the city. can you clarify? >> that is correct. there has been a lot of confusion. the santa clara and oakland did not vote on january 19 for the agreement that you were referring to, the bill to own, operate, and maintain. oakland did not vote against it. they did not have the authority to vote for it. they abstained during the vote. all three of those members are members of the bay area joint powers agreement. there are still putting forward their site as part of the process to have their sights included. i cannot say exactly what they did not vote for it at this

time, but there are very involved with the jpa. i know that there sites will be a part of the entire network in the have the option at any time in the future to opt in to the system. supervisor avalos: thank you. one of my remaining questions is -- do we have this act -- 700 mhz system that these antennas would provide? the use for the next several years would be for data. images, video. but not for voice. we will not expected to have the use of a voice for five years. >> non-critical voice, correct. supervisor chiu: -- supervisor avalos: we are going to see some redundancy in the system. >> we do have an 800 mhz system

right now. that is what the first responders use on the scene of an incident to talk to each other. they also use that to communicate with 911. this new system is digital. you are correct, supervisor, in the future we anticipate it becoming a voice system as well. supervisor chiu: -- supervisor avalos: so, be will have some redundancy where we are paying for a voice system that is pushed to talk, as well as a -- as well as another system, where we will be -- >> i do not consider it a

redundant system. can i finish, a supervisor? this new system will be providing different technology and different capabilities and on the 800 mhz system she could communicate to her colleagues about employees. she could not send a missing picture over radio. supervisor chiu: i understand the value of the data system. i do not mean to use the redundancy in a negative way. eventually, we will have options day that there as well. we will be pushing out the current system to have this other system. while we have them both in place, that will mean increased costs for the city. whether or not i want to support

that or not is the main issue. i understand that there is a big investment. $45 million from motorola. another $50 million from congress to help to cover the cost and bedewed of notes that when we will have them or when they will be in praise -- in place. >> to be responsive, with annual costs to meet -- for the leases and staff time, to keep the system up and running. the bulk of the cost is the

infrastructure, this $400 million the vietnam -- that we get to mci and motorola. -- mtia and motorola -- motorola. yes, those will be additional costs. supervisor avalos: i feel like their costs for leases are not so high, but the cost of future devices, seems a tad much. but i do appreciate your coming forward. thank you. supervisor kim: i was not going to speak on this item, if other folks did not, a lot of them were simply challenging obstacles for a city. in terms of their contract in

with a single source contract and demanding thereby putting local where we make a decision in investment in a decision at large -- system at large. i have said my concerns at the budget committee meeting. and i am not convinced that this is the best system for us to go into. stated that they could have been great if have and seeing what did those for via and i also

have issues with us being forced to use a single source contract. and i have trouble. under its voter contact -- under a 12 year contract, we will have to pay a lease on the antenna. the cost that i am not aware of is the cost of equipment. really, just no sense on the cost for the monthly description fees. we invested a small amount of money in it this year and that wednesday's budget committee mirror -- meeting, i ask why the san jose and san -- are not

opting into the system. they can do it later, but they will have to pay the costs because they are not meeting the deadline. i am sure that they will motte opt in now. after doing some research, i found out that they had very articulated reasons, and in just -- disappointed that there was no public position they had taken and a local reporter here in san francisco stated exactly why the reasons those other cities were not involved. i have a hard time understanding and believing that a number of those bodies could not tell us a budget on wednesday. i am upset about that.

and there is or facial time on this issue. someone who will help as a doctor in an emergency. and it will make us consistent with other public safety officers in other counties, who do not operate on the same system. last issue, also, and it will love be about to connect all of our counties. >> -- supervisor wiener: i was surprised when your answer last week was you did not know.

if you do a quick google search, going with motorola to san jose, you have countless articles on reasons why they did not. frankly, there are reasons that are disturbing around contacting and when they decided to vote against the project, the city had put the contract at a nearly fatal high risk of grant funding cancellation by the department of commerce and similar no-funding votes from other departments. can you respond? do -- do it -- do we really know what happened? >> i did not feel that i since the entirely an idea of work

with them and i have worked over many top -- obstacles over this project for things that happened before i came in to this job. the references that you were making back to the december letter, those all refer back to things that happened well over one year ago. we have acknowledged the fact that the applications process itself, if not mistakes, there were irregularities. we have taken care of everything that was addressed in the allied she report and we are moving forward in a positive way i would like to respond to a couple of things that the supervisor said, if the board allows me. here, today, i have the wife of chief hayes, commander tom, and

john walton. we all support this effort, as support this effort. we have gone to court three times in the last 14 months to present this project. we go back on february 16. i think they have been working very closely together and i know mr. walton would be happy to address that as well. president chiu: as a representative of this body, there really weren't in that conversations about what this was about. obviously, this contract was not in front of that body. one of the things that has been frustrating, i don't think enough communication on this very comprehensive project, the city doesn't have a good track record of getting the complicated project done. i am not sure i completely agree with that characterization. >> one of the things i wanted to bring to the board's attention

was that there was an m l u m place since 2009 to work closely together. we believe there is always room for better communication so of course we want to work collaborative lee and continue on in that direction. any advice or recommendations, we will take to heart. we believe we have been working collaborative lead over the last 15 months. could we do a better job? probably. i am all for that. and definitely support that. can i address a few other things that supervisor kim mentioned? she mentioned that motorola was proprietary in getting this. we can't change to got the grant. the three bay cities did not apply for the grant. one of the reasons we didn't was

because at that time, you needed to come up with a match. that all happened before i was in this position. i do know that motorola has made a number of concessions during our negotiations, including the fact that we do not have a minimum subscriber fee anymore that would put in the original grant. motorola also will be turning over the system to was that the end of 10 years. another major concession is that any kind of device is going to be able to operate on a. while motorola is building the system, it will be an open system sell any device that you have had that can operate on the digital system will be able to. another point i just wanted to make, and one of the differences with the city and county of san

francisco, if we decided not to move forward right now, we are both a city in the county. it means we will get no money for any site remediation here. oakland is going to have sites all throughout oakland, whether or not they decide to move forward at the next meeting or whether or not they continue to sit and see how the system comes out. oakland will be covered. we are in negotiations with a bar, we feel very confident that we will be coming to terms with them, and that fiber is important. we have a system already so it is the core of the system. we are looking at numerous different options, but bart is certainly right there. i am happy to answer any other

questions. >> i of the budget analyst has stated on a number of occasions that we don't really have a sense of the long-term budgetary impact of this decision. we sort of know what the impact of entering into this agreement is going to be, but as far as longer-term commitments we are making and monthly subscriptions and what the pricing might be, we really don't have a good sense of that. i know you have attempted to place some more numbers in front of us, but how do we get a real sense of clarity that we know what we are getting into with this deal today? >> i think we have a good sense of what the ongoing costs are going to be in the near-term. we know that devices that will be the primary hard cost for this system since the infrastructure will be given to us, their useful life is two to

three years, so what we will be dealing in this new system, as devices and current modems die, the phones become available and voices a part of the future of the system, will be replacing existing devices that the city purchases each year. we put the money in our budget for computers, phone replacement, every year. i believe if it is not a wash, it will not be a significant additional amount of money. we also pay monthly fees, we did a survey of city departments of how many modems exist right now. there was a 35% increase from 2010 to 2011 in the number of devices that the city has purchased. each one of those devices as a monthly fee between 38 in a $50.

the bay web system will cost $43 a month when it is operational. $38 will be for the monthly cost and $5 will go to the epa. >> are you planning to come back to the board with a sense of what the long-term budget is going to be? >> we will be coming back to the public safety committee numerous times. what you see today really does not involve all the detailed numbers that we will have to come back to you with. we will come back to you with the cost of the vices, with the planning department as they go through the leaves review, that will come to the board as well. we will see you many times and we will continue to work on the budget. it is my anticipation that over

the course of the next three or four months, those will get from her yet again. >> this is a very difficult decision for me, a number of us feel that if we end up supporting this, we are holding our noses a little bit. i think without a clear picture of what will be happening in the future, it is important for us to feel the comfort that we are making a decision today. i can't help but think about the justice project, a project that a number of criminal justice agencies have been responsible for for over 10 years that has resulted in major cost overruns that we still haven't completed. i just want to express the concern and i will listen to what my colleagues have to say. we hope to continue to hear more from the team that is working on this. supervisor chu: i think a little

bit of a different opinion, unlike the president, i am not holding my nose at this item. i am quite supportive of it, i think there are stark differences between this item and the justice project we all know very well about. this is fairly straightforward. we are putting up and says that we can create a 700 mhz system. this is something that will help san francisco and our ability to communicate regionally. just address a few things. i want to say thanks to my committee members because those questions helped to make the presentation case more clear. i think that was very constructive. to the point supervisor avalos made, the monthly charges that would be redundant, the truth of the matter is that what we would

be getting is something that is better than what we currently have. we currently already got to the private market and purchase data services. it is not a dedicated system or a system that we would be able to access first if there were a emergencies. if any of us were at a 49er game and we tried to send a picture forward, it is unlikely you can get the photo across because of the volume of usage. that is the system we have currently. this is going to be a dedicated system that is unique to public service and public safety entities. it is also one that is regionally connected. it is not the same system we currently have, but we currently pay for a sub-standard service that is not dedicated. in terms of the cost, there will be an increase in cost. being able to house those

antennas, paying for rental leases, that has been apparent from the budget analysts report. that will be the cost of replacing equipment. we already pay for the cost of that equipment through the current commercial vendors. there are as many ways that we can have this conversation about will limit the cost over a period of time. we might say that we only replace the equipment as they become hot non-operational. i think that there definitely is an increase in costs, we are getting something that is a dedicated public safety system. it is something that think we need to consider. just to address the point about motorola being the vendor and the proprietary system, i think it was explained already. it came forward because of what

motorola put forward. would we have gone and found a different result? possibly. how is it that you're able to get the momentum to have a regional system put into place? how do you bring different entities with budgetary issues together? it is an incentive for regional partners have to come together. with the san francisco be able to pony up the $13 million? they want to partner with everybody else in order to create this regional system and we want to be the leaders to bring everyone together. possibly true, but you and i know that we have very limited resources for capital projects and this is a way to do it without a cost to the city. there is a cost in terms of leases and equipment, costs that

we would already see any way. i think that the system and the assets will revert to the joint powers authority after 10 years of operational -- motorola is not going to be the system that you use, equipment to be able to communicate with that system. i am imagining as we go forward, will be going out and looking for the best equipment at the best price and doesn't have to be motorola. these are some of the things that i wanted to address. there was a question about whether it was a delicate system. it is currently just a voice system. we are not able to share data through that system and it is also a system that is approved for an emergency and critical voice functions.

it is meeting the standards for that communication. the 700 mhz system doesn't allow that yet. it hasn't changed yet, so we need some change from the federal government to make it compatible. we know that it is coming down the pipeline. we know that the department of emergency management is not wanting to have to systems of we can help it. there is a way to get there, does not at this point. in terms of cost again, i really think that the one thing leaving on the table is the $13 million. this is a rough estimate of what we think it could cost. could we say that we don't want to be part of the system now, but we want to be part of the system later. we can, but it will cost us $13

million. just some of these considerations have led me down a path of believing that joining the system and investing is the right way to go. i have talked to different departments and they have also expressed the critical meeting towards data. as we have evolved from pagers to cell phones and smart phones, data really is the direction that we are going and how it really will help the public safety initiatives. i urge you to consider some of these items. questions raised were good ones and i hope you will support it. supervisor kim: i very much appreciate supervisor chu's thoughts and perspectives. i wish i felt as comfortable lead she does. her i would feel much more comfortable in six months. i still have a lot of questions, i have questions about how much

it may cost of we are not able to make the negotiation happen. mta is investing millions of dollars in building a new system. for me, these conversations i feel like have not happened yet and it is not the fault of the agencies that are here. i don't think blame lies and anyone sitting in this room today. i wanted to clarify my earlier question, i asked two questions. if they had a public position, i was told they did not have one. i had to make sure that the answer i got was what i had. i think we have a tough decision in front of us. many of us don't want to vote against the free infrastructure for -- i'm sorry, mta is

building an 800 mhz system. you'll be getting in infrastructure-370reefree 700 mz system. the projected useful life of the system is 10 years. the current system that is 13 years old i am told is not a very good system and we have to invest money to rebuild that system as well. we may move down this road and it may have been the right decision for us. i am not convinced it is the right decision for us today, but it does not mean that it is not the right place to move to. i just don't feel comfortable supporting this today. >> thank you, supervisor. president chiu: any other discussion? ok. i have one more question for mr.

walton if you could step up. i know i made reference earlier to the justice project and i want to clarify that the reason i brought that up, at the time 11 years ago when that project was supposed to come on board, it was supposed to cost a couple million dollars to integrate data between the criminal justice agencies, and we are $23 million and, 10 years and to our project we have not been able to get done. i want to ask you from your perspective, what assurances can you give us that this is a project that won't see the type of cost and budgetary overruns that other projects that you are well aware of that we have been working on together. >>