MARCS Performance Audit

rcid1971

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
326
In October, 2022, DAS approached the Auditor of State to request a performance audit, reading into it, DAS basically wanted the Auditor to say that their funding stream is broken. Spending much more than they receive.

The most interesting take away is the list of delinquent users. It kind of memorializes and confirms some of the agencies this forum has questioned if they're on the system.

The most shocking take away is that they've let First Energy skip on $300k in monthly user fees.
 

N8WCP

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
111
How about the IRS at $44,975? The IRS is hot on penalties and interest, wonder if the state will sock them with the same?
The report is over a year old, tt would be interesting see a current list.
 

wa8pyr

Retired and playing radio whenever I want.
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,290
Location
Ohio
The report is over a year old, tt would be interesting see a current list.

And the administration plan to eliminate user fees and replace them with further subsidies from the general fund got shot down, so that brings into play the Auditor's statement that current user fees aren't enough to sustain the system. Not particularly surprising...
 

Jphila20

Retired LE. Honor our Fallen.
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
387
Location
Southern Lorain County, Ohio
I looked up one near me on the Ohio Secretary's business search and google with zero results. Over 120 days past due.

Norwalk - Wireless Internet Works, LLC 120+ $45,895
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
11,157
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
I looked up one near me on the Ohio Secretary's business search and google with zero results. Over 120 days past due.

Norwalk - Wireless Internet Works, LLC 120+ $45,895

That's an interesting one. I can't find it registered anywhere. It's probably the feds or something, masked behind a fake name.
 

W8HDU

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
369
Location
Lima, Ohio
Several thoughts come to mind. Like others, I would like to see a newer list.

Not surprising are a few who are either underfunded, or mired in bureaucracy and have a problem with their municipality paying bills. (Read: always delinquent in all areas).

There are some department which I recognize which are (financially) barely above water. Sadly, some in my area which are on the brink of having to make tough decisions.

Other than capital investment, would there be any reason a small department could not go back to high/low band VHF, and abandon MARCS? Is there a mandate to use MARCS, or is it simply to unify departments into a region for dispatch and mutual aid?

Sidenote: It would be interesting to see a list for Michigan as there are more than a few departments that have had to sideline equipment and services. There is simply no funding.
 

tweiss3

Is it time for Coffee?
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,256
Location
Ohio
I do find this extremely interesting to read. From my understanding, The Tier 4 & 5 "partners" set the subscriber fees within "their tower system". I take it, for example, Summit County (Tier 4) is the one that receives those fees? How did that affect the audit report? I'm sure the audit was looking at the state's side, but I would imagine there has to be at least a statement about the big cities (Summit, Franklin, Montgomery) "stealing" a huge revenue base by owning the infrastructure.
 

rcid1971

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
326
Several thoughts come to mind. Like others, I would like to see a newer list.

Not surprising are a few who are either underfunded, or mired in bureaucracy and have a problem with their municipality paying bills. (Read: always delinquent in all areas).

There are some department which I recognize which are (financially) barely above water. Sadly, some in my area which are on the brink of having to make tough decisions.

Other than capital investment, would there be any reason a small department could not go back to high/low band VHF, and abandon MARCS? Is there a mandate to use MARCS, or is it simply to unify departments into a region for dispatch and mutual aid?

Sidenote: It would be interesting to see a list for Michigan as there are more than a few departments that have had to sideline equipment and services. There is simply no funding.

Any idea how Michigan's system is funded?

Some of these delinquent Ohio departments probably lack firefighting and life saving gear due to the high billing commitments associated with their MARCS radio systems.

What's even more baffling is how some agencies insist on being part of an interoperable system but hardly ever use its features to communicate with others. I mean, isn't that the whole point of investing in such a system? It's like buying a fancy smartphone and only using it to play solitaire!

I read one figure that some Summit county agencies are paying $138 per radio for the LLA update. Something that a department previously could have updated on their own is now required to go through a DAS authorized vendor, at a cost premium.

This is my biggest pet peeve with MARCS, their attorneys have done such a great job at limiting public oversight and access to even the most basic records of the system, that even armed with delinquency data, I can’t cross check it with something like Radio ID user data to see how many radios sit dormant on the system, never used, but still billed. This opacity hinders accountability and effective resource management within public safety agencies.
 

W8HDU

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2014
Messages
369
Location
Lima, Ohio
I don't know Michigan's system as well as I should, since I have a residence there. But I know from talking to several LEOs they are not pleased. My perception is they had dead areas, were promised a solution, and nothing materialized, so they dropped back to legacy analog which worked.

In Ohio, looking over the list, there are several agencies local to me which are financially distressed. I would not be surprised that they will have to drop back to analog. It's like paying rent for your house. If you can't pay, you need to move.

I perceive it would be tough from the dispatch point, creating chaos with multiple systems, especially when dispatch has to relay for someone. Example: and FD which comes on scene and needs EMA, and Police. (I'll leave WA8PYR to weigh in on dispatch woes).

But there is a curve where larger communities can afford, and hold off any payment action ... unlike the village, twps, and small towns in Michigan and Ohio. There is only so much blood in a turnip.
 

rcid1971

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
326
I don't know Michigan's system as well as I should, since I have a residence there. But I know from talking to several LEOs they are not pleased. My perception is they had dead areas, were promised a solution, and nothing materialized, so they dropped back to legacy analog which worked.

In Ohio, looking over the list, there are several agencies local to me which are financially distressed. I would not be surprised that they will have to drop back to analog. It's like paying rent for your house. If you can't pay, you need to move.

I perceive it would be tough from the dispatch point, creating chaos with multiple systems, especially when dispatch has to relay for someone. Example: and FD which comes on scene and needs EMA, and Police. (I'll leave WA8PYR to weigh in on dispatch woes).

But there is a curve where larger communities can afford, and hold off any payment action ... unlike the village, twps, and small towns in Michigan and Ohio. There is only so much blood in a turnip.

Coverage/lack of coverage is a major issue with MARCS. Why should a local agency pay high overhead costs, high subscriber fees, and put up with poor coverage areas? DAS' first instinct when you bring up a coverage issue to them is to deny, then deflect, then beg for more money and manpower.
 

wd8chl

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
443
To answer your earlier question, no there is absolutely no mandate to go to MARCS, or any other system. Not even to go digital. Not required, despite what many vendors sales people say. The ONLY mandates in the last 15-20 years is narrowbanding for VHF and UHF Part 90, and the rebanding fiasco for 800 (which finally finished middle of last year.)
If a department is financially strapped, they should stay on VHF or UHF. It's a ***TON*** cheaper! And I have yet to see a case locally where interoperability was improved going to any 7/800 trunked system. If anything, it's been the exact opposite. Departments that used to be able to talk now can't, for various reasons. At least on VHF or UHF, it was a matter of programming, maybe getting an MOU letter if you don't have one. Now, programming has to go through MARCS or whatever system, and they're all really strict. The folks you buy the radios from can't do it anymore. Many times, we can't even fix simple issues, because it's behind the system key.
 

tweiss3

Is it time for Coffee?
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,256
Location
Ohio
Well I did read the 68 page report. Mostly whining that statewide users pay $25 vs local users who only pay $10 (state subsidy supposedly keeps this number down), and a comparison showing they are too cheap compared to other states.
 

wa8pyr

Retired and playing radio whenever I want.
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,290
Location
Ohio
I looked up one near me on the Ohio Secretary's business search and google with zero results. Over 120 days past due.

Norwalk - Wireless Internet Works, LLC 120+ $45,895
That's an interesting one. I can't find it registered anywhere. It's probably the feds or something, masked behind a fake name.

Actually, it may be a company renting space on a state-owned tower....
 

wa8pyr

Retired and playing radio whenever I want.
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,290
Location
Ohio
Other than capital investment, would there be any reason a small department could not go back to high/low band VHF, and abandon MARCS? Is there a mandate to use MARCS, or is it simply to unify departments into a region for dispatch and mutual aid?

No mandate. The state's authority to mandate stuff like that is limited under the home rule clause of the state constitution.

This whole user fee debacle is one of the reasons some areas have elected to stay with their own systems.
 

tweiss3

Is it time for Coffee?
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
1,256
Location
Ohio
Actually, it may be a company renting space on a state-owned tower....
If that's the case, those fees are 25.5 antenna years worth of rent based on the published rental prices.
 

wa8pyr

Retired and playing radio whenever I want.
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,290
Location
Ohio
If that's the case, those fees are 25.5 antenna years worth of rent based on the published rental prices.

Unless they're using multiple sites.
 

kf8yk

Member
Joined
May 3, 2003
Messages
789
If that's the case, those fees are 25.5 antenna years worth of rent based on the published rental prices.

The published rates are only for public safety agency co-location. Commercial users are 'market rate' and substantially higher than the $150 public safety rate.
 

wa8pyr

Retired and playing radio whenever I want.
Staff member
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
7,290
Location
Ohio
The published rates are only for public safety agency co-location. Commercial users are 'market rate' and substantially higher than the $150 public safety rate.

Yep. Commercial rates tend to go $1000 or more per 100 feet of elevation.
 
Top