is a private system, we're not going to ask for thousands of the equipment at once. i would rely on a chief sur to decide how they would roll this out in his police department and how that would work out. supervisor chu: we still have a lot of money that would come in from the federal government that was available for the purchase of equipment and other things. is that going to be something we anticipate looking to as a funding source during that time frame? >> i think so. i have followed that funding closely. this past year, many of them got cut out. we think probably all of the tier two's will get cut out this year. 2012, san francisco has been lucky in receiving the same amount of money that we have. we are a tier one city in past

years. yes are hoping we will continue to. but i am not a mind-reader. i do not know what congress will do. but that is a potential source of funding. supervisor kim: two quick questions. one was on its the one fte, the radio technician, $150,000. is this really a full-time position? someone who is going to walk around with motorola to show them through sites? quite obviously, it is not one full-time decision dedicated and throughout the whole year. but we tried to estimated as one fte. it will probably be broken up among several individuals, and there will be peak times when there is more escorting required. in my to take a couple individuals. and then it down time when there is no work to be done. we just tried to provide a rough estimate of what the total cost

of that work would be. supervisor kim: it says that dt can probably absorb the costs of this year, but then they will require $150,000 of additional funding. >> i do not think that is a question we can answer, because dt is not here. perhaps their budget analyst can answer that. but we got that figure from the department of technology. i will not second-guessed what the needs are. i am not exactly sure. supervisor kim: ok, it would be good to get an answer to that. might not -- my next question is back to the 800 mhz. so this is a voice system. it says that mta is embarking on a this system. do we know if they have initiated the build-out, if they

have started to do some of that work? we might ask mr. rose to answer that question. >> ok, i will reserve that. >> has our report states, we have been advised that they are starting on that system. supervisor kim: have they invested funding for the infrastructure? actually, the point of these questions is that i think we need more departments here to respond to our questions about what we look at in the overall plan. this is not part of the coit plan. director, i know you sit on this committee, but not having a good sense of how all the departments are working together to create these systems but these infrastructures for communication, and makes it difficult to kind of judge how

we're going to make these systems work together. parking and traffic and mta. i just want to get a sense of what they are expecting, what they are planning for, how we are going to make these systems work together. >> i would like to ask michelle, who works for me, to answer that question, because she is a technical person here has been working very closely with mta. >> good morning, supervisors. department of emergency management and i am the interoperability program manager for the department. my job for the past several years has been to collaborate across multiple departments on these wireless communications initiatives. i do want to talk about the different projects that have been presented through the coit process. we do have a $65 million radio

replacement project, and that did go through the coit process. it is in the ict. that is for emergency radio communications. part of the coit request was to fund the public service, a voice radio commissions system, so this would be more of the non- emergency services, departments like parking and traffic, public works, public utilities commission, those departments. that was a request last fiscal year. that did not get approved. and as part of the process, we did identify the bay web system, the project we're talking about today, as a future need and sending we would be collaborating with the departments on in the years to come. we are collaborating across all the departments. at this point, the 800 mhz radio

replaced the project has been identified as a priority in through the process to be funded. it is not funded yet. the public service voice radio system has been requested through coit but is not funded at this time. the bay web system was presented to members of coit, and we do have the funding from this federal grant. supervisor kim: is it possible the park and rec and mta could utilize the bay web system instead? >> we are in those discussions as we speak. the bay web system, the use of the spectrum is regulated by the fcc. and at the fcc has just recently made some rulings stating that those types of non-emergency departments do fill the role of public safety, therefore they're qualified to use the spectrum. there was some sort of national

debate on that issue. but they have made some rulings. so our process moving forward is to work with those departments to say this is available to you, and let's see how we can fit this into your i.t. plans going forward. those discussions are happening. supervisor avalos: if those departments are available or if the bay web is available for those departments, do those departments need to go with the $65 million emergency system? >> the $65 million is the voice, radio technology is the ability to talk on our radios. we feel that need is still necessary. our current system as an analog system. it is end of life, essentially, and we are going to need to replace that system. yes, we will need to make that investment, and we ask coit to make that investment. as we look at the bay web

system, this will be a new capability that the departments can take advantage of. the department of public works, we have been having discussions with them on how they can improve their mobile work force, to get information to their users, maybe even taking maybe311 credibility out to the field. all the different types of applications to make users more effective in the field. we're starting those discussions, this is a new capability, this use of data. today, they just have their voice radios to talk and communicate and plan. supervisor avalos: so we expect bay web to have a voice as well. so i am concerned that we will have -- how long do we expect the tendered mhz system -- and

we're spending $65 million to move forward, while we're still looking at the proving what could be another systems, and we start to talk about renting devices and things like that. if we have some redundancy -- what is the true redundancy we have here? >> there is overlap in terms of the systems. the bay web system, we're talking about non-emergency voice. the capability to share voice but not in the mission critical push-to-stock environment. that is where you hit your emergency radio and you're immediately connected to your top group to talk to immediately. that capability is not in the bay web system, but that is still an important capability for our users. as the bay web technology, based on 4g lte, san technology is

verizon and at&t, as that technology evolves, we're working as public said the end users to influence that technology to have a push-to- talk capability, but it is not there today. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. do you have final comments? when you complete, i will ask the budget analyst to share his report. >> i had one final point to make. i will be brief. this point is really an additional benefit of this project, possibly above and beyond public safety. that is kind of the economic development possibilities of having the first of its kind public safety network deployed here in the bay area. first and foremost, this is a stimulus grant prague -- project. so it is going to create jobs. motorola is anticipating 1300 new jobs in the region as a

result of a building and maintaining the network. secondly, we believe that this network could serve as a unique, a one-of-a-kind test bed for our tech industry in the city to develop new applications, specifically for public safety use. this will be one of the first networks of its kind deployed anywhere, and there are plans to deploy it eventually nationwide. so this gives our tech industry, our people an opportunity to use it to test new applications that could be distributed not only regionally but actually worldwide, eventually. so i think we consider this an economic development tool, as well as a public safety to will, because of the possibility of being able to test and develop new applications. and we have reached out to the

mayor's office. the mayor has a new chief innovation officer. we have reached out to that individual to try to develop that part of it and gauge the and engage the amount of benefits, the level of benefits. i just wanted to fly that as a potential benefit of the system be on the public safety use. there is a representative from the department of technology here that would be happy to answer your question. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 7 of the report, and this is based on the numbers provided by the department of emergency management, the total estimated cost to the city over the term of the proposed 12-year site user agreement would be

just under -- around $6 million. on page 9 of our report, we point out, as of the writing of this report, the department of birds in management and the mayor's office could not identify a funding source to pay for these costs, such as they are likely to become a general expense. in the estimated cost of $6,998,000, for the subject agreement, to actually access and propose the system, the city would have to purchase additional modems, computer devices that are not compatible with the new system. and then, -- that are compatible, i should say. and then, pay for the individual

monthly subscriptions per device. $41 a month per device. however, in writing the report, the city has not developed specific plans for such additional devices to access the system, nor estimates of the number of needed devices under which the city departments would subscribe to the proposed new system, nor identify funding sources to pay for these additional devices or subscriptions. i just asked chief sur, how many police officers with the city have to go out and it purchased devices for? he is uncertain. he said it would be phased in, so we do not know. if you take $43 a month, per device, and then multiplied that out of an unknown number of police officers, firefighters, deputy sheriffs, what is before you today is a small amount of

the cost of this system. the large cost is the access to the system. as has also been pointed out, the department has stated, the city's computer plan does not include the proposed system in the five-year plan. that has not been identified in the plan, but as discussed today, it does include the 800 mhz city-wide radius system at a cost of approximately $65 million, primarily general fund. in addition, this other 800 mhz radio system for the mta, and an estimated cost of $150 million. those systems would not be compatible with either -- the proposed system would not be

compatible with either of these tent -- two systems. our recommendation is on page 10. given the fact that the bayweb project has not been incorporated within the five- year information and communications technology plan, of course, we consider approval to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. we recommend you request all city departments currently working on various radio communication systems, including department of emergency management, police, fire, to convene and agree on what improvements are needed in this city and that your request the department ever did management, by aifire, police, o come up with a plan. develop a plan the detailed cost estimates and funding sources for how the proposed new bayweb system would be implemented and paid for in san francisco.

we would be glad to respond to any questions. supervisor chu: i did have a question for the department. interestingly, this is a situation where there was a grant given to motorola to purchase the equipment, to install it, i think, operate it. i wanted to understand, is this something we expect motorola to vote in perpetuity, or does that turn into a joint powers authority in some time? >> that is an excellent question, thank you for asking. the joint powers authority that we have stood up in the region now will own this at the end of the 10-year agreement. it will be ours at the end of the 10 years. > supervisor chu: the joint powers authority would have the responsibility to maintain that

basically. at this point, the contract relationship would be a 10-year period of time. we expect once the system was in place, if we approve it, whether we have end-users, we have to pay a monthly fee to utilize the system. after the 10-year period where the joint powers owns it, what would you imagine happens then? we would pay a continuing fee, how would that work? i know that is looking in the future, but it is important to understand given the ongoing expense of of what this would look like. >> i spent quite a bit of time working with the jpa negotiating these issues. the answer is, the jpa would probably continue some type of a service fee, but limited to cover the cost of operating and maintaining the system.

it would not be a situation where there was a profit. whatever the ft that was required to cover the ongoing cost of maintaining and operating the system. 10 years from now, i cannot tell you what it would be, but it would be simply a cost recovery fee. >> i am not sure if we made this point, but motorola is building out the system. one of the specification we were clear about is we want to make sure the other technologies, and other providers, that there devices would also work on the system. so it will not be only motorola devices. whoever else is out there is trying to get up to the technology to be able to support this as well. supervisor avalos: related to

that question, i am sure that is an issue nationwide because motorola has this contract to provide this service. that is the understanding everywhere, other entities that provide telecommunications would be able to access this is done -- system? >> in other jurisdictions that got the top grant, motorola does not necessarily have the infrastructure. there are other companies out there competing with motorola. what the federal government has told us is they all have to interface because they want several system to go across the country. i believe i failed to mention this. this is a lot of money we're talking about. because it is stimulus money, the fed's are really looking at us, can you really spend it? louisiana's money was pulled in

august. one of the recipients has lost their money because they were not able to show, in good faith, that they were moving forward. one other point i wanted to make, when asking about devices, i do not know what the numbers are. in our public safety department, i do not know. some officers and staff have pagers or cell phones are probably paid for by the city. in the long run, this would replace those as well. supervisor avalos: thank you for the presentations. based on the presentation, i see their real value of having a system like this. clearly, needs regionally are obvious. but we are at the point right now of approving the beginning of a system -- and i believe

what harvey rose described, what donald rumsfeld would describe, known unknowns. we know we are going to have to buy devices and pay $43 for the access fee, but we do not know the cost of the system. we are looking at approving a system that we do not know what will happen in the future. i would have liked to have seen that before us, just as part of what we know we are getting ourselves into. now i am looking at approving this site access and use the green based -- agreement based on this could be a good system for the city, but we do not know over all what we're getting into, in terms of our overall commitment in purchasing devices, what the cost will be. i have to weigh, knowing that we do not have the full picture,

whether or not we are going to vote for this. that is something that we can go to public comment on. we can have a discussion at the committee well, but i am at a little bit wary. some of the things that mr. rose has pointed out in his report gave me a little bit of pause. i do see value to what we are talking about. there was a question i had for mr. rose. you shared with us some changes to the cost estimate. i just wanted to see what your reaction is, if you feel those are reasonable? >> members of the committee, supervisor avalos, yes, it could be reasonable. again, i would emphasize these numbers came today. the number that were provided in our report came from the department. they sought a draft copy of our report and subsequently looked

at it and decided they could do it for less maybe. i would emphasize, whether it is $3 million or $7 million, the big bucks is what you referenced, the $43 a month times the number of devices per officer threat to public safety departments. whether it is $3 million or $7 million, that would not be the huge impact on the cost of this operation. supervisor avalos: just so i am clear, the $43 in the access fee, we would have to purchase the device? >> correct. just a couple of other points. mr. rose is correct, those were conservative figures. we wanted to show you the range -- we should have showed you that from the beginning. in looking at each of these potential sites, depending on

whether they are a city site, or something where we have to work out a lease arrangement, we are just not sure what that will look like, but we will certainly try to keep the cost down. we believe the close to $7 million figure is a very high figure. in terms of the devices, we will try, in every way we can, to get other kinds of funding to purchase devices, but there is no guarantee at this point. i am not sure where that is going to come from. the main thing i would like to get across to the committee is how important i believe this whole project is. for public safety, for the region, and it is the wave of the future. we have an opportunity with this $100 million to be able to move forward. i am hoping that you support us and allow us to do that.

we will continue to come back to you. each time there is a budget issue before us, and the purchasing equipment -- it will come back to the board. we are not asking for carte blanche here. you will see us many times over the next three, four years on this particular project. supervisor chu: thank you. why don't we open up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> chief technology officer with the department of technology. i just wanted to make a brief comment about our role in terms of scoiurt. this describes the level of river that dt will have in this effort. ddt possesses a lot of the

infrastructure technology, knowledge about many of these sites. we will be leveraging that. also, collaborating with motorola in some of the design and back and efforts. supervisor chu: next speaker please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yepp. as a concept, i am in support of this resolution. with the disclosure of no funding source, at least in my opinion, it is like putting up a skyscraper without having a finite source to pay for it. if you were in private industry, one would see very prudently, if you did not know your funding source, and that comparison is accurate, maybe we should proceed very cautiously.

in this resolution, it mentions a term of 12 years. i would suggest maybe there is a mandatory yearly review to make sure everything is proceeding according to plan. also, i would like to thank all three members of this committee for aggressively asking questions. from my experience at city hall for the last five years and in the past, i have seen too many instances where budget items were very passably discussed. it always crossed my mind why common sense questions were not being asked for those items. i would like to thank the three supervisors today for aggressively questioning what is involved here. i think we ought to consider maybe asking a private company what their opinion of this project is. supervisor chu: thank you. are there other members of the public that wish to speak on

this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. the item is before us. just a couple of thoughts from my point of view. in terms of the value of the system, we absolutely see that and know it is crucial for us to be connected into a regional system. i think we are in a hard place where i do not see us taking this past regional communications. the problem we have seen brought up from the report that mr. rose put forward is we have questions and there might be a legitimate answer, but we just have not heard it articulate well, about the issue of redundancy, our plans for the 800 mhz system, we are expecting with the purchase of equipment, for both the 800 and 700 mhz systems. given our cost pressures in the city, this is an important issue. in terms of the expense cost,