Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bracken County court debates radio encryption, seeks 3‑hour vendor response time and consultant review
Summary
The fiscal court discussed AES‑256 encryption limits on portable radios, interoperability problems with neighboring counties, and directed staff to add a vendor response-time requirement (members proposed three hours) to upcoming radio bid specifications and consider hiring an independent radio consultant and pursuing grant funding options.
Bracken County Fiscal Court spent a substantive portion of its meeting reviewing the county's radio system and proposed bid specifications after staff identified gaps in portable‑radio compatibility with AES‑256 encryption.
County staff and members said AES‑256 works on vehicle-mounted radios but is not compatible with the county's current handheld portables, meaning portables would either need replacement or a system reconfiguration. Members discussed risks to mutual-aid communications and recounted past outages, including a prolonged outage in December 2019.
Several members urged including a vendor response-time requirement in the bid specifications to limit the duration of any future outages; a three‑hour on‑site response time was proposed and received support from multiple court members. Court members also debated the technical and cost implications of removing a RAS key from the system—a $20,000 figure was raised on the record and disputed as potentially exaggerated by a committee member. The court did not settle on an exact cost but directed staff to obtain vendor estimates and consider an independent, non‑vendor consultant to review the system.
Members reviewed potential funding sources for radio upgrades and keying, noting that the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant and the DOJ COPS Technology and Equipment Program (TEP) are possible sources but that a Byrne application deadline was missed for the current cycle (referenced deadline: May 1, 2026). Court members said they will pursue those options for 2027 while adding the response-time clause to the bid specification so work can proceed.
The court asked staff to solicit vendor quotes that include on‑site response-time guarantees, to seek independent technical review if feasible, and to identify funding avenues before finalizing the bid package.
Representative quotes
- "The AES 256 encryption, it will work on the mobile radios that are in the cruisers for all law enforcement here, but it will not work on the portables." — county staff. - "I think a 3 hour response time is plenty of time." — committee member supporting the response-time requirement.
Next steps noted on the record included drafting bid specs with a vendor response-time clause (staff to propose a final time), soliciting vendor and consultant cost estimates for reprogramming or replacing portables, and pursuing grant opportunities for technology upgrades.
