2006 INNOVATIONS AWARDS PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Deadline: March 4, 2006
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete and submit this document electronically if possible, preferably in
Microsoft Word format (.doc or rtf). This application is also available at www.csg.org, in the Programs
section. Determine the appropriate “Change Driver” from the enclosed matrix and indicate that in the
appropriate space listed below. Keep in mind that the matrix is only meant to show potential relationships
between change drivers, trends and issues, and is not exhaustive. Be advised that CSG reserves the right
to use or publish in other CSG products and services the information that you provide in this
Innovations Awards Program Application. If you object to CSG potentially using or publishing the
information contained in this application in other CSG products and services, please advise us in a
separate attachment to your program’s application.
ID #: 06-MW-11OH
Change Driver: _Ambiguous Authority: Who’s in charge?
State: Ohio
1. Program Name Ohio: Multi Agency Radio Communications System (MARCS)
2. Administering Agency: Ohio Office of Information Technology
3. Contact Person (Name and Title): Greg Mountz, Deputy State CIO, SDD
4. Address: 1320 Arthur E. Adams Drive, Columbus, oh 43221-3595
5. Telephone Number: 614 265-7320
6. FAX Number: 614-466-7345
7. E-mail Address: Greg.mountz@ohio.gov
8. Web site Address: http://www.oit.ohio.gov/
9. Please provide a two-sentence description of the program. MARCS is Ohio’s
statewide 800 MHz voice and data public safety two way radio communication
system. The Departments of Public Safety, Natural Resources, Transportation,
and Corrections and Rehabilitation and over 650 state, local and county public
safety agencies are now utilizing the system.
10. How long has this program been operational (month and year)? Note: the program
must be between 9 months and 5 years old on March 4, 2006 to be considered.
Initial limited functionality was introduced in April 2002. The system became
fully built out on December 13, 2004.
1
11. Why was the program created? What problem[s] or issue[s] was it designed to
address? Indicate how the program applies to the “change driver” that you listed
above.: Several disasters involving multi-agency response in the early 1990’s
dramatically demonstrated the inability of various first responders to
communicate with each other in times of need. This was evident after the
Shadyside flood disaster in 1990 as well as the Lucasville prison riot. First
responders from multiple agencies were unable to communicate with each other
even though they had portable and mobile radios. From these events it was clear
that command and control was impacted by the inability of public safety
employees having direct communications with each other – leading to
“Ambiguous Authority”. This was unacceptable and the decision was made at
the Executive level of Ohio’s government to utilize one radio system for state
agencies in need of radio service. This was contrary to the long-standing custom
of each agency owning and operating their own system and would require a
governance structure that would include multi-agency corporation and funding.
The decision was also made to put the Office of Information Technology (OIT)
in charge of the implementation and operation of the system. OIT’s involvement
in the project helped manage the diverse needs of the multiple agencies and
build an enterprise radio system. The system allows for meeting individual
agency mandates and operational needs and in times of coordinated response it
clearly allows for well defined command and control. The system was built and
operates based on reducing or eliminating communication inefficiencies. It
continues to grow as the benefits of a central enterprise radio communications
system become evident. It has significantly reduced questions of “Who is in
charge” and has helped state and local public safety personnel work in a
coordinated fashion.
12. Describe the specific activities and operations of the program in chronological order.
1990 – Multi-agency committee formed to study problem of lack of
interoperability among state radio systems.
1994 – MARCS Steering Committee, consisting of Departments of Public Safety,
Natural Resources, Transportation, Correction, Office of Budget and
Management and chaired by the Director of the Office of Information
Technology was formed to oversee development and implementation of MARCS.
1996 - Negotiated RFP process began with potential integrators.
1998 – TRW, Inc. selected as integrator for project. Motorola, Inc.
subcontractor providing voice and data system.
1999 – Construction began.
2002 – Initial operating capability realized in central Ohio.
2004 – Backbone for statewide system completed, all coverage testing completed.
2006 – All initially-involved agencies completely operational.
13. Why is the program a new and creative approach or method?
Very few states have a statewide interoperable wireless voice radio platform.
No other state has a statewide wireless data system for public safety forces. This
system was built to 97.5% coverage per county for both voice and data.
2
14. What were the program’s start-up costs? (Provide details about specific purchases for
this program, staffing needs and other financial expenditures, as well as existing
materials, technology and staff already in place.)
Total initial costs, for the backbone infrastructure (201 voice and data radio
towers, central core computer systems, and computer aided dispatching CAD)
and the end-user equipment (data and voice radios and laptops) was
approximately $303 million.
15. What are the program’s annual operational costs?
Budget for FY 07 has been set at $11.0M, while FY 08 is set at $15.5M. Included
in FY08 estimates are scheduled replacement of core infrastructure components
at just over $2.6 million.
16. How is the program funded?
Initial infrastructure and equipment costs were paid by Ohio government capital
dollars, funded by bonds. Operating costs are paid via a rotary fund, supplied
by a user fee on each piece of radio-based equipment.
17. Did this program require the passage of legislation, executive order or regulations? If
YES, please indicate the citation number.
The program has been legislated via language contained in each capital
biennium budget. The Current one is HB 16, 126th General Assemble, Under
section 18.02 - DAS Department of Administrative Services.
The MARCS Steering Committee was formed in 1994 to help the Director of
OIT develop policy and guide the efficient and effective use of MARCS funding.
Committee members include the directors of Public Safety, Natural Resources,
Transportation, Corrections, Office of Budget and Management and the Office
of Information Technology. The Director of OIT chairs the committee.
18. What equipment, technology and software are used to operate and administer this
program?
Voice radio equipment is based on a Motorola proprietary 800 MHz v. 3.5
trunked, digital voice radio system. Mobile data system is based on a Motorola
proprietary RD-LAP 9600/19,200 baud wireless data delivery protocol.
19. To the best of your knowledge, did this program originate in your state? If YES,
please indicate the innovator’s name, present address, telephone number and e-mail
address.
Yes – developed via a committee of state agencies in 1990. The major agencies
involved in the initial planning were Public Safety, Natural Resources,
Transportation, Corrections, Office of Budget and Management and The Office
of Information Technology. There is no specific innovator for this initiative since
most of the lead agencies had their own systems dating back to the early 70s. It
was not until the events of the 90s that a concentrated effort for corporation and
3
support to build a state radio communication system was realized. Many
individuals within the agencies contributed to this effort.
20. Are you aware of similar programs in other states? If YES, which ones and how does
this program differ?
Yes – both Michigan and Delaware have statewide 800 MHz voice radio systems.
Michigan offers voice services only. Delaware’s task was much less complex due
to size of the state.
21. Has the program been fully implemented? If NO, what actions remain to be taken?
Yes.
22. Briefly evaluate (pro and con) the program’s effectiveness in addressing the defined
problem[s] or issue[s]. Provide tangible examples.
The system was designed to accommodate 10 state agencies wireless
communications needs. Due to the capabilities of the system and the realities
brought into focus by 9/11, over 650 state, county and local first responder
agencies are now on the system. Originally designed to support approximately
8,000 radios, more than 16,000 voice and data radios are on the system today
with radios being added daily.
The data side of the system provides statewide LEADS (Law Enforcement
Automated Data System) access to field officers vehicles, limited incident
reporting, and vehicle location tracking through dispatch facilities. Development
of field reporting (crash reports, incident reports, and citations) is being
implemented at this time.
The voice system has been significant success in that it has supplied a standard
communication infrastructure for multiple agencies. It has been reliable and has
offered superior radio coverage over the existing legacy systems. The data
system also has the coverage but the bandwidth is a limiting factor in full
utilization for data usage. Newer technologies will help to reduce these
limitations but will also require additional resources.
23. How has the program grown and/or changed since its inception?
Yes, as detailed above.
24. What limitations or obstacles might other states expect to encounter if they attempt to
adopt this program?
Until the Federal government (FCC) frees up the 700 MHz frequencies,
adequate 800 MHz for utilization for statewide systems will be either scarce or
non-existent. Public safety agencies have traditionally developed and maintained
their own radios systems in classic “stovepipe” infrastructures. Getting multiple
agencies to cooperate in shared systems will be difficult if existing systems are in
place. Agencies or governments first need to deal with issues of control and
governance at the top level. Besides the fiscal constraints concerns of “big
4
brother” control and “who’s in charge” will be barriers that will not be resolved
easily.
Bandwidth on the data side will continue to limit full implementation of wireless
data. As newer technologies move toward IP based systems the future will hold
more choices. However, Public Safety agencies will be under additional fiscal
pressure when it comes time to implement newer technologies. The aspect of
building and controlling theses types of systems will be limited by the resources
the public is willing to supply.
Add space as appropriate to this form.
Return a completed application electronically to innovations@csg.org or mail the paper
copy to:
CSG Innovations Awards 2006
The Council of State Governments
2760 Research Park Drive, P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578-1910
Deadline: All original applications must be received by March 4, 2006 to be considered
for a 2006 Innovations Award.
5