One of the biggest lessons that should have been learned from the first generations of 800mHz is that it's a band that requires a lot more infrastructure to get coverage, particularly in areas that have hilly terrain and heavily forested such as the area being discussed.
This is true. It's long been my opinion that 800 MHz is not the optimum place to put these types of services but there are a couple of mitigating circumstances that make it necessary:
1. It's where the available spectrum has been.
3. The same propagation characteristics that make it challenging to provide coverage allow for a greater amount of frequency reuse.
As I also pointed out already it is a semi-rural area, portable on-hip coverage in 95% of the area is a nice goal but it's an unnecessary goal.
Unnecessary? You tell that to the police, who are demanding that, if they are expected to maintain law and order in 100% of their jurisdiction, they expect to be able to call for help when they need it. I've talked to cops who tell me stories about being alone on a rural patrol, wrestling with a suspect who's grabbing for their gun, trying to cuff the guy with one hand, and call for help on his HT with the other, and praying that they're not in one of those many dead areas.
The engineers and manufacturers are merely catering to their customer, and it is the customer that defines what is, and isn't needed. In this day and age, building a new system with coverage deficiencies designed into it is not an acceptable answer to the people in the field.
Public Safety agencies are demanding greater bandwidth, more features, more redundancy to guard against failure, better coverage, and more reliable hardware. Their perception is that police work is changing. The caliber of threats they are expected to face is growing. Terrorism is a buzz word that's way overused, but criminal gangs are getting more violent, and broaching territory where they've never before been seen. Drug cartels are getting bolder, and crossing border areas more and more frequently. And so on. The perception of law enforcement is that the sleepy little rural areas have as much potential for violent crime as rural areas.
It's not my job to second guess that perception.
It's like asking for cell phone coverage in 95% of Alaska. It'd be great but it won't be used. However that is essentially what they are constructing and demanding although they have never before needed it and they don't need it now.
That's making some pretty wild assumptions.
Interoperability is a post 9/11 concept that has never been proven to be used, at least not often enough to warrant the cost of DTRS solely for that purpose...
No trunked system is built "solely for that purpose". Interoperability is simply one of MANY reasons to build a larger system.
There's nothing wrong with asking;
Why does this have cost this much?
Why is this suddenly needed?
What are other cities doing?
What are other cities in the area doing?
How many proposals have we obtained?
Those are all good questions that need to be asked. So ask them. But please, please give public safety agencies the common courtesy of actually listening to the answers.
There are a lot of factors out of local control that force the price of communications systems upward. FCC mandates for spectrum efficiency are what drives the need for trunked radio systems in the first place. FCC and Congressional mandates are what created the available spectrum at 700/800 MHz in the first place.
You are coming from the engineering standpoint of the extremely complex technicalities of building out what amounts to a private cellular network for police and fire walkie talkies to be used in a hilly, wooded rural area with unreasonably narrow tolerances.
As technology advances, everyone wants to apply it to their particular field of endeavor. Police and Fire agencies are no different in that regard. Many of the features that are available now, have been wanted by police for 50 years. Some level of privacy, enough channels so different functions can operate unencumbered with another divisions radio traffic, coverage whereever, and whenever circumstances dictate that they operate from. Emergency man-down buttons, automatic location services, mobile data, instant access to wants and warrants information, etc. etc. etc.
It is these user requirements that drive the need for these massively expensive systems. I, for one, would feel really uncomfortable telling some law enforcement agency who is asking for up to date modern communications that no, you're getting a single low band voice channel.
...I am not saying you're wrong with the technical aspects, I am merely trying to understand why it is necessary to do this at all.
Hopefully some of my explanations above have answered some of your questions as to the why. Society is evolving, and as it evolves, what was deemed adequate 30 or 40 years ago is now deemed as dangerously inadequate. You used the analogy of your homeowners association. I'll use the analogy of our military.
As the military requests more advanced fighter aircraft to counter current threats, not all of which have happened yet, this would be like telling them to deploy a fleet of P-51's because, what the hell, they were the premier fighter airplane back in the last world war. They oughta be good enough for the next one.
I have not heard of the tower debates or complexities or delays in neighboring counties that have recently installed DMR radio systems on 450 and 150 mHz. Not to mention they cost many millions less.
It's a big country. That doesn't mean they're not happening.
Getting removed from the board was an accomplishment I'll wear like an honor badge until the day I die. It only confirms that I was right in asking about those expenditures and the rush decisions and corruption.