 30 in my office at this point in time. These radios are non-repairable and not replaceable. I have been purchasing used radios from a dealer out of Colorado which allows us to keep going right now but these radios are pretty much disposable at this point. There are other projects that we have going on with the city that are not going to be included in this bond. We are going to be connecting all of the sites within the city to connect them with microwave. For redundancy we are also going to connect the sites with a fiber link. I’ll be coming to the Finance Committee next week looking for approval for the funding on that. That will not be out of the bond. Replacing the UPS systems the power systems at police and fire. Currently, we are in the process of getting quotes to replace doors at some of the sites. The doors are rusted out and we don’t want the critters in there eating our wires and radio system. Eventually the air conditioning units are going to have to be replaced at those sites. Those units are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year whether it’s pushing out heat or it’s pushing out cold to maintain the temperature within the building facilities that we have. We are also in the process of getting quotes for wiring each of these sites for additional back-up generator connections. We have had instances where generators have failed right in the middle of a blizzard, we have generators that we can utilize but we need to have extra power items installed to make that work. We are trying to maintain the current equipment and addressing individual department needs as they come forward. That is pretty much it with my presentation. Testimony in Favor – No one came forward. Testimony in Opposition Mr. Steve Papa, Spit Brook Road I am an entrepreneur and an investor. I am building a company in Nashua to actually advance the state-of-the-art in public safety communications. I am actually pretty well versed on this. In fact, I am working with an entire country right now to help them advance their public safety network to the next generation. I want to compliment the city in doing such a good job in extending the life cycle of their investment in their radio infrastructure. In fact, the city has done such a good job that the entire next generation of P-25 is going to be obsolete in 3 or 4 years and it’s really important to think about that transition in light of this investment. We all know that 7 years ago IPhone created a revolution with the Smart Phone. So, right now would you be saying oh, let’s forget about Smart Phone’s, let’s go in put in place typewriters? That’s what P-25 is, in fact, the mission of my company is to make sure P-25 is obsolete in 3 years. I’ve invested $20 million of my own money to do that and have other investors coming in to do more. Next week I am down with Homeland Security, I am down speaking with General Petreous about the global opportunity to move public safety beyond archaic technology. Now, that said, I am very empathetic and recognize that we have to make the system work so what I would Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 12 like to recommend to the city is…so when I look at the consultant’s report, the strategic plan, this is a consultant that’s whole livelihood is implementing broad based P-25 systems. In fact, they want to argue with someone that you should standardize everyone in your community on a P-25 system and that makes sense if it has a 20 year life cycle. If it’s got a 3 or 4 year life cycle then that doesn’t make sense. There’s a whole national program called First Net which already has $7 billion in funding from the congress authorized, not all, it gets complicated but it’s going to come which is to create interoperability for all of the different constituents in public safety. It’s been a challenge, the same challenge that’s being discussed between Nashua and Manchester. That’s the national answer. What I would recommend to the city is to find a way to limit, as much as possible, anyone that doesn’t need to be on P-25. You can buy a gateway from a company in Massachusetts called Mutual Link for $30,000 - $50,000 that would allow anyone in the schools with a snow plows to use on these on an AT & T or Verizon network and interoperate with P-25. You are trading op X for a $7 million bond that’s going to be for obsolete equipment in 3 to 4 years because as the public safety network becomes available over these, you won’t even need AT & T and Verizon; you’ll have your own spectrum, you’ll be able to operate these here in the City of Nashua. That’s going to happen over the next 3 or 4 years. Any report from a consultant that doesn’t explicitly acknowledge that this transition is coming and how you should deal with it to me is a bias consultant. It’s someone looking after how do they make the biggest project for them to deploy P-25 equipment. Second, they should be making sure you future proof your investments. If you are putting up towers, if you are putting in back hall links, they should be put in place acknowledging that you will be getting to an LTE network just like your Smart Phones over the next 3 to 5 years. My advice is to require the strategic plan to incorporate and acknowledge the move to LTE phones which is where the whole globe is going to go over the next 4 or 5 years. I mean would you like to have your phone from 1995 instead of a Smart Phone? That’s pretty much what P-25 is. You should be limiting the damage or consider this expense for this bond to be an operating expense for over the next 3 years because that’s the life cycle of that equipment and then you will be coming back here with another discussion for another few million dollars to upgrade to these. If it’s helpful to the city, I am happy to put my team of 60 people at their disposal as pro bono if you want someone to give you some thoughts on how that transition will play out and how the city can plan for it. These things are indestructible; you can drop them from 100 feet. Hopefully, I can be helpful in the future. Alderman Donchess Would it be appropriate to ask Mr. Papa questions? President Deane Probably not, I think if he’d like to stay and attend our Budget Review Committee meeting I think we could have a discussion at that point in time. Is there anyone else who wishes to give testimony in opposition and/or ask any questions? Mr. Teeboom I have spent 40 plus years in the telecommunications business. I worked on water to install satellite radio communications. I worked with cell phones and telephone systems. I worked for Motorola as a consultant Teledese Program which is now defunct. It was a nightmarish program that ultimately cost $6 billion. I also worked with Motorola; I did not work for Motorola, Motorola bid the equipment for the big dig which is underground, above ground, simulcast in a very dense area with not just fire but police and EMS. Tunnels are a very crowded situation and there’s a lot of interference below the ground and above the ground. I worked as an independent consultant doing exactly what I said earlier when I talked about the other bond and that is we bid on consulting jobs and after we gained them, we put together a package, we put together an RFP, we helped the customer procure the system, we tested the system, we transitioned the system, and generally then we walked out. We didn’t generally Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 13 maintain it. Remember about 10 years ago the city had done a fiber optic study, an in-house study to do a fiber optic system; I think Alderman McCarthy and Alderman Deane were around. The in-house study was a disaster. They wanted roughly $2 million and had no redundancy, poor connectivity than AT & T or Verizon at the time provided. I got in and did an independent study at no charge and I showed Mayor Streeter and the staff that the thing was just undoable. Why, because it was done in- house without using a knowledgeable independent consultant. Just as the fellow before me spoke about where P-25 is going. P-25 is a 25 year old standard. It’s got two phases, it’s got the FDM Phase (Frequent Division Multiplex) which is now and a future phase called TDM which is now what you are proposing and kind of stumbling along because truly technology is catching up. In my experience I have worked with both internet systems and radio systems and the people in internet systems don’t work well with the people in radio systems. They don’t understand each other’s technology. When we start looking closely at the way the systems are going that you have yourself a basic IP gateway. If you are getting into your simulcast systems, simulcast meaning shared frequencies over large populations in different communities. If somebody in Nashua can talk seamlessly to somebody in Manchester without having to go through a dispatch. These IP systems that are coming out are so fast and so efficient that you can have gateways and you don’t have to go necessarily to the complexity of a P-25 system. There’s a lot of complexity without going into detail in terms of frequency interference. Alderman Donchess There’s a term I didn’t understand. What does the term IP mean? Mr. Teeboom IP Gateway. Internet Protocol Gateway. It means the internet is making its way into the aging systems and that’s what the cell band is basically addressing. So P-25 will probably become an obsolete standard. Not everyone is adopting them. It’s very expensive; you are talking about millions of dollars in upgrades. As Mr. Mansfield said, there are many things yet to come that are not part of this bond. The schools have to be tied in and that’s not part of the bond. Other communities getting tied in are not part of this bond. The problem we have here is the same problem that I had with the other bond. You don’t have an independent consultant. You got Motorola this and Motorola that, it’s all Motorola. There’s nothing wrong with Motorola, it’s a very competent company but Motorola works for Motorola; they don’t work for the City of Nashua. So when you get estimates from a company called Motorola, you have to be very careful what it is that you are getting. Now, before I ask Mr. Mansfield a question, there was a document provided to me when I asked for back-up for this bond and I understand you all got this information. Mr. Chairman, did everyone get this information? President Deane Yes. Mr. Teeboom One of the documents called P-25 Simulcast Infrastructure Upgrade, that’s a Motorola document. In it, it describes upgrading the City of Nashua. On the last page it says, guess what the price is? $5.8 million. It’s a Motorola figure. It says the information that is provided to assist you in your budget planning and your evaluation processes. We will be pleased to submit a comprehensive proposal with firm pricing based upon a more detailed analysis of your requirements. Where is the detailed analysis of our requirements? I see a list by Bill Mansfield that goes back to 2012. It’s a list of equipment and the years the equipment has to be bought. A lot of it is radios and some of it is upgrading the tower systems and it all adds up to ultimately $9.65 million. As I can tell $3.5 million has already been spent, am I correct? Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 14 Mr. Mansfield Incorrect. Mr. Teeboom Well, that’s the figure that I have. The $9.5 million is the figures that he added up and Motorola comes back and says we have a proposal for you that are estimates so it’s not a proposal of $5.8 million. When you give us the details then we will tell you what the real cost is going to be. Mr. Mansfield Mr. Teeboom, I’m not sure what document you have but it seems like it’s a very old document because the numbers on that are incorrect. Mr. Teeboom April 11, 2014. Mr. Mansfield That is an old document. Mr. Teeboom It’s four months old, how can it be old? Mr. Mansfield There have actually been two proposals since that point in time and Motorola has come in and they have been given what we wanted for all the requirements and they have come back with another quote. Mr. Teeboom Is that old, April of 2014? Mr. Mansfield I am telling you that it’s old. President Deane I don’t mean to interrupt but I had asked about the information that was being provided when Mr. Teeboom had gotten a hold of me and I believe what Mr. Teeboom has is exactly what was sent to us. I guess I can pull up some of those files and verify the dates but I remember that date because I reviewed most of that last week. So what you are telling us, Mr. Mansfield is that there are newer documents that can be provided to us. Mr. Mansfield I am not sure if they can be provided to you because we are in negotiations at this point in time and that’s why I was kind of surprised that that document was out there. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 15 President Deane That was provided by the Mayor’s office. Mr. Mansfield Okay, that was a document from April and since that point in time, I have had another proposal in July and we have taken that proposal and chewed that up and I have another proposal as of August 7th. President Deane We don’t have any of that. I just remember that I remember that April 11th date is what we received. Mr. Mansfield The proposal from August 7th has the dollar amount of $5.1 million and it includes a lot more than that $5.8 million because Motorola had not looked at our requirements. Mr. Teeboom Motorola does not write a proposal unless you give them an RFP. The words that they have in this letter dated April 11, 2014; unless you can show differently; says “we will assist you with budget planning evaluation and we will be please to submit a comprehensive proposal with firm pricing based upon a more detailed analysis of your requirements.” What detailed analysis have you performed, Mr. Mansfield since April 11, 2014, to allow Motorola to know submit a firm fixed price proposal? Mr. Mansfield We have actually sat down with them on probably 10 occasions and looked at every piece and part of the radio system to determine what we were going to end up replacing and adding in everything we wanted to replace in the system so that we would be good for a minimum of the next 10 years. Mr. Teeboom And therein lay the problem aside from the question of which one is the proposal and which one is the estimate. You are dealing with P-25 on the one hand, which is an open standard which allows competition. That’s the whole point about P-25. Here you are dealing with a single contractor called Motorola without inviting anybody else. Mr. Mansfield If you look at P-25 it actually is an open standard, it’s not an open standard for infrastructure, it’s an open standard for basically subscriber radios. It also doesn’t even go as far as an open standard for an encryption in radios. The open standard is basically for subscribers meaning portables and mobile radios. Mr. Teeboom It includes our tower frequency definitions, infrastructure definitions? I have the entire specs and it’s about this thick. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 16 Mr. Mansfield But every system is still proprietary. Mr. Teeboom This is not the place to argue about technical details. I disagree with what Mr. Mansfield just said totally. I have in my hands and I’m not going to share it, first steps P-25, how to procure the P-25 system, how to accept a P-25 system and it says this is not material used independent consultants to do it. It requires a detailed requirement study and get bidders to bid. It does not say stick with one vendor because you can’t depend on the pricing of one vendor. You can accept the $6 million, I certainly wouldn’t. I have a whole bunch of questions like why is there no trader of simulcast versus multicast or hybrid. Why do you have to jump to a full simulcast system? Why do you have to replace the entire system? Mr. Mansfield We are currently a simulcast system and have been for the last 14 years. Going to a multicast system would be going backwards. Mr. Teeboom Alright, that’s a good answer. That’s a fine answer but you need to develop your requirements. You have to state in a document what it is that you want, how many radios you want, how many tower changes you want, and what consoles and software you want. All of that stuff has to be defined and documented and they have to ask Harris to come in and Motorola to come in. The problem is that this city is locked into a Motorola system and it continues to be locked into a Motorola system because people feel comfortable with Motorola systems but they wind up with prices which are not competitive. Every document that I have dealt with a P-25, I’m not an expert on the P-25 by any means but every document regarding P-25 tells you to get an independent consultant to evaluate what you need in detail and get it to bid because it is an open standard. We can argue what opens means but it’s open, you are not locked into just Motorola. Maybe the power supplies are locked in but it’s certainly not in the radios or frequency channelization or the rest of it. I have a problem with all of this stuff and you ought to stop this whole procedure of coming in with these $1.6 million bonds and $6 million bonds. Ask Mr. Mansfield to put together a package to get an independent consultant just like any other one, and come back and do an RFP and look at the whole problem in Nashua. There is, by the way in your study, the Nashua and Manchester Regional Feasibility Study. Mr. Mansfield, how much of this is being implemented by Manchester? Mr. Mansfield Manchester is going to gut their entire system and they have gone out to bid on a radio system. Mr. Teeboom With an RFP? Mr. Mansfield Yes. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 17 Mr. Teeboom Why aren’t you doing that? Mr. Mansfield Because we are, at this point, we have already spent $1.5 million on an infrastructure that does not fall under the P-25 realm. If you bought a Harris system, Manchester has a Harris Radio System. If they continue to go with the Harris System it will not be compatible with our system. The only way it will be compatible with our system is if they put a device between their system and our system which can tie it together. It will not be totally compatible without that one device. If Manchester decided to move forward and go with a Motorola system because it still meets the P-25 standard, their system would be totally compatible with ours. As a matter of fact, in that document, that feasibility study, it recommended that Manchester connect to our radio system and alleviate the core that they would be required to have which would be a cost savings of millions of dollars to the City of Manchester. If you look at that, that is a consultant with that feasibility study who made recommendations to the City of Manchester and Manchester is moving forward with those recommendations in determining which direction they are going to go in. Mr. Teeboom Manchester, according to this study and I’ll finish up, has to spend about $11 million dollars to bring it up to date and in Nashua they are talking about spending $6 million. They don’t give you detailed estimates, they just give you trade-offs on how best to communicate Manchester to Nashua. It doesn’t connect Nashua to Hudson or Nashua to Merrimack; or Nashua to the State Police. They still have to use their own gateways. This whole thing, this technology is in flux. P-25 is an old standard if you totally going to P-25 you may very well be obsolete, it’s possible. There are so many possible solutions, so many good vendors, you should not stick to just Motorola. You have stuck with Motorola ever since I was an Alderman back in 1993 and you are still with Motorola. You have to get off this merry-go–round. Thank you very much. President Deane Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to R-14-056? Mr. John Carroll, 77 Musket Drive Two things bother me. One is that the city has gone into hawk for the North High School and the Parkway Project and with those debts already hanging over us; borrowing for anything else just bothers me. There have been mentions of some alternatives here of phasing it in if it could be phased in on a schedule that would allow the work to be financed within normal annual budgets. That would be a lot safer. The other thing I heard that bothers me is that we’ve got a lot of equipment that is only 15 years old that Motorola is saying they can’t supply parts for. That doesn’t sound normal for a major communications infrastructure. This is not consumer entertainment electronics. If a vendor can’t commit in writing to supply spare parts for at least 25 years, I would look for another vendor. President Deane Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to R-14-056? Testimony in Favor – No one came forward. Spec. Bd. of Aldermen - 08/26/14 Page 18 Testimony in Opposition – No one else came forward. President Deane There being no further speakers, I will close the public hearing on R-14-056. ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE THAT THE AUGUST 26, 2014, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BE ADJOURNED MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Attest: Patricia Piecuch, Deputy City Clerk  8/26/2014 CiTYWiDE COMMUNICATIONS Radio System Upgrade August 26, 2014 ]800jMH^ Trunked Rdd:o System s Purchased in 2(XK1 • Moved disparate radio svstems into one system 1 s Increased radio coverage throughout the Cst\ a Increased the amount of radio channels available s Provided entities without radio a H n i u n i c a t i o n to have radio communication 3 Provided interoperability with ever) Cit\ agency. Radio System Network •: B 2 Facilities at Police E 1 Facility at Fire : b Dispatch Centerat Police and f ire B. 5 Tower Site-., 3 are KP Sites B All sites connected f i i Microwave I ink- 1  8/26/2014 System Users System Failures ' i E ) EMS Emergencv Management B In 2010 the City began h,ivint; t'aihiri'- u ith th>. , system and wc were unabSe to find . s All DPVV Divisions replacement part«.. SiSchotils- \ " H S \ / \ ' I iSS/I'lnnt Operation^ a Transit ¡3 Radio Committee was formed to review and s Health evaluate the state of the C i t \ S Radio Communications Svsiem. E Community Development Radio C o m m i t t e e Board of Alderman - Brian McCarthy a Reviewed Finance • CFO John Griffin • Infrastructure Lifecycles Emergency Management - luslin Kale-. • Information Technology- Bruce Codagnone r " • Mobile and Portable Lifecvclo Nick Miseirvitcli ' • Non System related Lifecycle^ CIS - Angelo Marino • E Weighed options for system replacement ' DPW - And)' i'atridan/Jon Ibarra a Reviewed Equipment Inventories Fire-Asst Chief Steven Galipeau/ I'eler Coilislhiiy E Determined the immediate needs Police-Captain Scott Haminoiui/lVler C i n h S | ° KopLice the Niiivnrk Snlra-lroclon- Communications Division- liill Mansfield Brian Sherman a Review imilti-vear plan for replacement 2  8/26/2014 Options a Motorola offers a phased in approach to replace our infrastructure. E Stay w i t h Current S y s t e m a n d h o p e the infrastructure doesn't fail a SMART X H SMARTX allows the City to replace the a Replace Entire System. L ! ;i-hv(irk infrastructure one year a Phase in channel replacement o\ er multiple t3 Upgrade the entire Radio System all at once. e Phase i n r a d i o r e p l a c e m e n t o \ e r multiple a Upgrade the radio system with a phased in approach over multiple vears. M u l t i Year Approach Key I n f r a s t r u c t u r e Replaced s P t u s e l - Replace K a i i t o S w e m N e t u v r k i ,;nipr.k'n: an J 1 Replace Radio C o n f u t e LtimpiJU'r at r o l i c e a n d l u v B In December 2012 the City Purchased the first phase of the project. , (SÍ6M) s P h a s e 1 • Replace,"» Radio C h a miel*. Mime mobi le a n d a This included replacing the Zone Controller, all purtableraiîm<s ¿ 2 M) a Phase 3 - Ki-nLuv."> Kadin Channels, s o m e mobile a n d of the Radio System Servers a Ions; with Police portable radios 1S2 IM) s Phase 4 - Replace -1 Katiio C h a n n e l s mihi.' mobile a n d and Fire radio dispatch consoles. portable rail ios (S 1M M) £ Phase 5 - Replace ^ m e intïhile anil iv-rtaHe Sv>-te*n Upgrades.Siittn-areUp¡;r,uii'> iSI.'.'SIJ Key rfffraslrucLure Upgrade in 20X3 Phase 1 1 a l * U p g r a d e t o t h e System in 13 Y e a r s ej N o n R e p a i r a b l e C o m p o n e n t s of t h e R a d i o Infrastructure were r e p l a c e d - s Dispatch C o n s o l e 1-quipmeiit w a s r e p l a c e d a t Police a n d Fire. h U p g r a d e C o m p l e t e d ill J u n e 2 0 1 3 3  8/26/2014 Radio System Upgrade Phase 2 : b Replace Fire and Pillici- Portable Radios m a All of the Public Safety Portable Radios and all of the City's Mobile Radios are nun Repairable. s Purchased Public Safety Portable Radios in December 2013 Phase 2 ^ 5 Purchase Pricing Includes Upgrade all radio channels at all sites. 0 Budgetary Figures from Motorola on » l u m p Upgrade the radio system from 7.11 to 7.15. sum purchase of phase 2 ö was $7.? M in 21112. System will be P25 Compatible Replace ALL Mobile Radios. E With current proposal we have added Upgrade remaining portable radios to P25. additional Infrastructure to be replaced including power systems, microwav e s\ stems, Replace all Power Systems at each of the sites.- VHF Mobile Radios, Pre\ ious system upgrade Replace Microwave System at each site. from 7.13 to 7,13 Entire System u ill be on 7.1 ^ Replace all antenna and cabling at all sites. Replace 134 VHI Mobile Radio? in Police and s New Motorola Price is S?.l M Fire Vehicles Replace System/Site Alarming (Moscad) A d d i t i o n a l Costs Replace all Timing Devices Replace all Control Stations Replace Vehicle Repeaters in Fire Apparatus B Removal and installation of all mobile radios Provide Radio Management Software- and DVR's E Replacing Console Furniture at I'D Incentives are: a Project Manager representing the City • S u p p l y i n g 134 V H P R a d i o s f e r m o a m i IVliri B Genesis Reporting Software • Increasing the Warr.nit; I V n o d o n I'revkmslv a Specialty Vehicle Installations P u r c h a s e d e q u i p m e n t 1» c o i n c i d e w i t h n e w w a r r a n t y upon acceptance. 4  8/26/2014 '••Non Public Safety Radio C o m m u n i c a t i o n s Projects E Connect all sites with a fiber link for k redundancy. © UPS Systems Sites, Police and Tire, a Replace Doors at Sites. 1 I .1411 S Replace Air Conditioning Units. S Wiring each site for additional Backup Generator connections for r e d u n d a n t } . 0 Maintaining current equipment and addressing individual department needs. 5