what we're trying to do here. currently, there is no interoperable system in the bay area region where our first responders can talk to each other and share data. in san francisco, we have 800 mhz radios, which have been very helpful with our first responders. we had the horrible tragedy and the 1990's in california and we cannot talk to each other. police, fire, and the sure cannot talk. we put a lot of money into 800 mhz radio speech that they are great. however, they're not state of the art. most of us have digital phones. we can take pictures and send them. this is the director -- a direction the country's going commercially and also for our public safety first responders. what we are looking at here today is the first step by providing this regional

interoperable platform, if you will, so that our first responders could go to oakland or alameda or contra costa and be able to share data, to be above floor plans of buildings, to be able to share my shots, to be able to pass the data easily back and forth between each other. and really, not only data sharing, but also just the safety of our first responders. taking another step back, what we have right now is, as i said, the 800 mhz are analog. i do not think any of us have analog phones anymore, but that is what our first responders are using. this is a priority at the federal level. president obama made this a priority and even spoke about it in his speech last night. there was funding that happened through the rf funding two years

ago. ntia put out a grant, and those grants were -- around the country, the bay area region bought one of those grants. and motorola is to apply for the grant. they received $50 million to build out this system in the bay area region. motorola has since worked with us and come forward and said they would put forward a $23 million matched to that grant. in addition to that, they will put forward a $21 million match him to do site remediation on at the sites that we need to put up the antennas. we're basically talking about $100 million that is coming into the region that is free for us that is going to build out this system that will be state of the art. there are very strict deadlines that we need to adhered to, because the ntia grant, by this

coming summer, 2012, we need to be two-thirds substantially complete. things have taken a long time to get where we are right now, because working as a region, you know what it it is like in the city working. you have to do compromises. as a region, it is the more challenging, but we did stand up at jpa last may, which you unanimously approved. i am representing san francisco and the jpa, in this regional board has the oversight as we move forward with this project. where we are right now, we have the jpa. the jpa has approved a boom agreement with motorola. build, own, and operate, maintain the agreement. 10 of the 13 participants from the jpa approved that agreement.

there are four counties who have already signed side agreements. alameda, contra costa, san mateo, and sonoma. we would be number 5 as we move forward. and by this summer, we need to be, as i said, two-thirds substantially complete in the project. and by 2013, it has to be 100% done, or else we lose this federal funding. that $100 million we're talking about -- supervisor chu: just supervisor avalos one second supervisor? supervisor avalos: when you say two-thirds constructed by this summer, july 2012, i believe -- that is the region, right? >> it is that the money be substantially spend in the region. two-thirds substantially spend, not constructed necessarily,

but the money be obligated and spend. supervisor avalos: what does it look like right now? >> nothing, because we just passed the boom agreement last week, on january 18. we passed the boom agreement, and now all the jurisdictions are passing their site lease agreements. so money will start to be spent, hopefully, very quickly now, in the next two to three weeks and months. supervisor avalos: how recently have these side agreements been approved in other jurisdictions? >> yesterday, kalemeh the approved their sights agreement. i believe sen potato approved there is two weeks ago. it is all been since january 1. supervisor avalos: does the -- abide july 31 of this year, two- thirds of the grant funds to be expended -- is that sending that is even reasonable? >> absolutely, because we have

all been working with our planning department and our i. t. departments, each of our jurisdictions. motorola has walked the sites with us. all we need to do is purchase the equipment and get it installed. we have done all the preparatory work. so, yes, i am very confident that by this summer, if we pass this agreement, we can spend two-thirds of the money. supervisor avalos: thank you. i know you are in the middle of your presentation. if you want me to wait until the end -- supervisor chu: that would be great. thank you, supervisor. >> all right, so i am not exactly sure where i was sick. but i think some of the questions that have come up that i wanted to address specifically, and certainly i know chief sur wants to speak as well is -- why can we not just

use a commercial carrier? even on our own jpa, people have asked that. wouldn't it be cheaper to use a commercial carrier? there are a couple reasons. the first one is reliability. in a big event, say the big earthquake happens, commercial carriers are going to be overwhelmed. all of us already have our iphones are our blackberries or smart phones. those commercial carriers are not going to be able to dedicate anything for public safety specifically. we even know that during at loma prieta, the only system that worked in the city was the mets lines. the only system. telephones were out. that was pre-internet. but it was just that system. we want a dedicated public safety system, so that in the event of the big one, which will happen, we are able to

communicate with each other. it is reliability, and it is also cost. there is no other vendor who has received this $50 million. we have this opportunity right now, because we best agley have $100 million to jump start this project. -- because we basically have $100 million to jump-start this project. we did present to coit last january. i am a member of coit, and i have been working closely with our department of technology. we're working in parallel incoit right now. last year, we said, this is our vision. this is what we are attempting to do, the direction we're going. we have been working with staff the diligently on the side identification and on any kind of remediation that needs to happen. i think that there is always room for battle -- better communication or improved

communication, but i do believe we have decent communication going on at this point. one of the reasons that it was not in the i.t. plan specifically is because we have not asked for money yet. we're not going to be buying a commitment until fiscal year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. so today, we're not actually asking for money or asking for equipment purchases. it is to let us move forward with the site leases. and it then, the other question that i have gotten quite a bit is, how does this interact with the 800 mhz system? we have this 800 mhz system, which is adequate. it is old now, but it is adequate. and our first responders can talk to each other, but they

cannot share data. it is an analog system. it is to the point that it will need to be upgraded to get us through the next five to 10 years. what we are asking for today, it is a vision out here, 5 to 10 years of, the 700 mhz system, which will be the public access system, dedicated system. at some point in the future, it will be combined. so the 800 mhz will fall right into the 700 mhz. it will not be 800 anymore, but what we used it for, the voice part. but that technology, you know, they're designing that right now. that does not even exist. i know there are engineers all over the country working on what that is going to look like. so we still need the 800 mhz right now for our first responders as we move forward with this new technology.

supervisor chu: thank you. chief sur? >> as one of the departments that will be the end user of this system, as she said earlier, with 101 california, we cannot talk with the fire department, let alone a share data. i know that the sharing of data or pictures back then was not something like it is now, and who knows where we will be in another few years. regardless of what really do, training we do, communications is always the thing that fails. san francisco is basically the hub for the region, manhattan for new york, where everybody comes to san francisco, we would be able to share information. mug shots, criminal histories, whatever, from around the region.

the way it works right now, there could be a crime on top of the hill, daly city, and said potato -- san mateo or daly city cannot share information with us. we do not have that interoperability. when i was at the puc, we spoke about 67% chance for a major earthquake in the left -- next 25 years, and that was five years ago. as the odds grow and it would be a regional event, we would be a watershed pictures of addresses, locations, whatever, determine priority, a triage with the fire department. this would be the platform. the police department right now is building a data warehouse, which is an unbelievable achievement in will be an asset to the department. it will promote efficiencies and will allow us to deploy resources, share information. it already has mug shots at the cars and stations but essential platform with everybody participating in it would allow

us, as we build the system out and connect with other counties, to be able to share that information in real time, as events take place. and hopefully down the road, being able to have that voice communication as well. as a first responder who, over my time in the department, and we have never been able to share information, even within the city with the fire department, and we are a little bit better at that now as far as a voice goes. but with all the other things coming into play, we could be so much better, so much further along, safer, and provide better service to the public in a regional way with such a system. even as recently as the last two 49er games at candlestick park. one day turn that better than the other. we cannot talk. cell phones did not work. text messages were hit and miss. text messaging is usually very

reliable. but with an event but the size of the nfc championship game, effectively, the only thing you could hope for was maybe a text message would go through, but we cannot count on it. if we had a system dedicated to public safety, that would not be concerned that we would have to worry about. and hopefully we will be hosting this championship games many times going forward. supervisor chu: thank you. does that include the presentation? >> i believe we have a few additional comments. supervisor chu: first, supervisor kim has a few questions. >> just a quick question. i know that one of the sites that is not being utilized is candlestick park, but that was used as an example where public safety, communication, and coronation cannot happen, if it is -- and coordination could not happen that it is a large event. how would this ameliorate that

situation? >> thank you for the question. i am with the department of emergency management. i will address that. we have gone through a very detailed and governance of process, working with the professionals at the radio shops and with motorola, to develop a site configuration that gives us the best coverage city-wide. tahrir and and he cites we selected were the sights we thought would give us the best coverage. candlestick is identified as an alternate site. let me go back and explain how the site use agreement works bit of the agreement is designed to give us a great deal of flexibility and the ultimate selection of sites. we pick these sites based on coverage, but we know that things come up. the release might be too expensive. there may be technical considerations that we have

identified at a site. there could be other problems with the site. so we have the flexibility in this agreement to substitute sites through about the next six months. so if the side that we have that covers the bayview and hunters point, i believe that is at 200 paul avenue. it that side door to fall through, we could use candlestick park as a backup. that site could be too expensive, and then we would look at the alternate. but based on coverage, the other side was a little bit better for us than candlestick. we tried to go for the best coverage, but we know we will probably have to do some shuffling. supervisor kim: the current constellation of sites, does that actually make an impact at candlestick park? there are so many people there. it is true, you cannot communicate you cannot do text

messages. will this have an impact on that? >> the bay web network will not be used by any of the 60,000 individuals better act candlestick park. supervisor kim: so police officers and safety officers will be able to communicate at candlestick park with this new system? >> yes, it will. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. >> thank you. rokiit is a good introduction ty hopefully very brief presentation here. i explained that the side agreement was built for flexibility, and we know that we may have to exchange and shuffled the sights around, and we have the flexibility to do that. the department has provided two slides, two spreadsheets. i think they have been distributed to you prefer the

first spreadsheet is a title -- supervisor chu: maybe i can ask you to present that at the podium, and you can put the slide on the screen. >> absolutely. the first slide i would direct your attention to is bay web site costs. this provides some information for you. the middle column are the sites that are identified in the budget analyst report. the column on the far right are some revised estimates that we put together, and this is really designed to provide a range for you. the budget analyst report, which we think was an excellent report and we thank the budget analyst

for their report on this, but we believe that the $6.9 million is a very high end estimate, the high end of the range. we think that probably a better way to bracket these costs would be to look at them falling somewhere in between the $6.9 million and the $3 million that we have identified in our target cost category. the big difference here, the only real difference, are the site leases. we are in the process, just starting the process, with real- estate, going to the individual landlords for the 11 police sites and determining -- eleven at least sites and determining what our lease costs will be. we have talked to some of the landlords we know. in some of the sites, the rates will be between $1,500.20 $500 a month. to be very conservative, for the

sites we have not talked to landlords yet, we set a $7,500 per month high end estimate. we believe that is too high, and we also believe that we cannot afford $7,500 a month for any of the sides. we understand the concerns about the costs, but we believe we can work with the landlords and work with our ability to substitute site set to come up with a range that is, over 12 years, a little less expensive -- a lot less expensive and better for the city in the long run. briefly, the second slide want to talk about is a slide that described the direct cost of this particular legislation that you have before you today. again, we have divided it these costs of into wide and we will

do this fiscal year and then over the following 12 years. this fiscal year, we have planning to permit review. that is the $5,800 charge from planning. that is already paid. that has been paid out of dem's current budget. we have estimates of staff time for the department of real estate to work on at the police this. and for the permits that we will need to get from dbi for the work. in this current fiscal year, we anticipate $92,000 in additional costs that we would be to cover. over the following 12 years, we anticipated additional permits, $150,000 for staff time from the department of technology to work with motorola while doing the

construction work. and we will have electricity costs for the city-owned sites that we would incur, about $288,000 over 12 years. the lease costs, there are no lease costs of a rise in this agreement. we will have to come back to the board after renegotiate the leases and its subsequent approval from the board from each of the leases. so you have the ability in the future, with those lease agreements, to review what those costs actually are going to be and to approve of them separately or not. and we will be working with the department of real-estate to hopefully package of a set of leases and come back to the board as soon as we got the negotiated. and you would have the actual cost of the lease payment before you. supervisor chu: thank you.

a quick question. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: what department will bear the cost, dem, police, or fire? >> ultimately, the public safety departments will have to bear some of the costs. we're working with the mayor's office now to try to work that out. obviously, that will become a big concern beginning with the upcoming fiscal year. we do not have a whole lot of costs to allocate for this current fiscal year. but with the budget process that is coming at for the 2013 fiscal year, we will have that information is sorted out and presented it to you as part of that budget. supervisor avalos: as this system goes forward and becomes implemented, does it offset any the other costs, some cost savings to help cover the additional cost? >> in terms of radio devices in

the service costs, that is true. police, fire, public safety departments will have to pay the cost of those services. this would replace those costs. so the cost of devices and the cost of the service itself when we get to those points, we view that as a wash. if you were to go with the commercial service, you'd be paying the commercial service for that same service and those same devices. there would be cost savings in the fact that these departments would not have to purchase commercial data services but would use this service instead. >> and that has not been estimated. it is too early. >> other than very preliminary, no, we're still working on that. supervisor chu: i have a follow- up question about finances. in terms of the cost, what i am gathering from this information is from a fiscal year basis, you have about $92,000 anticipated

for this year. in terms of whether we have the money to pay for it, does the department have it in their budget to pay for the real estate time and for the dbi's time? is that something had anticipated? >> we had anticipated it. i do not know how we have handled it in the budget. i would have to defer to -- >> [inaudible] it is under $100,000. it has not been identified at this time. supervisor chu: you would anticipate perhaps working within your department's budget to find that money, correct? >> we do not anticipate coming back to the board and asking for this money, no. supervisor chu: in terms of the ongoing expenses, the electricity and the least, you have talked about the ongoing expenses, expecting it to be something around $228,000 in terms of the more realistic

price range for an ongoing basis, and then a one-time cost. >> correct. supervisor chu: you're still working with the mayor's budget office to fund those in the coming years? >> that is correct. but the $272,000 also includes the $92,000, so that would be reduced for future fiscal years. supervisor chu: can you explain what the $30,000 dbi and a $150,000 -- what those mean? >> as part of the site use agreement, we worked out -- actually, on the regional basis, this was the same for all the counties that are entering into site use agreement. motorola would be responsible for all of the so-called construction hard costs, equipment, construction on the site, those kinds of things. the jurist pensions would be responsible for permits, staff

time -- indeed jurisdictions would be responsible for permanently and staff time, those types of things. the $30,000 would be a payment to, i believe, dbi, to pull the permits for the work done on each of these sites. the $150,000, we did a rough estimate with the department of technology, and that is essentially the cost of one full-time staff person to work with motorola over the course of the year, to escort motorola on the site. >> looking at the next 10 years, we anticipate that we will no longer needed the 800 mhz system, that we will have the 700 mhz system which has voip and data. ultimately, i think we'll end up saving money. we will not need redundant

systems at that point. supervisor chu: dbi $30,000 and wondered $50,000 for dt, we expect that to be an ongoing expense for the 700 mhz system? >> no, that is not ongoing. that is a one-time expense. supervisor chu: ok. the 700 mhz versus the 800 mhz system. the difference is that the 78 mhz system transfers data, indeed hundred mhz system is only a voice system for being out -- being able to communicate verbally. the idea is over the course of this 12-year time span that we have calculated, we would expect that the 800 mhz system might go away because you might have a voice-over ip or whatever system with the 700 mhz system?

>> that is correct. in the police department has devices in their cars, and that is also only data. it is like a stupid computer. you know, they cannot get any pictures or anything else. ultimately, what i would envision here is something that every police officer, firefighter, sheriff could have in their vehicle or on their person or they could talk, where they would be able to communicate of voice and also send the data. supervisor chu: in terms of the allocation, you talked about that you would not be requesting equipment purchases, therefore you have not requested that for this coming fiscal year but the fiscal year after. >> right, 20-13 -- 2013, 2014, 2015. that will be in the budgets. i would assume that as we roll