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, to see the maximum numbers -- and i understand the department's position to show us the most conservative members, which we appreciate. showing us a more realistic number is not something that our analysts have not looked at yet. it is just new information for us. so there are some of those questions. i am comforted by the fact that we will be seeing these items, but in addition to the questions of expense, that is a legitimate one. we did not have a full

understanding of what the city- wide process, quite process, communications with other departments were, so i think there are just a lot of questions. they may have great answers to them, we just have not necessarily heard them in an easy way yet. personally, i see we will have to move forward with a regional system. i just do not know that we have all the answers we need to move forward. there is a certain level of discomfort from the committee on that. i'm also sensitive to the fact that we have to spend these funds quickly, or else we will lose it. the fact that we could be losing a system that we did not have to pay for, to install, is a big deal. i would love to hear from my colleagues about your thoughts. i could see as sending the item out without recommendation, or potentially having the item carried over for a week in the budget committee and asked that we bring back certain abutments, -- departments, dt,

coit. in the ensuing weeks, our budget analyst working with those departments to flush out the long-term costs. we may not know how many radio we will purchase, but maybe we could put some figures together, something that we could put together in terms of investment. we need to know what we are doing, what the court mission is. supervisor avalos: i do not feel comfortable passing this out of the committee. i could go for a continuance. i am not sure if one week is enough time. i am really concerned about the long-term costs. i want to see what we can expect in terms of how other cities that have this decision before them about opting into this interoperable systems, whether they want to do so or not. i think they need some time to decide. i know we have a deadline coming up.

it seems like every decision we have here at the board is against a deadline. i think i cannot let that be what compels me in making decisions. i could go for a continuance. supervisor chu: just a clarification question for the department. there is a process of approval. what would that be? >> february 8. the site use agreement that we negotiated with motorola expires on that day. if you would offer us a continuance for one week, we would still be able to meet that deadline and we would do our best to bring dt back next week to answer the question that you have raised today, and come back before you in one week, if that is the will of the committee. supervisor kim: i think most of

my thoughts have been articulated by my colleagues. i am worried about a week. i do not think that is enough time. this is the great beginning of a discussion. i am excited about the potential that this plan has four our city and bay area. i said this man we met earlier this week. it is so half baked, i feel incredibly uncomfortable putting this out of committee. even next week, i will probably still feel that way. i do not know what kind of discussion can be had on the federal level in terms of giving us more time, but this is incredible of the work in planning that needs to be done for an infrastructure this large. i want to hear from mta. i want an integrated plan of one system of voice and data communication that our camera, and today, public safety can utilize together. i am appreciative of the grant that has come before us and i

understand the pressures that your department is under to meet those deadlines. in my experience, every rushed decision has always brought forward issues and problems later. that has been my experience. every time we give more time to planning restate -- recently, the boys and girls club is an example of that. every time it comes back to us, a different apartment looks at the issues and is able to add and enhance to a better product that goes back to this committee. i will support continuing this for one week. i am not sure i will feel comfortable in one week because i do not think that is enough time to bring all this information together, but we will see what can come forward next week. i do want to say, i am very excited about this, a great start of the discussion. i wish we had more time to

hammer this all out. supervisor chu: thank you for the comment. there is a motion to continue the item for one week. i do want to offer one more comment. i do not believe this project is half baked. i do not believe there has not been coordination that has happened. i am not sure that we are all the sudden coming forward and saying by the way we want to join in on the system and we want to do this. there has been a ton of investment from our real-estate department to look a potential sites and provide us with actual locations on alternatives. michelle talked about work that she had done with other departments to coordinate this effort. knowing that we have invested time and there is coordination across departments, i do not believe this is half baked. i do believe the presentation was lacking in terms of telling us but we can expect over a period of time, but i hope that information, and knowing that the department has worked hard

on this project, you will be able to bring information to us next week to share with us what your vision is. though you may have shared this at the joint powers, discussed this ad nauseam, coit pat pat a product level four different pieces of it, i know i have not heard it. i do not agree that we have not been planning on it. i think we just need to share the information better. specifically, what we're looking for next week, we want to hear directly about the coit process, the long term project for the 700, 800 mayors plan would be. it would be helpful for the department to come back with us, working with the budget office to make sure we know what the long-term expenses could be. we may not be able to identify all of the costs, but something that will help us identify over a period of time would be expected investment to look like. it is important for us to also understand what is the

investment we are getting for free in this whole conversation? we are saying in our head, we will be putting in $220,000 etc., every year. what are we getting for free? if we want to build a system on our own, what would it look like, we have gone down this path? i imagine we probably would have gone down the path of increasing its capacity for our communications system. that is the direction technology is going and i imagine that is the direction we would have done anyhow. i would like the budget analyst to look at the cost provided to us in terms of the cost of the lease, renew those numbers for us in the report. perhaps if we could ask the budget analyst to reflect any new information that has been shared with us. colleagues, is there anything i have missed that you want to add? supervisor kim: identifying the source of funding. supervisor avalos: when it comes to equipment, devices, break

that down, too. what kinds of devices will we need? supervisor chu: thank you -- supervisor avalos: maybe as well, adding information about ntia, what their deliberations are, the scope of funding they have as well. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisors for your input, the department for your presentation. we will continue the item for one week. thank you. item two, please. >> item 2. ordinance authorizing the san francisco public defender's office to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $231,147 from the correction standards authority for the purpose of establishing a legal educational advocacy program; and amending ordinance no. 146- 11 (annual salary ordinance, fy2011 - 2012) to reflect the addition of one class 8177 trial attorney grant-funded position (0.50 fte) at the san francisco public defender's office. >> good morning, supervisors. patricia lee.

managing attorney of the san francisco juvenile unit. we are the recipient of a block two grant to establish our legal educational advocacy project. it is based on our experience of the need to provide educational advocacy for our clients and students. many of you know that we already attended the expulsion hearings of our clients, as well as the special education iep hearings for our clients, which can take anywhere from two to three hours, which takes staff out of the room, but what we have learned, when you look at the statistics, where 80% of individuals ages 18 through 25 who were on probation in san francisco in 2009 were lacking g e d's, and that of the 98

homicides in san francisco in 2008, 30% were youth and young adults from ages 14 to 25. 95% of these homicide victims were dropouts. so we are really excited to establish this project. we are hoping you will grant the annual salary modification, and we will be adding an education attorney to our office to provide for educational advocacy, in partnership with the court, district attorney, a juvenile probation department, san francisco unified school district, and the center for juvenile and criminal justice, who will provide case management, as well as city youth now. the attorney will be housed in our office. i am hoping that there will be

no problems with this grant to accept. if you have any questions, i will be happy to answer. as president obama said last night, we will not allow for dropouts. not only will we not allow it, we hope to save lives. supervisor chu: thank you for the presentation. a clarification, despite his a division that is grant funded and ago when the grant expires? >> yes, a one-year grant at this point, but we expect it to be extended for an additional two years. it will not be competitive for a year -- for year two and three. i also wanted to know, we are the only public defender office to have received this grant in california. so we hope to establish a model for california as well. supervisor kim: thank you. very familiar with the amazing work that the public defender

does with our youth center students here in the city. this is a new position? >> yes. supervisor kim: i appreciate the goals and outcomes. what do you hope will be different with this grant, in terms of being able to change and have an impact on the lives of our youth in contact with the juvenile justice system, retaining them in our system? >> the goal is to reduce truancy, absenteeism, violence, expulsions, to keep our clients successful on probation. additionally, our hope is also to reform the system. with our systems partners, we will be meeting on a quarterly basis to address issues, problems, concerns, recommendations. also, the attorney will be providing parent-guardian workshops, bilingual workshops in the community because our parents and guardians are the

educational rights holders of the youth. the goal is also to provide for training for the attorneys, as well as the private bar and probation officers regarding the educational rights of our clients, and a corporate resources we should be able to secure for our special ed students, or those that might not necessarily be identified as special leed. supervisor kim: what has been your experience in finding what is most successful in keeping kids from dropping out of school? >> what i found most successful is the fact that we are attending school expulsion hearings, interacting with the school administrators, sitting on safe school committee task force hearings. that is also part of the responsibility of the attorney. more importantly, having our

clients successfully terminate from juvenile probation. i think it is a project that will prove the we can improve the graduation rates of our clients, as well as securing the upper of its special education resources and needs for our clients. our attorneys are not trained as special education experts. it is a whole body of federal law that we are not trained in. so when we sit in on the special education hearings, it individualized education -- iep's -- often, we are shooting in the dark. with a special-education attorney, not only are we working with our client base, but we hope to improve the outcomes for other uses in the system as well by providing training