san jose staff report re bayweb 12/13/2011

8/3/2019 San Jose Staff Report Re BayWEB 12/13/2011

1/123

CITY OF ~S A N J O S EC A P I T A L O F S I L I C O N V A L L E Y

C OU NC IL A G E ND A : 12 -1 3-1 1ITEM: 8.1

MemorandumTO: HONORABLE MAYORA N D C I T Y C O U N C I L FROM: C hief William McDonaldMichelle McGurk

SUBJECT: Public Safety Broadband System DATE:~ ~ DATE:December 2, 2011

R ECOMMEN D A TI ONIt is recom men ded that the C ity council:

1) A pprove a report on the status of site access and use agreem ent negotiations withMotorola to use four S an Jos4 radio sites for the public safety component of theregional broadband system cal led BayW EB.2) Authorize the Mayor to sign and file, together with Oaldand and San Francisco, anamen ded petition with the FC C for a waiver to use the 700 M Hz pub lic safetyspectrum.3) Approve San Jos4s Comments on the San Francisco Bay Area RegionalInteroperable Communications System (BayRICS) Joint Powers Authority System

Funding Plan for filing with the BayRICS JPA.4) P rovide policy direction regarding San Jos~s position on the Build-O wn-O perate-Maintain A greement (BO OM ) between the BayRIC S JPA and Motorola.

OUTCOMET o provide an u pdate on interoperability efforts to the C ouncil and authorize actions withrelation to the San Francisco Bay A rea Regional Interoperable Com mun ications System(BayRICS) .

B AC K G ROUNDSan Josd has a long history of support for improvements to the com munications systems forpolice, fire, and other first responders. Whether it is the possibility of a major earthquake, othernatural disaster, or the potential of an attack on Silicon V alleys vital high-technology, defense,and econom ic infrastructure, our region has long bee n at risk. O ver the past two decades, we


2/123

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 2 of 10have learned ho w critical it is for public safety agencies to be ab le to comm unicate in times ofeme rgency. San Jos~ lcnows w ell that disasters dont stop at the city limits or county line. OnDecem ber 14, 2010, the Cou ncil unanimously adopted four Guiding Principles for thedevelopmen t of a regional com mu nications system for public safety (A ttachm ent A ). At thattime, the C ity of San Jos~ had been asked by the A lameda C ounty Sheriff, the then-ExecutiveSpon sor of the BayWE B project, to provide a written comm itment to participate in the system.BayW EB is a regional public safety and pub lic access broadband project funded primarily by theBroadband T echnology Opportunity Program (BT OP ), which is a U.S. Department of Com mercegrant program funded through A merican Recovery and R einvestment A ct stimulus funds. InSeptember 2010, M otorola received a grant in the amount of $50,600,000 from the Departmentof C omm erce to implement this project and had comm itted to provide a match of $20,000,000 inin-kind services and equ ipment.The Council declined to sign a Letter of Intent with the Sheriff, and instead voted unanimouslyto adopt a position of support for the concept of regional interoperability for public safetycommunications and to participate fully in BayWEB planning and governance efforts.T he C ouncil also unanimously voted to ask the N T IA to reallocate the funds to the Bay A reacities and counties to conduct a fair and unbiased procu rement process, which is the process usedin every other region of the country that received BT O P funding for public safety broadbandprojects. T he C ouncil made this request due to serious concerns about the manner in w hich staffof the Bay A rea Urban A rea Security Initiative partnered with staff from M otorola Incorporatedto craft the corporations BTO P g rant application.Since last Decembe r, Mayor Re ed, San Jos~ staff, and our W ashington, D.C . lobby ists have heldnumerous discussions with the Department of Commerce, members of Congress, and otherfederal officials, all with the same result: The NT IA was u nable to reallocate the grant funds tothe local region. W ith this unde rstanding, Sa n Jos~ staff strived to w ork w ith other jurisdictionsin the region to create a governance structure for regional public safety communications project~,including the possible BayW EB project. Such a g overnance structure has long been needed tocoordinate operations and maintenance of the BayLOOP public safety microwave system, forexample. The Bay A rea Regional Interoperable Com munications System (BayRIC S) JointP owers A uthority was created, and San Jos~s City C ouncil unanimously voted to join theBayRIC S JP A on June 14, 2011. Michelle McGurk, Senior Policy A dvisor to Mayor Reed,serves as San Jos~s representative, and C hristopher Godley, Director of Emergency S ervices, isthe C itys alternate.T he BayRIC S JP A held its f irst meeting on A ugust 8, 2011, and has met eight times sinceinception. Committees were created, including a BOOM Negotiations Team, tasked withnegotiating a BayW EB system contract with Motorola. San Jos~s representative wa s electedV ice Ch air of the JPA and has been a me mb er of the negotiations team . Monthly updates onBayRIC S have b een provided to the C ouncils Pub lic Safety, Finance, and Strategic SupportC omm ittee under the standing agenda item of pu blic safety interoperability..T he BayW EB project has reached critical decision points, and this report places four key issuesbefore the C ouncil for authorization and policy direction.


3/123

H O N O RA B L E M A Y O R A N D C I T Y C O U N C I LDecember 2, 2011Sub ject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 3 of 10

ANALYSIS

Site A ccess and Use A greementsT he BayW EB system is designed to leverage existing public safety resources by co-locatingbroadb and equipm ent on 193 sites that Bay A rea public safety agencies already use for theiremergency communications and land-mobile radio systems. Motorolas BTOP grant proposalalso envisioned placing the equipm ent for a pub lic access system on these sites. Motorolaintends to sell this service to third-party W ireless Internet Service P roviders, who w ould thenprovide service to underserved communities, schools, libraries, and other community institutions.M otorola did not conduct site walks or evaluations of the radio sites in advance of the grantapplication which asserted that sites we re available and shove l-ready. One significantconcession mad e by M otorola is that the company has agreed to cover site remediation costs upto a $24 million ceiling throughout the BT O P grant period (A ugust 2013) for currently identifiedsites or their substitutes. Th is is anticipated to cov er all costs of site remediation. If new oradditional sites are desired after May 31, 2012, the A uthority may be required to pay rem ediationfor those sites. Site ow ners are expected to provide sites for the BayW EB project rent free andassume costs for utilities, environmental clearance, permitting, and leasing privately owned sitesas well as any indirect costs such as the value o f staff time to esco rt Mo torola staff onto the sites.T o date, one Bay A rea county - Solano - has stated that they will not participate in the BayW EBproject, primarily due to cost concerns.M otorola seeks to use four sites in San Jos6 for BayW EB: C ity Hall, Eagle Rock, Fire Station 28,and C adwallader Reservoir .On Novem ber 15, 2011, City Manager Debra Figone w rote to M otorola outlining three keyconditions that needed to be met prior to asking C ouncil for approval to enter into a site accessand use agreement:Site access and use will be limited to the BayWE B pub lic safety broadband system only.T he public access system equipment cannot be accom mod ated on our sites.San J os6 w ill retain all rights to lease or enter into partnerships on our prop erty, with theunderstanding that any equipment installed w ont interfere technologically w ithMotorolas equipment.

San Jos6 recogn izes that Motorola ow ns the BayW EB equipmen t until it is transferred tothe BayRIC S A uthori ty or i ts designee, however any improvements made on San Jos6sites that are concurrently used for San Jos6 or regional public safety purposes (such astower replacement or dish substitution) will be ow ned by S an Jos6 and rem ain in SanJos6s ownership after the lease terminates.M otorola has agreed to the first two term s in principle. How ever, after reviewing the subjectsites with Planning, Building and C ode Enforcem ent and Pub lic W orks, and the C ity A ttorney itappears that entering into an agreem ent allow ing an entity to do construction and mak eimprovements on a ci ty-owned site is a project under C EQ A and N EP A and therefore cannot beapproved p rior to obtaining environmental clearance.


4/123

H O N O RA B L E M A Y O R A N D C I T Y C O U N C I LDecember 2, 2011Subject: Pub lic Safety Broadband SystemPage 4 of 10Policy Alternative #1. D irect staff to continue to work w ith M otorola to use San Josds foursites for Bay W EB .RE SUL T . Staff would conduct environmental review and com munity outreach and then bringan agreement forward to the C ouncil for approval . BayW EB would provide coverage for publicsafety personnel, including police officers, firefighters, and paramedics, within the city limits.(Note: San Jo sd could choose to join the system at a later date depending on coverage an dperformance q uality.) San Jos~ w ill have to pay electrical costs for the equipment o n these sitesfor the life of the contract, . estimated at $5,000 to $20,000 per year based on numbers provided inthe BayRICS System F unding P lan .Policy Alternative #2. D irect staff to decline providing sites to Bay W EB.RE SUL T . BayWE B coverage would be minimal in San Josd. This could impact other publicagencies or contract service providers (i.e. ambulance services).In the spirit of regional cooperation, staff recomm ends P olicy A lternative 1. Should theBayWEB project go forward, San Jos~ would not be hindering system performance or coverageby ke eping our sites from the system . The final site access and use agreem ent would return toC ouncil for approval after environmen tal review and ou treach is conducted.FCC W aiverIn 2007, the Federal C omm unications System reallocated spectrum in the 700 M Hz band classfor public safety and com mercial uses. 10 MH z of spectrum was m ade available for earlydeploymen ts of public safety 4G L T E broad band projects, through the Pub lic Safety SpectrumT rust (PS ST ). (Note: C ongress is currently debating allocating additional spectrum called the D-block to pub lic safety for a nationwide w ireless broadb and network. T he early systems likeBayW EB would need to integrate with the nationwide network .)In the Bay A rea, the three largest cities (San Josd, San Francisco, and O akland) applied for awaiver on b ehalf of the region to use this spectrum . A t the time, there was no regional body ,such as the BayR IC S A uthority to undertake the application or hold the lease. It was anticipatedthat funding wou ld becom e available, through A RRA stimu lus funds or other grant sources, tofund the development of these early systems nationwide. The B ay A rea waiver was one o f 21granted nationwide in May 2010.Subsequently, the lease document approved by the PSST was with a lessee named the "SanFrancisco Bay Area Urban Region," and signed by the Alameda County Sheriff, with the staffcontact listed as the UASI General Manager. According to documents filed with the FCC,Motorolas outside counsel provided assistance with the execution of this lease.T he FC C has since determined this lease is not valid, and the three cities have expendedsignificant time and legal resources in an effort to correct the problem s with the w aiver andlease. The F C C had advised the three cities that the most expeditious and prudent option is tofile an am ended w aiver petition allowing the P SST to enter into a new lease with the originalP etitioners (San Francisco, Oa kland and San Jos~). Th e draft petition (A ttachment B) states that


5/123

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 5 of 10the cities will then promptly seek approval to assign the lease to the BayR IC S A uthority, asexpressly permitted by the form spectrum lease.Policy Alternative #1. BayRICS Authority Petitions the FCC Directly for a Regional WaiverRES UL T . The C ouncil could recomm end that the BayRIC S A uthority directly petit ion the FCCfor a regional waiver and lease. W hile this approach wou ld be m ore direct, the FC C hasindicated it would require a lengthy notice and com men t proceeding. In recent months, the FC Chas not taken action on new w aivers due to the pending C ongressional action around bu ilding anationwide system. The NTIA has stated that without certainty that the spectrum will beavailable to the BayWEB system, Motorolas BTOP grant could be in jeopardy.Policy Alternative #2. San Josd Signs the Waiver Petition

RES UL T . The C ouncil authorizes the Mayor to sign the draft waiver petit ion and leasedocum ents on behalf of the C ity of San Jos~. Should the FC C award the waiver and lease to thethree cities, staff would then n egotiate lease terms and conditions with the BayR IC S A uthority.It is important to note that the petition m akes comm itments to the FC C that the petitioners intendto bui ld a public safety 4G L T E system that is com pliant with FC C standards. I t outlines theway in w hich Motorolas BayW EB system wil l serve this purpose. However, public safety L T Etechnology is in its infancy, and the FC C is still developing standards for operations andperformance. M otorola has comm itted to build a system that meets standards on A pril 30, 2013.A ccording to the BOO M A greement, the company has not committed to meeting futureregulatory requirements. Should regulations change or n ew standards be impleme nted, thewaiver-holders are ultimately responsible for compliance. For those reasons, the lease w ith theBayR IC S A uthority mu st assume risk for compliance. Given fiscal realities for San Josd, fundsare unlikely to be available to invest in upgrades during the 10-year life of BayW EB .W hile staffs preferred policy alternative is #1, the timing issues are such that staff recomm endsP olicy A lternative #2 and will work w ith the cities of San F rancisco and O akland to ensure thatwhen the spectrum lease is assigned to the BayR IC S A uthority, the lease contains ampleprotection for future regulatory requirements.BayRICS Authority System Funding PlanT o ensure transparency and fiscal responsibility, the drafters of the BayRIC S Joint P owersA greement included the following requ irement: Before entering into any contracts for thesystem, the A uthority must f i rst approve a System Fu nding Plan. T he Systems F unding Plan isconsidered pivotal to the establishment of the JPA . Based upon a needs analysis of the me mb ers,system priorities w ill be established and a long-range plan deve loped, which w ill include thecosts of construction, on-going operation and m aintenance, and technical and adm inistrativesupport. T he Systems Funding P lan wil l allow m emb ers to determine the systems "capabil ity,data speeds, functionality, features, cost, financing an d the expected im pacts on the individualme mb ers." Mem bers are given 90 days after the draft plan is distributed to provide input to theBoard, after wh ich time the Board takes action to adopt, revise or reject the plan.


6/123

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 6 of 10A fter a Systems Funding P lan is adopted, mem bers have 90 days in which to withdraw from theJPA, incurring no costs except the nonrefundable Initial Membership Fee of $24,500. The 90-day window s were determined to be the minimum am ount of time for the appointedrepresentatives to seek approval of their appointing authority regarding the plan, its financialcommitments, and other obligations on their jurisdictions.The draft Systems Funding Plan is provided in Attachment C. The 90-day comment periodconcludes on January 16, 2012, and the BayRICS Authority is expected to review and vote onthe System Funding Plan later that week. If approved, the Authority will consider the BOOMAgreement with Motorola.Significant elements of the System Funding Plan are missing or inconclusive based on items stilto be negotiated with Motorola and other entities, as well as yet-to-be-determined costs forstaffing, backhaul, and future system improvements. San Jos~s comments capture thoseconcerns and are provided in Attachment D.Staff recommends that C ouncil approve San Jos~s comments on the BayRIC S Joint Pow ersA uthority System F unding Plan for fi ling with the BayRIC S JP A .BayW EB B uild-Own-Operate-Maintain (BOOM) A greement with M otorolaO nce it adopts a System Funding P lan, the BayRIC S A uthority will consider approval of thedraft BOOM Agreement with Motorola (Attachment E) to build, own, operate, and maintain theBayW EB 4G L T E P ublic Safety network (N ote: Several Exhibits to the BO OM A greement arenot expected to be completed until December 15, 2011 or later). BayWE B w ill be amo ng thefirst of its kind in the nation. It is not a voice system an d w ill not, in the foreseeable future,replace the land-m obile radio systems that ou r police officers and fire fighters currently use. It isplanned to provide m obile data and Internet-based services on a private public safety networkthat is free from com mercial data traffic. Scenarios inwhich such a system m ight be usedinclude transmitting photos of suspects or missing persons to officers in the field; sendingbuilding plans to teams fighting a fire or w orking a hazardou s ma terials response; accessingdatabases w hen in the field; sending a p atients vital statistics from the E M T /paramedic to theEm ergency Room ; or transmitting live video from an incident scene.T here are risks to being on technologys bleeding edge, including the following:1. Lim ited availability of devices: C urrently the only devices available to use the pub lic

safety broadband spec trum are w ireless mode m d evices that plug into laptops. By thetime the system is operational in A ugust 2013, various vendors are expected to offertrunk-loaded modem s for police cars, handheld P DA devices, and tablets. C omm erciallyavailable devices like iP ads and sm artphones do not currently have the chipsets or otherinfrastructure to operate on the public safety band.2. Future developm ent and future technology standards: T he 4G L T E standard has beenadopted for public safety broadband nationwide, how ever there are still a numb er ofissues and operational standards to be w orked out. Should technology and standards, go adifferent direction than choices made in developing BayW EB , the JPA could be at risk ofsignificant upgrade co sts to keep the system com pliant and interoperable with other


7/123

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 7 of 10

public safety networks. C osts associated with such changes implemented after A pril 30,2013, are likely to borne by the BayRIC S A uthority.A dditionally, the planning and execution of this project have not followed traditional practices.Rather than planning a system , then applying for funding as a region, then condu ctingprocuremen t for a vendor, the Bay A rea UA SI staff oversaw the selection of a partner, Motorola,who then applied for a g rant directly and withheld the actual grant application from the region.T he UA SI staff turned a val id Request For Information that would have had vendors conductingthree small pilot projects in Oaldand, San Francisco, and San Jos~, into a questionableprocuremen t for a sole source private sector partner. System requirem ents, performancestandards, and specifications that should have b een laid out in procurem ent docum ents haveinstead had to be negotiated after the fact with a partner who controlled the grant fun ding.Notwithstanding these chal lenges, the BayW EB BO OM A greement before the C ouncil today is asignificantly better product than that originally presented to the A lameda C ounty She riff whenthat office planned to serve as the pro jects Executive Spon sor. T his final draft should be view edas a com promise. Each party has tentatively agreed to assum e m ore risk and costs than it wou ldprefer.M otorola made significant concessions in agreeing to pay for site remediation costs above andbeyond the $20 m illion match required under the BT O P grant requirements, and to enter into siteagreements directly with local jurisdictions. A dditionally, Mo torola agreed to no minim um u sercom mitment on the part of the BayR IC S A uthority. This was significant as Motorola stated inthe grant application that it anticipated 50 ,000 users on the system (a nu mb er impossible for theBayR IC S A uthority to guarantee as it is easily twice the population of public safety personnel inthe 10-county region). By eliminating this requirement, Bay A rea jurisdictions may choose tosubscribe to or exit BayWE B service with the same freedom they have with com mercialbroadb and carriers (absent any investment ma de for devices that may not work on a differentsystem). In return, the BayR IC S A uthority voted to allow M otorola to use a free marke t-basedpricing mechanism after the first year of service (during which their fee would b e $38/month).T he BO OM Negotiation Team asked the BayRIC S A uthori ty to vote on the pricing model andon other key issues when the two sides reached impasse in discussions. T he BayR IC S A uthorityalso agreed to the following: Take on responsibility for billing system users. Provide system b aclchaul. A ccept Motorolas position that roaming onto comm ercial networks w ill not be providedwithin the boundaries of the system, and that any roaming agreem ents outside the area(for mutual aid, etc.) w ill be the A uthoritys responsibility to create.

It is important to note that San Jos~s representative voted no on the billing and roamingconcessions, and added a requirem ent that if backhaul is not acquired for free, the issue m ustreturn to the Board for a vote. A ll of these requirements carry significant unknow n costs.Baclchaul is the fiber or m icrowave transport network that connects individual base stations tothe core through w hich all data flows. For comm ercial carriers, building sufficient backhaul canbe the m ost expensive piece of bu ilding a wireless system after constructing tower sites, and it isoften the most underestimated cost. T he BayW EB system is designed to rely on BA RT fiber and


8/123

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Public Safety Broadband SystemPage 8 of 10the BayLO OP public safety microwave system. How ever, the BayRIC S A uthority does not havea signed agreement with BA RT - and according to the BOO M do cument - if BA RT fallsthrough, the A uthority is responsible not only for finding new backhau l, but also for Motorolasredesign costs. T he BA RT fiber network exists only along the BA RT l ines and so does notconnect to Santa C lara, San M ateo, or North Bay counties. The A uthority is looking foralternative public fiber that can connect in these regions as the BayL OO P m icrowave back haulhas a significantly sm aller bandwidth.W ith respect to performance, coverage, and regulatory requirements, M otorola would not agreeto provide ongoing compliance w ith FC C regulations through the 10-year life of the project. T hesystem will be compliant and meet FC C requirements that are in place on A pril 30, 2013. Thismea ns the system "as built" meets certain goals, but any improvem ents or compliancerequirements dow n the road are the A uthoritys responsibility.T he BayRIC S A uthori ty received staff reports from i ts BOO M Negotiations Team (A ttachmentF) and from its Technical Advisory Committee (Attachment G) at its December 1,2011, boardmee ting. T hese reports provide an overview of the potential benefits, risks, legal liability andcosts related to the BayWEB BOOM Agreement beyond those detailed in this report.T he BayRIC S A uthori ty is expected to vote on the BO OM A greement on January 19, 2012.C ouncil is asked to provide policy direction to the San Jos~ representative wh o w ill be voting onour citys behalf.Policy Alternative #1. Vote to approve and enter into the BOOMAgreement.RE SUL T . With an affirmative vote, the BayRIC S A uthority and Motorola would move forwardwith construction of B ayWE B beginning in 2012.Policy Alternative #2. Vote no on the BOOMAgreement.RESULT. If a no vote prevailed at the Board, the BayWEB project would not be built, and the$50,000,000 in ARRA funding would be returned to the Treasury. The BayRICS Authority andwaiver holders would have to explore other options for developing a broadband system forpublic safety - or wait until a nationwide network might be developed.Given the significant compromises made in developing the BOOM Agreement, the lack ofguarantee that the funds invested will result in a system that meets public safety needsthroughout the 10-years of the contract, and the fiscal risks to the Authority and its members,staff recommends Policy Alternative #2. Such a vote puts the ARRA funds at risk, but we canall cite projects where free money from federal or state sources have led to exponentially higherdownstream costs. Had a different - and transparent - course been taken by UASI staff in thebeginning, we would be having a different discussion.San Jo s~ staff does not come to this recomm endation lightly. Staff has invested thousands ofhours in the negotiat ions and related work to create the BayRIC S A uthority. This t ime has beenwell spent in ensuring that if the project goes forwa rd, it will be governed by an organizationcreated to operate transparently. A s a result of San Jos~s hard w ork and tenacity, there are


9/123

H O N O RA B L E M A Y O R A N D C I T Y C O U N C ILDecember 2, 2011Subject: Pub lic Safety Broadband Sy stemPage 9 of 10protections and positions retained in the BO O M A greement that benefit the entire region. T his isa vital system for our pub lic safety first responders, and for that reason, we canno t comp romiseon perform ance, coverage, and interoperability.

PUBLIC OUTREA CH!INTERESTCriterion 1: Requ ires Council action on the u se of pub lic funds equ al to $1 million orgreater. (Requ ired: W ebsite Posting)Criterion 2: Adoption of a new or revised policy that may have implications for publichealth, safety, quality of life, or financial/economic vitality of the City. (Requ ired: E-mail and Website Posting)Criterion 3: Consideration of proposed changes to service delivery, programs, staffingthat may have impacts to community services and have been identified by staff, Council ora Community group that requires special outreach. (Required: E-mail, Website Posting,Community Meetings, Notice in appropriate newspapers)

COORDINATIONThis memorandum has been coordinated with the Office of the City Attorney.

FISCAL/POLICY ALIGNMENTThis action is consistent with the following General Budget Principles:

1. We must focus on protecting our vital core city services for both the short- and long-term.2. We must continue to streamline, innovate, and simplify our operations so that we candeliver ;ervices at a higher quality level and with better flexibility.

COST SUMMARY/IMPLICATIONSAs noted in this report, this information is incomplete at this time.

Not a Project, File No. PP-10-069(a) Staff Reports. Additional environmental clearance wouldbe needed if site access and use agreements would result in a physical change to theenvironment.


10/123

H O N O RA B L E M A Y O R A N D C I T Y C O U N C I LDecember 2, 2011Subject: Pub lic Safety Broadband SystemPage 10 of 10

/s/W I L L IA M M C D O N A L DFire Chief/s /M I C H E L L E M C G U R KMayors Senior Policy A dvisor

For qu estions, please contact Ch ristopher Godley, Director of E mergency S ervices at 277-4595

Attachments:A - C ity of San Jos~ Guiding Pr inciples for Interoperable Public Safety Broadband (approved by C ouncil

Dec. 14, 2010)B - Draft FC C waiver petitionC - Proposed BayRIC S Systems Funding Plan (Dec. 1 ,2011)D- Draft Com ments by the City of San Josd on the BayRICS JPA Systems Funding Plan (TBD)E - Draft BOOM Agreement between the BayRICS JPA and Motorola Solutions Inc. (Nov. 29,2011)(less selected Ex hibits to be com pleted by Decem ber 15, 2011 or later)F - BayRIC S JP A Staff repol~ on the Draf t BOOM A greement (meeting of Dec. 1 ,2011)G - BayRIC S JP A T echnica l Advisory C omm ittee report on the Draf t BOO M A greement (meeting ofDec. 1, 2011)


11/123

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF S A N J O S I~GUID ING PRINCIPLES FOR REGIONAL PUBLIC SAF ETY BROAD BANDAs approved by the City Council at its regular meeting of December 14, 2010.

Guiding Principles: T he San Jos~ C ity C ouncil supports the development of regionalinteroperable comm unications options for our pub lic safety first responders. Ensuring the safetyof the public we serve is our top priority and duty as a C ity. Any system that is developed mustbe d one in a way that puts pub lic safety first and takes into accou nt the fiscal realities thatC alifornia cities and counties face. Those developing the system, both from the public andprivate sector, must act with comm itment to honesty, fiscal responsibility, and open governm ent.1)

2)

4)

T he decision to enter into public-private partnerships or procure a system will be don ethrough accepted government procurement processes with decisions made through theappropriate governing body. E very aspect of financial benefit to the vendor as well asevery cost to each mu nicipality shall be fully d isclosed and available. C ritical details including op erational goals, system d esign, equipmen t site requirements,site access authority, system coverage, operating costs, expansion plans, governa ncestructure, process for transfer of system to public agencies, and public access will beprovided to cities, counties, and special districts prior to decisions being m ade.Governing bod ies and program staff will comply with state and local laws abou t~rocurement, sunshine, outside em ployment, conflicts of interest, and p ublic meetings,including the Ralph M. Brown O pening Meetings Act.T he system will be developed using standards of open source equipment and trueinteroperability. The system will not require local agencies to purchase equ ipment w ith aspecified vendor. Sy stem specifications will not be w ritten in a w ay to exclude equ ipment~roviders.


12/123

Attachment BT o B e D istributed Separately


13/123

ATTACHMENT C

Proposed BayRICS A uthor ity System Funding PlanRe vised 12/01/2011

BACK G RO U N DBay Area W ireless Enhance d Broadb and (BayW EB) is a publ ic-pr ivate partnership to bui ld and operate anext generat ion, wire less broadban d network for the 10-Coun ty Bay Area. BayW EB wi l l deploy a sta te-of -the-art 4G LTE (Long Term Evolut ion).wire less b roadband network ut i l iz ing 700MHz spectrumreserved for publ ic safety broadband us e, and ma de avai lab le through a F edera l Comm unicat ionsComm ission (FCC) waiver granted to San Francisco, Oa kland and San Jose .BayW EB is governed by the Bay Area Regional Interoperable Comm unications System (BayRICS)Authori ty, a jo in t powers authori ty estab l ished in August 2011, com prised of representat ives of sevenCount ies and three core c i t ies ma king up the BayW EB geograp hic serv ice area. BayW EB wi l l be a pub l ic-private partnersh ip between B ayR ICS, regional publ ic safety agencies and M otoro la , funded through a~50,953,551 ARRA Broadband Technology Opportuni t ies Program (BTOP) grant and $21,890,086 fromMotorola in matching fund s, in addi t ion, Motorola has agreed to p ay add i t ional costs of radio accessnetwork (R AN) si te remediat ion costs, br inging the to ta l pro ject cost to approximate ly ~9 7,000,000.Unde r i ts j o i n t powe r s ag r eem en t ( JPA) , t he Au t ho r it y mu s t adop t a "Sys t ems F und ing P lan " p r io r t oen t e r ing i n t o any sys t em ag reeme n t . Sec t ion 2 . 05 ( d ) a l so p r ov ides t ha t the S ys t ems F und ing P lanshould specify a means or formula for funding the design, construction, operation, maintenance,expans ion , and l i fe cyc le r ep lacem en t o f any sys t ems t ha t fu r t he r the p u r poses o f t h is Au t ho r i ty . I nadd i t ion , Se c t ion 5 . 02 ( b ) p r ov ides t ha t the p r opo sed p lan sh a l l be accom pan ied by a desc r ip t ion o f t heSys t em s , and i n f o rma t ion t o a l l ow Me mb er s t o de t e rm ine t he S ys t ems capab i l it y , da t a speed s ,functionality, features, cost, financing and the expected impacts on individual Members. The specificr equ irem en ts o f t he S y s tem s Fund ing P lan a re add res s ed i n S ec t ion I I .At the S ep t em be r 7 , 2011 Au t ho r it y mee t i ng , an ad h oc sub - com m i tt ee was es t ab l i shed t o ove r see t hedeve lopm en t o f a Sys t em s Fund ing P lan f o r BayW EB. Th i s repo r t desc r i bes a p r oposed p lan f o r fund ingthe Authoritys participation in BayWEB, including projected costs of participation to Authority Memberagencies, and a proposed three-year administrative funding plan. In addition, this report provides a planf o r BayL O O P, a po in t - to - po in t m ic r owave sys t em t ha t w i ll be used f o r BayW EB ba ckhau l connec t i v it y .F o r pu rposes o f t h is Sys t ems F und i ng P l an , BayL OO P i s t r ea ted as a sub - sys t em o f t he BayW EB sys t em .Plan Highlights

The f und ing p lan assum es a "pass - th r ough" m ode l , in w h i ch a l l Au tho r i ty adm in is t ra t ive cos t sthat exceed the total amount of annual member fees collected would be passed on to useragen c ies as a su r cha rge a dded t o the ba se use r fee pa id t o Mo t o r o la . Mo reove r , o t he r cos t sspec i fi c to the BayW EB sys tem , such as co s ts o f b i l li ng , end us er suppo r t , enh anc ing sys temcove rage ( r oam ing ) o r cos t s o f backhau l a r e passed o n t o end -use r s whe neve r poss ib l e . Theplan assumes that the user surcharge be established at ~5/user/month. However, potentialbackhau l cos t s m ay r equ i re t he A u t ho r it y t o cons ide r i nc r eas ing t he su r cha rge t o cove r t hosecosts.Mos t o f t he co s t s t o Mem ber s i den t i fi ed i n t h i s r epo r t w i ll app l y on l y t o ag enc ies t ha t ac t ua l l yl oad use r s on t he sys t em . The BO O M Ag reem en t w i th Mo t o r o la spec i f ie s t ha t the Au t ho r i ty andits Members are not required to make minimum user commitments. Therefore, if a Member


14/123

com mits no use rs, i t wil l incur no user or device c harges, and w i ll not require back of f iceconnect iv i ty or re la ted costs.A Member that contributes radio sites to the system will incur site costs. However, the Memberm a y c o n t ro l t h o s e c o s ts s o m e w h a t t h r o u g h t h e s it e u s e a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n t h e M e m b e r a n dMo t o r o la . On l y s i tes app rove d by t he Mem ber and spe c i fi ed in t h i s s it e use ag r eem en t ma y beused in the sys tem . If , f o r exam p le , the lease co s t fo r a s i te is f ound to be exc ess ive , the agencyand Motorola may choose to eliminate that site from consideration.Back of fice connec t iv i ty costs, Le. the cost of connec t ing the dispatch center or publ ic safetyanswering po int (PSAP ) to the core, wi ll vary great ly f rom m embe r to mem ber. Back of f ice costswi l l depend on the na ture o f the app l ica t ions d es i red , the ban dwid th requ i red to opera te thoseappl icat ions and the physical locat ion of the fac i li ty to be conne cted. Therefore, th is reportdoes not a t tempt to est imate per-si te or per-PS AP costs. Ind iv idual Mem bers should est imatethe costs to the i r agencies based on the ci rcum stances of each ind iv idual faci li ty.This report provides funding projections for the initial one-year period of system deploymentand operation. User fees charged by Motorola may change annually after the first year, androaming costs cannot be calculated with precision until after the coverage evaluation period,wh ich w i l l a l so occu r du r i ng t he f ir s t yea r o f se r v i ce . Assum ing t ha t these cos t s w i l l rem a insom ewh a t cons i s t en t in f u t u r e yea r s , a t h r ee - yea r cos t p r o jec t i on i s in c l uded i n A t tachm en t A .

This initial funding plan is designed to meet the requirements of the Authority JPA and provide memberswith a clear indication of the costs to Members and to the Authority resulting from the deployment oft he BayW EB se r v ice . The P lan w i ll be upda t ed r egu la r ly du r i ng yea r - one , and a t l eas t annua l lyt he r ea f te r , as m o re p r ec i se sys tem r eve nue an d cos t da t a becom e ava i l ab le .

SYSTEMS FUNDING PLAN COMPONENTSSec t i on 2 . 04 (d ) o f the B ayR I CS JPA Ag reem en t i den ti fi e s s ix com ponen t s o f a S ys t ems F un d i ng P l an :1. The design , construct ion, operetion, meintenence, expension end l i fecycle replecem ent costs oj= th e

S y s t e m s .Des ign and cons t r uc t ion cos t s f o r the B ayW EB m idd le m i le ne t wo r k w i l l be f unded byM o t o r o la t h o u g h A m e r ic a n R e c o v e r y a n d R e i n v e s tm e n t A c t (A R R A ) B r o a d b a n dTechnology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant award of ~50,953,551 and Motorolama tch ing funds o f ~2 :~ ,890 ,086 .Ba ckhau l cos t s o f t he ne t wo r k , if any , w i ll be t he r espon s ib i li ty o f t he Au t ho r i ty . Thesecos ts a re d iscussed in sec t ion IV (2 ) (d ) be low.O pera t ion and m ain tenan ce cos ts , excep t fo r cos ts re la ted to b il ling , co l lec t ion o f feesfrom end users and certain end user support functions will be the responsibility ofMotorola. Motorola may recover the costs of operations and maintenance through userfees . User fees are d escr ibed in de ta i l in sec t ion IV(2 ) (c ) .Under the proposed BOO M agreeme nt, any system expa nsion requests f rom Motoro larequ ire the approva l o f the Author i ty , and wo u ld presumab ly be funded by Motoro la .Sy stem expa nsion, upgrade or re f resh requests f rom the Authori ty would be therespons ibi li ty of the author i ty and sub ject to the pr ior approval of the Boa rd. No Systemexpans ion is ant ic ipated in the in it ia l three years of S ystem deploym ent and op erat ion.

2


15/123

Lifecycle replacement costs would not be incurred until year 10 or later. Given theunknown technology landscape and user base over that time period, any attempt toes t im a t e r ep lacem en t cos t s a t t h is t ime w ou ld be m e re guessw o r k . The Com m i tt eer ecomm ends t ha t t he Sys t em s Fund ing P lan i tse l f be r e fr eshed a t l eas t annua l ly and t ha ta l if e c y c le r ep l a c em en t p l an be phas ed i n a s m o re u s ag e d a ta bec om e s av a i la b l e and a sn e w t e c h n o lo g y d e v e l o p s .Specification as to how site costs and/or site remediation (e.g., electrical, air conditioning,backup generators, and power) of specified antenna sites by jurisdiction shall be paid.

Motorola has agreed to pay site remediation costs up to a $24 million ceiling throughoutt he BTO P gran t per iod (Augus t 2013 ) . Th is is an t ic ipa ted to co ver a l l cos ts o f s it eremediation. If new sites are desired after May 31, 2012, the Authority may be requiredto pay remediation for those sites. Site owners are responsible for some recurring sitecos ts , such as e lec t r ica l usage , lease cos ts and the va lue o f s ta ff time to es co r t Mo to ro las ta f f on the s i t es . S i t e cos ts a re de scr ibed in m ore de ta i l in Se c t ion IV( :i ) (b ) .

The est imated costs to be borne by the Author i ty should ownersh ip of the Systems later bet ransferred to the Autho ri ty.

At the end of the 10-year term, Motorola will transfer the system to the Authority at nocost to the Authority. Therefore, costs of operating and maintaining the system will notbe incurred until year 10. Although it is assumed that the Authority would continue tofund system operation through user fees, the speculative nature of the technologyl andscape an d use r base 10 yea r s i n t he f u tu r e m akes any a t tem p t to es t ima t e suchcos t s and revenue s mere guessw o r k . The Com mi t tee r ecomm ends t ha t t he Sys t emsFund ing P lan i t se lf be r e f reshed a t l eas t annua l l y and t ha t an o wn e r sh ip t rans i t ion p lanbe phas ed i n a s m o re u s ag e da ta and a s new te c hno log y dev e l ops .

G ood faith estimates of costs and types of devices that will be ab le to operate on the Pub lic SafetySystemDev ice des cr ip t ions an d pro jec ted cos ts a re descr ibed in sec t ion IV(2 ) (a ) .

5. Monthly user fees for the System sMo nth ly use r fees fo r the sys tem s a re desc r ibed in sec t ion IV (2 ) (c ) .

6. Identification of additional funding sources , if necessaryThe Authority has identified $170,000 in funding for a General Manager/ProjectManagement position in year one. It is anticipated that other funding sources may bedes i r ed t o dep loy add i ti ona l backhau l so lu t ions su ch as f i be r loop r edu ndan cy , addadd i t iona l s i tes , upg rade t he sys t em o r adop t enh anced app l i ca t ions . Su ch po t en t ia lfunding sources should be identified and aggressively pursued throughout the initialyea r s o f t he BayW EB sys t em ope ra t ion , and an y add i t iona l f und ing sou r ces w i l l bei n c luded i n an nua l r e v i s ions o f t he S y s tem s Fu nd ing P lan .

I n add i ti on t o t he com pone n t s se t f o r th i n S ec t ion 2 . 05 ( d ) , Se c t ion 5 . 02 ( b ) a lso p r ov ides t ha t t heSystems Funding Plan shall be accompanied by a description of the Systems, and information to allowMembers to determine the Systems" capability, data speeds, functionality, features, cost, financing andthe expected impacts on individual Members.


16/123

The deve lopmen t of a fina l deta i l design is recognized to be a n i terat ive proces s and w i llcontinue to be ref ined a s the l is t of radio s i tes and b ackha ul fac i li t ies are f inal ized. A keyfeature of the System s Funding P lan is the docume nt s flex ib i li ty . The System s FundingPlan wi l l be upd ated on a regular basis as design elements are f inal ized and e nhance d.This docum ent re f lects the current version of the sys tem descrip t ion, and is a rea l ist icgu ide to the expected costs and impacts on Mem bers. Current ~ystem descrip t ion,speci f icat ions, funct ional i ty are h igh l ighted in S ect ion I I I . Sys tem costs, f inancing andexpected impac ts are descr ibed in Sect ion IV.BAYWEB SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Business Model Descript ion (Highlights of the BOOM Agreement)Motorola and the Authority will execute a lO-year build, own operate and maintain (BOOM)Agreem en t , and w i ll then t rans f e r t he en t i re s ys t em t o t he Bay R ICS Au t ho r i ty a t no c os t . TheBO O M Ag reem en t w i l l gove r n use o f spec t rum , ra t es and se r v i ce l eve l s , upg rades a nd f i na ltransfer of the system to the Authority.Mo toro la wi l l exe cute s i t e use agree m en ts d i rec t ly w i th s it e own ing ju r isd ic t ions ; ju r isd ic t ionswi l l pay n o cos ts re la ted to s i t e remed ia t ion . Jur isd ic t ions m ust pay fo r s i t e leas e cos ts an dut i l i ties for the s i tes.Agencies have no obligation to purchase a minimum number of user accounts and Motorolaassum es a l l r is k o f l oad ing use r s on t he sys t em .Motorola will offer an introductory rate of $38/user/month for the first year of operation, andfor subsequent years will maintain a rate that is driven from the commercial competitive marketand is more affordable than rates for comparable services. BayRICS Authority will review ratesannua l l y .Y ear - one bas i c f ea tu r es ( as d esc r i bed i n M o t o r o la s "O p t ion 2 " ):

Un l imi ted DataEnhanced Qua l i t y o f Se rv iceP25 Push- to -Ta lk in te r faceCustomer Enterprise Network Interface Options:

1. Motorola Hosted Prioritization Service Manager (PSM) interface2. A g enc y O w ned PS M i n te rf a c e

The Authority will be responsible for all billing and collections, with start-up support fromMotorola. The Authority will consider adding a service fee to user bills to cover its cost ofoperation.The Authority will be responsible for certain end user support functions. While the specificscope o f t hese f unc t ions h as n o t been f ina l ized , con t i nu ing d i s cuss ions w i th M o t o r o la su gges tthat the Authoritys costs will not be significant. To the extent the Authority does incur costs forend u se r suppo r t , those co s t s w i ll be passe d on t o t he end u se r t h r ough t he se r v i ce f ee .The Au t ho r it y w i ll be r espon s ib le f o r backhau l connec t i v it y t o t he BayW EB sys t em co r e t h r oughnego t ia t ed ag r eem en t s w i th BAR T and o t he r fi be r p rov ide r s . The Ba yL O O P sub - sys t em w i l l beused for backhaul where other options are not feasible.R oam ing :


17/123

Motorola wi l l prov ide reason able technical ass is tance to the Author i ty concerning roam ingserv ices from that com mercia l carr ier;Us e rs w i ll b e re s pons i b l e f o r roam ing c ha rg es ou t s i de t he Bay W E B s e rv i c e a rea .I n - s ys tem roam ing . Users will be provided with a web-based application that will allowt hem t o r epo r t s ys t em d e f ic i enc ies on a r ea l - time ba s i s . Sa ch de f ic i enc ies wou ld i nc l ude bu tnot be limited to system performance and coverage. Motorola will accumulate this data in aformat to be jointly determined by the JPA and Motorola. Motorola and the JPA will reviewt he da t a on a r egu la r bas i s . Such de f i c ienc ies m ay be t he r esu l t o f dev i ce f unc t i ona l it y ,backhau l capa c i ty o r s ys t em cove rage . So lu t ions t o be co ns ide r ed w i l l i n c lude b u t may no tbe limited to: additional sites, enhanced backhaul, bi-directional amplification, devicereplacement or remediation, or roaming availability. The JPA and Motorola will jointly al~reeon the cost-effectiveness of the applied solution. Any in-system roaming charges will be ther espons ib i li ty o f t he end use r .

Sys tem Des i gn and Accep tanceSys tem des ign :o Fina l Sys tem Des ign De ta i l w i l l be de ve loped b y Janu ary 5 , 2012 . A ll s ite ag reem en ts w i l li n c lude an "ou t c l ause" f o r ju r i sd ic t ions t o t e rm ina t e s i t e access com mi t men t i f fi na l

s y s tem des ig n no t app rov ed by t he B ay R IC S A u tho r it ySys t em des ign accep t ance w i ll requ i re Techn i ca l Adv i so r y Comm i tt ee r ecomm enda t i on andra t if ica t ion by the Ba yR ICS Au thor i tyService level criteria specifying minimum coverage and bandwidth speeds will beincorporated into the executed BOOM Agreement

Pub l i c Access Sys tem: Given the urgency of moving this agreement forward to the approvingen t it ie s , t h e pub l ic a c c es s s y s tem B O O M a g reem en t w i ll b e neg o t i a t ed s epa ra te ly .

2 , . Technical and O perational DescriptionThe BayW EB system d esign is s ti ll in developm ent, but wi ll comply wi th FCC coverage and ban dwidthstandards for the 4 (3 LTE p la t form that are in p lace on Apri l 30, 2013. The fo l lowing h igh l ightssumm arize the system descrip t ion, design and techn ica l features provided in the most current version ofthe BOO M Agreement .

Technical Highlights: Up to :193 eNodeB rad io si tes, operating on 700M Hz publ ic safety broadband sp ectrum (763-768

and 793-798 MHz) Enhanced Packet Core proposed location at Twin Peaks in San Francisco= Backhaul : Hybrid :1Gbps m icrowave loop and Ba yLO OP wi th proposed f iber enhancements

Com pl iant wi th FCC operabi l i ty and in teroperabi l ity standards, includ ing:LTE technology p la t form: 3GPP standard, E-UTRA, LTE Release 8 or higher adoptedstandards, mu st support QoS and s pecified LTE interfaces


18/123

Availability: The backha ul and netwo rk design wi l l prov ide 99.99% upt ime rel iabil ity at eacheNodeB.Anticipated Available Bandwidth (results of Cornerstone pilot study):

o Near Ce l l: 16-19 Mbps Downl ink; 6-7 Mbps Upl inko Mid-Celh 11-15 Mbps Dow nl ink; 2 Mbps Upl inko Cell Edge: 6-8 Mbp s Down link; .2-.3 Mbps Uplinko Current FCC required minimum 768 K bps dow nl ink and 256 Kbps u pl ink for a s ingleuser at the cel l edgeSys tem m ust be capab le of in terconnect ing wi th other regional publ ic safety broadbandnetworks.

SYSTEM FUNDINGThis Sec t ion prov ides spe c i f ic de ta i l regard ing a l l cos ts to the Author i ty and to Me m bers fo r the B ayW EB

The following categories of costs have been identified:roject.1 . Cos ts to A ll Memb ers :a. Annual membership fee paid by members to the Authority;b. S i t e cos ts re la ted to lease pay m ents , access b y Motoro la and e lec t r ica l u t il it y charges;2. Costs to Members with System Users:a. Dev ice cos ts ;b. Mem ber agency back o f f ice con nec t iv i ty cos t s ;c. User Fees , pa id d i rec tl y to the JPA:

i. Userfees charged by Motorola;iJ . BayR I CS Au tho r i ty su r cha rge , wh i ch i nc ludes :

1. Cos t s o f b i l li ng use r ag enc ies on beha l f o f Mo t o ro la ;2. Cos t s r e l a ted t o enhanc ing sys t em co ve rage a l l o ca t ed t o t he Au t ho r i ty ,i n c lud i ng any roam ing c ha rg es a s s es s ed t o u s e r ag enc i e s ;3. Additional Administrative costs not covered by annual member fee

iii. Backhaul Costs3 . Cos t s to JPA no t passe d on t o mem ber s ( funde d f rom o t he r sou r ces ) :a. Cos t s o f i n c r eas ing ca pac i ty an d pe r fo rman ce o f t he sys t em a l loca t ed t o t he Au t ho r it y ,for example adding additional fiber to the backhaul system

1. Costs to Al l Mem bersa . Annu a l Mem bersh ip Fee

All current Authority Members have paid an annual membership fee, as provided under Section 5.01 ofthe Authoritys joint powers agreement. For the initial year, this fee was set at 524,500. For subsequentyears , each Me mb er sha l l pay an Annua l Fee no la te r than Ju ly 1s t o f each F isca l Year to ma in ta inmembership in the Authority. The Board shall set this annual fee in an amount not to exceed the initialy ea r m e m be rs h ip f ee , e xc ep t t ha t the B oa rd m ay ad j u s t the A nnu a l Fee eac h F i s c a l Yea r t o r e fl e c tc hang es i n t he C ons um e r P r ic e I ndex .Pub l i c agenc ies t ha t app l y to beco me a Me mb er a f te r t he I n it ia l Mem ber sh ip Pe r i od , may be assessed adifferent membership fee. The Board shall determine the amount of each subsequent member fee,wh ich m ay be m ore , bu t canno t be less , than t he i n i ti a l me m ber sh ip f ee pa id by cu r r en t Mem ber s .


19/123

This report assum es that the annual mem bersh ip fee wi l l rema in at 524,500 per Mem ber for the f i rstthree years of operat ion.Sub-total Annual Mem ber Fee per Jurisdiction 5 24,500.00

b. Site CostsA l though Mo t o r o la has ag r eed t o pay a l l cos t s assoc ia ted w i th s i te r em ed ia t ion an d equ ipm en tinstallation operation and maintenance, each site owning jurisdiction will be responsible for on-goings i t e cos ts such as lease co s ts , cos t o f e lec t ric i ty consu m ed by M otoro la s equ ipm ent and s ta f f time. S ta f ft im e m ay i nc l ude on e - t im e cos t s suc h as coo r d ina t ion . o f p r o j ec t imp lem en t a t ion , cons t r uc t ionpe rm i tt ing , env i r onme n t a l s tud ies , a t tend ing co m mu n i ty ou t r each m ee t i ngs , as we l l as on -go ing cos t ssuch as secu r i ty and e sco r t ing Mo t o r o la m a in t enance o r se r v i ce p r ov ide r s on s i t e .Sites will be approved to use for the system through independent site use agreements between theagency a nd Mo t o ro la . Thus , a Me mb er agency m ay con t r o l those co s t s to som e ex t en t , by au t ho r i z ingon l y s i tes t ha t m ee t spec i f ied co s t cons t r a in t s se t by t he Mem ber agen cy . Fo r exam p le , if t he cos t o fl eas ing a s i te de t e rm ined t o be excess i ve , the a gency and Mo t o r o la s imp l y ag r ee t o e l im ina t e t ha t s i tefrom consideration and choose another.E lec tr ica l usage m ay r ange f rom 51 ,200 ( cu r ren t ac t ua l cos t o f som e Co rne r s tone s i tes ) t o 54 ,800(es t ima t e p r ov ided by a com me rc ia l vendo r ) ann ua l l y pe r s i te . S i t e cos t s w i l l a l so va r y g r ea t l y depe .nd ingon whether third-party site owners will require lease payments. Sites owned by the agency, with noadd i t iona l l ease co s t s , may h ave no l ease cos t s . S i tes l eased f rom t h ir d pa r t ie s m ay r equ i re a dd i ti ona ll ease cos t s , wh i ch can r ange f r om 52 ,4 00 t o 530 ,000 o r mo re pe r yea r . So me j u ri sd i c ti ons have be ensucce ss fu l in negot ia t ing s ign i fi can t d iscoun ts fo r lease cos ts , o r in bar te r ing o ther fac i l it ies o r serv icesfor lease r igh ts .L ikewise , s ta f f t im e and res ource s wi l l vary con s iderab ly f rom s i t e to s i t e and age ncy to agen cy ,therefore only general ranges for these costs are provided.Therefore, th is report provides on ly ge nera l ranges o f est imated si te costs. Actua l costs for eachjur isd ict ion wi l l vary ac cord ing to the nu mb er of s i tes and the u n ique character ist ics of each si te .One-T ime Permit t ing/Zoning Fees Varies by JurisdictionAnn ual Electrical Costs pe r site 51,200 - $4,800Annual Lease Costs per Site 50 - ~;3 0,000+Annual Agency Staff T ime and Resources 50 - 5 10,000Total Annual Cost per S i te 51,200 -54 4,800+

2, . Costs for M embers U s ing the Servicea. Device Costs

End u se r dev i ces (EU) w i ll be r equ i red f o r each use r accou n t . The cos t o f t hese de v i ces i s no t i n c luded i nthe Motorola base fee or Authority surcharge. Member agencies will be responsible for the cost ofthese devices, which may be procured from Motorola or from any other vendor selling devices certified

7


20/123

as com pl iant wi th netwo rk open stan dards requiremen ts. In add i t ion, i t is possib le that at some t ime inthe future, the Autho r i ty ma y negotiate preferred rates, or iden t i fy other d iscoun ts or fund ing sourcesfor devices, and of fer them to Mem bers.Est imat ing the cos t o f dev ice s is d i ff icu l t becau se these dev ices are no t cur ren t ly ava i lab le on themarket. Preliminary information suggests that three types of devices may be available:"Dongle" type devices that plug into a laptop or similar computer;Handheld devices similar to smart phones or tablets (but without voice capability)

Vehicular modems that would be installed in first responder vehiclesPr i c ing f o r t hese d ev i ces i s no t ye t ava i l ab le , bu t is es t ima t ed t o r ange f rom ~4 50 - ~ 1500 p e r dev i ce ,with a three year life. Members can expect the dongle devices to be priced at the low end of the range,and ve h i cu la r m odem s p r iced a t t he h igh end . Handh e ld dev i ces w i l l be p r i ced i n the m id - ran l~e .The re f o re , Mem ber s w i t h use r s on t he sys t em sh ou ld es t im a t e t ha t cos t s o f these d ev i ces based o ntheir agency needs within this price range. Unlike todays land mobile radios, the devices will notrequire programming; however vehicular modems will require installation and possibly some ongoingm a in tenanc e .~End User Devices, per user, three-year refreshcycle $450- $1,500

b. Back Off ice Conn ectivity CostsAccord ing to Motoro la s pre liminary system design:

Each agen cy access ing the LTE ne twork i s requ ired to p rov ide a conne c t ion to the LTECore . Th is conne c t ion enab les the ba ck o f f ice app l ica t ions l ike em a i l , in te rne t access ,databa se acce ss such as NC IC, CLETS , e tc . Motoro la w i l l work w i th each o f the agenc iesto determine the required size of the backhaul based on the applications a particularagency p lans on us ing on t he n e t wo r k . P r e lim ina r y eva lua t ions i nd i ca t e t ha t an agencyw i t h 1000 use r s wou ld need a con nec t i on tha t supp l i es be t ween 30 Mb ps - 50 Mbps ,how ever ex is t ing agenc ies us ing 3G se rv ices toda y use s ign i fi can t l y sm a l le r conn ec t ions .

Bac k o f fi ce conne c t iv i ty cos t s f o r Mem ber agen c ies us ing t he se r v i ce w i l l va ry g r ea t l y fr om Mem ber t oMember. Members back office costs will depend on the physical location of the facility that must beconnected, the nature of the applications desired and the potential need to increase bandwidthconnec t i on a t t he f ac i li ty . These co s t s ma y be one t ime o r r ecu r ri ng cos t s .O ne Time Connectivi ty Costs.Initial integration engineering costs will depend on the Members existing ability to support dataexchange w i th 911 co re sys t ems , and may i nc lude u pg rades such da tabase acce ss , E -t ic ke t , Vi deod i sp lay m on i to r s , VL PR , Vo lP Te lephone app l i ca ti ons and t he I n t e rne t . As t hese cos t s a r e i ncu r red on l yto the ex ten t t ha t a ju r isd ic t ion in tend s to u t i li ze the sys tem or spec i fi c app l ica t ions on the sys tem, suc hcosts are not practical to estimate over the entire Membership. Therefore, each Member must evaluatei ts cu r r en t s ta t us , p lans f o r use o f t he sys t em and a n t ic i pa t ed ha r dwa re and so f twa re n eeds .1 The Au thor i ty was recent ly inv ited to par t ic ipate in the developm ent o f spec i f ica tions for a Re quest for Proposalfor end use r dev ices cur rent ly proposed by the Ci ty o f Char lo tte , Nor th Caro l ina and other BTO P pu bl ic safe tygrantees. The resu l ts o f th is so l ic i ta t ion and o ther nat ionwide incent ives to dev elop com pet i t ive pr ic ing ma y resu l tin s igni f icant ly lower costs for end us er devices.


21/123

O n l~o in l~ Co nnec t i v it y Cos t s . Memb er agenc ies w i ll a l so be r espons ib l e f o r the cos t o f b r oadbandconnections from back room equipment to a designated demarcation point, where Motorola willassum e r espons ib il it y fo r com p le t ing t he conn ec t ion t o t he co r e . The agen c ies have se ve r a l cho i cesr ega rd ing t he co nnec t i on t o t he L TE C o re i nc l ud ing :

Direct Connectionbetween the Agencys enterprise network and the Core via microwave orthird party fiber Connection at a third-party providers aggregation point via microwave or third party fiber VPN c onnec t i on t h roug h an IS P be tween t he A g enc y and t he LTE C o re

O nce aga in , these cos ts cou ld va ry g rea t l y depen d ing on the loca t ion o f the PS AP, ex is t ing conn ec t i v i tyand b andw id th nee ds o f t he app l i ca ti ons t o be suppo r ted . On go ing cos t s cou ld be ve r y l ow , in caseswhe re t he PS AP i s a l ready conn ec t ed v i a b r oadband . I n cases whe re no b r oadband connec t i on ex i s ts ,l ow -c os t s o lu t io ns a re a v a i la b l e s uc h a s c ab l e m odem o r T1 s e rv i c e . Fo r e xam p le , C om c as t C ab lecurrently offers 50Mbps managed Ethernet service for S190.00/month, or 100Mbps for 370.00/month.Th is se r v ice cou ld use d t o connec t t he PS AP t o a d em ar ca t ion po in t t h rough a p r iva t e VPN.Alternatively, AT&T will provide 1Gbps connection for approximately S2,000.00/month (probably morebandw id th t han necessa r y ) .The Author i ty is work ing w i th th i rd par ty fiber and broadb and prov iders to make no- o r low-cos tbroadband acces s avai lab le to Members. As wi th the one-t ime costs above, each Membe r mustevaluate i ts current needs and plans when assessing these costs.One-t ime PS AP conn ect ivi ty cost Varies according to current status and future

needsOngoing PS AP connectivity Cost $0 - ~;4,440.00 or more p er year

c. User Fees Paid by Mem ber AgenciesMotorola Service Fee

The BOOM agreement provides that Motorola will charge a flat fee of $38.00 per month per user for thefirst year of service, or until July 1, 2014, whichever occurs later. After that date, Motorola may changethe fee annually on July I of each year. The amount of the fee shall be driven by the competitive"market rate" as determined by Motorola and reviewed by the Authority. It is impractical to predict atthis time whether the market rate for comparable services will increase or decrease. Therefore, thisreport assumes that the rate will remain S38/user/month for the first three years of the agreement.

Author ity Surcharge FeeTh is r epo r t assume s a "pass - t h r ough" mo de l , in w h i ch any A u t ho r it y adm in is t ra t ive cos t s tha t ex ceedt he t o ta l amou n t o f annu a l mem ber f ees co l lec t ed wo u ld be passe d on t o use r agen c ies in t he f o rm o f asurcharge added to the base user fee paid to Motorola. In addition, costs of bil ling, end user supportfunctions and "roaming" (enhancing system coverage) allocated to the Authority under the BOQMA g r e e m e n t w o u l d b e p a s s e d o n t o e n d u s e r s . Th i s m e a n s t h a t o n ly M e m b e r s w i th u s e r s o n t h e s y s te mwou ld pay b i ll ing , r oam ing a nd excess ad m in i s tr a ti ve cos t s .Motorola has committed to provide support to the Authority for one-time startup costs of establishing ab i l ling proce ss . I t i s an t ic ipa ted tha t t he ong o ing co s ts o f adm in is te r ing th is b i l ling wi l l no t be e xces s ive .

9


22/123

The level of end user supp ort and any related cost to the Autho r i ty is s t il l being determ ined in ongoingdiscussion w ith Motorola. Howeve r, i t app ears that the Author i ty s end u ser suppo rt respo nsibi l i ties wi l lbe m anagea ble, and research su ggests that the cost to prov ide these serv ices wi l l not be excess ive. Forexamp le, the Ci ty and County of San Fran cisco operates "System W atch" a 7x24 moni tor ing,t roubleshooting and u ser suppo rt center serv ing app roximately 10,000 publ ic safety, transportat ion andpubl ic works land mobi le radio users. EBRCS A handles s imi lar support serv ices in the East B ay. SanFrancisco provides these serv ices for approx imately 55 per use r per month.The Author i ty should consider a solut ion in which S an Francisco, EBR CSA or ano ther munic ipal prov ider"hosts" user support funct ions for the Author i ty . This shared or hosted solut ion wo uld be pa r t icular lyef f ic ient in the early years w hen us er counts are low a nd unt i l more data is ava i lab le on system loading.For th is funding p lan, the cost o f provid ing b i l l ing, co l lect ions an d end user su pport funct ions ises t ima ted a t a range o f be tween 55 and 58 pe r use r pe r m on th .Roam ing costs wi l l consist o f "in-system" and "out-of-system" roam ing. Out-of -system roam ing serviceand rates w i ll be nego tiated with th i rd par ty prov ide rs and wi l l be bi l led sep arately and e i ther paiddirect ly by the user en t i ty or paid by the Autho r i ty and pa ssed on to the user. These costs wi l l onlyaccrue whe n the user is operat ing outside of the Bay W EB service area, for instance wh en provid ingmu tua l a id t o an ou ts ide j u r isd ic t ion .2 W hen o ther 700M Hz pub l ic sa fe ty ne tworks are de p loyed, in te r -system roam ing arrangements between these n etworks can be deve loped at no addi t ional cost.To address in-system roaming, Motorola and the Authority have agreed to a one-year evaluation periodin which coverage and performance are tested, coverage gaps identified and solutions proposed. Theparties intend for third party roaming agreements to be the "last resort" after other solutions areapplied and found to be lacking. Therefore, roaming costs may not materialize until the second year ofserv ice , a f te r o ther so lu t ions are a t tem pted. Thus , t hese co s ts a re imprac t ica l t o es t im ate un t i l t h iseva lua t i on p r ocess ca n occu r . Howeve r , any i n - sys t em r oam ing cos t s w i l l be t he r espo ns ib i li ty o f t heend use r , e i the r pa id d i r ec t ly by t he e nd u se r s age ncy , o r pa id by t he Au t ho r it y and p assed t h r ough t ot h e u s e r .F.or these reasons, s taff recomm ends that the Author i ty set a surcharge for each use r at a year-one rateof 55/user/month. The surcharge w i ll be revised annual ly based on a review of the actua l revenues an dexpense s for the pr ior year, and the need to add coverage or roam ing enhancem ents. For example, i f,at the end of year one , the Author i ty s actual cost per user is found to be on ly 54/month a nd nocoverage en hance me nts or roaming is required, the surcharge for year two would be reduced to re f lectactua l revenues and cos ts for the pr ior year. Any surp lus reven ues co l lected by the Autho ri ty could beappl ied to reduce the current yea r surcharge, or could be h e ld in a reserve fund for fu ture systemenhancem ents. JPA staf f would implemen t cost saving measures to m ake best e f forts to ensure that thesurcharge rema ins affordable.Summ ary of Member User FeesPer User Motorola Annu al Base Service Fee (Year $456One $38x 12)Per user Authority Surcharge (Year Onerange of $60 - $96Per User Total Annual Service Fees $516 - $552

~ Similar to dev ice costs , nat ionwide roaming a greements w i ll be negot ia ted at som e poin t in the fu ture, which wi l lresu l t in lower ra tes for roaming in fu ture yea rs .10


23/123

Authority Administrative Costs: General administrative costs associated with operating a joint powersauthority include staffing, bookkeeping and accounting, legal representation, insurance andof f ice /m isce l laneou s expen ses . In add i t ion , t he Author i ty w i l l incur spec ia l ized expe nses su ch as cos tand l ega l adv i ce r e l a t ed t o the 7 00M Hz spec t rum lease , and t e l ecomm un ica t ions sp ec i fi c techn i ca lconsulting services. Annual Membership fees are anticipated to cover some, but not all of theseexpens es . E xc es s adm in is t r a ti v e e xpens es no t c ov e red b y t he annua l f ee w i l l b e pas s ed on t o u s e rs a spart of the Authority surcharge.Th is r epo r t assum es 15 Au t ho r it y Mem ber s and 2 ,000 sys t em use r s a t the e nd o f t he f i rs t yea r o f s ys t emoperation, 4,000 users at the end of year two and 6,000 users at the end of year three. However, thesys t em w i l l no t beg in l oad ing use r s un t il m id - yea r ( June o r Ju l y ) o f 2012 . The re fo r e , use r su r cha rger evenues a r e expec t ed t o be ve r y l ow f o r yea r one . To f i ll th i s gap , t he BAY A rea UAS I has ag r eed t osupport the Authority with a one-year funding of ~170,000 in 2012. In addition, staff anticipates that anadditional ~85,000 may be available for the UASI in 2013, to fund the project through the build outphase .Attachment B provides a tentative budget for Years One, Two and Three estimated administrativeexpens es an d r even ues . A l t hough t he Au t ho r i ty w i ll ope r a t e on a Ju l y - June F i s ca l Yea r , f o r s im p l ic i ty ssake , these a dm in is t ra t ive budge t s a r e based on a ca lenda r yea r .

3 . B ack hau l C os tsUnder the current version of the BOOM Agreement, the Authority is responsible for backhaul costs. Thecu r r en t des ign o f BayW EB r e l ie s on a hyb r id ba ckhau l con nec t i v it y p l an . Th is con f i gu r a t ion i nco r po r a t esmu n ic ipa l f ibe r , BAR T f ibe r , BayL O O P an d po in t - to - po in t m ic r owave l i nk s t o c r ea te a v i ab le backh au lnetwork. Each of these backhaul alternatives has been evaluated by Motorola and has been found tomeet minimum bandwidth requirements for backhaul usage. The consensus is, however, that fiberbackha u l i s t he p r e f e r r ed so lu t ion .Se ve ra l backhau l op t ions a r e be ing eva lua t ed by t he Au t ho r it y , i n c lud ing :

Municipal Fiber. One or more Member agencies intend to contribute dark fiber. Dark fiber andother backhaul facilities will be treated similar to sites, so the contribution will not result in acos t t o t he Au t ho r i ty , bu t m ay r esu l t i n cos t s t o t he con t ri bu t ing M em ber .BayLOOP. Bay Loop i s a M i c rowav e R ad io S y s tem w h i c h c ir c le s t he Bay A rea R eg ion c onnec t ing18 rad io S i tes loca ted in e igh t coun t ies . BayLoo p cons is ts o f two O C3 s , one w h ich i s ded ica tedt o c a r ry B a y W E B B r o a d b a n d T r a ff ic w i th t h e t h r o u g h p u t o f 1 5 5 m b p s . T h e s e c o n d O C 3 s u p p o r tschannelized traffic with the capacity of supporting upto 84 Tls. BayLoop is intended to providethe wide area connectivity to support Information Sharing and Voice Systems throughout theBay A rea R eg i on and beyond .The UA S I I n te rope rab il it y W o rk ing G roup and TA C a re c u r ren t ly s t udy i ng Bay LO O P c os t s andpotential revenues. One proposal indicates that maintenance services (technical support, repairservices, onsite corrective maintenance and preventive maintenance) and remote monitoringwi l l cos t app r ox ima t e ly ~265 ,000 annua l l y . In add i ti on , some TAC m em ber s be l i eve t ha tadd i t iona l annu a l suppo r t cos t s wou ld r a i se t h is ann ua l es t ima t e to $50 0 ,000 . TAC ha s no tp r ov ided d e t a i ls f o r t hese add i t iona l co s t s .To da t e , no consen sus so lu t ion has been i den t if ied t o t r ans it ion t he B ayL O O P ne t wo r kmonitoring and maintenance tasks from the current informal structure, in which each of eight

11


24/123

jurisdictions are responsible for the BayLOOP facilities within their jurisdictions. The Authorityshou ld cons ide r ex t end ing ex i s ti ng MO Us w i t h t he e igh t coun t ies cu r r en t ly supp o r ti ng BayL O O Pfo r Y ea r On e ( 2012 ) . Beg inn ing w i th Y ea r Tw o ( 2013 ) , t he Au t ho r i ty sho u ld beg in a t rans i t ionp lan t o assum e ope ra t i ona l respons ib i li ty f o r BayL O O P in pha ses ove r t he nex t t wo yea r s ( 2013 -2014). Jurisdictions should be given the option of continuing its existing maintenancer espons ib i l it ie s , o r pay ing a f ee t o t he Au t ho r i ty t o assum e t hese m a in t enance f unc t i ons . Thegoa l o f the Au t ho r i ty shou ld be t o ma ke BayL O O P se l f -suppo r t ing t h r ough BayW EB an d o t he ragency uses .BART F ibe r. BAR T f ibe r i s v iewed a s an essen t ia l e lem en t in the success o f the BayW EB p ro jec t .S t a f f a re cu r r en t ly enga ged i n d i s cuss ions w i th B AR T t o deve lop a MO U t ha t resu l ts i n no cos t t ot he Au t ho r it y . R ec en t d i s cuss ions sugges t t ha t th i s MO U can be deve loped us ing c r ea t ive t e rmstha t w i l l r esu l t in ~0 cos t to the Au thor i t y . I f , how eve r , BAR T f iber resu l ts in a s ign i f i can t cos t ,the Authority must approve the cost and determine the best method of recovering that cost.O t he r Backhau l A lt e r na ti ves . Other entities may have fiber and other backhaul alternatives thatcan en hance t he cu r ren t backhau l des ign . Such en t it ie s m ay i nc l ude CENIC, comm erc ia l fi be rproviders, cable operators and wireless carriers. The Authority should continue to conductr esea r ch a ime d a t iden t i fy i ng low- cos t backha u l so lu ti ons and en hance me n t s .

At th is t ime , accu ra te b ackha u l cos ts a re unc e r ta in . As Moto ro la s sys tem de s ign i s fina l ized , spec i fi cbackha u l r espons ib i l it ie s a r e i den t i fi ed an d t h i r d pa r t y p r ov ide r s a r e s ecu r ed , t hese cos t s , i f any , can bees t im a t ed w i th m o re acc u r acy . I f s ign i fi can t backha u l cos t s a r i se , t he Au t ho r i ty h as l im i t ed r esou r ces t opay these costs. The proposed administrative funding plan has identified revenues for years one-threethat would provide some funding for backhaul:

Year ~;7 8 ,000Year2 $218,000Year 3 $ 2 63 , 49 5

The Authori ty should consider aggressive ly seeking out o ther funding sources to pay fu ture backha ulcosts. Avai lab le opt ions include:Increasing the surcharge to users. The Au thority could, for instance, increase the m onth lysurcharge f rom ~ 5-$8 to ~I0-$13 per mon th, to pay backhaul costs. The Authori ty should,howeve r, carefu lly consider the ef fect o f th is increased surcharge a nd wh ether revenues f romsuch increases w ould be offset by reduced user counts from few er subscr ibers wi l ling to payhigher month ly fees. Staff does not recomm end increasing the surcharge beyond ~5-~8 permo nth w i thout rea l market da ta .Assess ing t he add i t iona l cos t as a supp leme n t a l me m ber fee . Howe ve r , t he Boa rd m ay no ti nc r ease the ann ua l mem ber f ee by mo re t han t he Consum er P r i ce Index (CP I ) each yea r w i t hou tamending the JPA agreement, which requires a unanimous vote of the Board and adoption oft h e c hang es b y Mem b e r ag enc i e s .Ident i fy ing other resou rces, such as gran ts or addi t ional par tnerships with th i rd par ty f iberproviders.

12


25/123

3. Other System C osts, Including Backhaul EnhancementsAfter system activation, it may become apparent that backhaul enhancements will be required toincrease bandwidth for certain parts of the region, add preferred applications or refresh systemcomponents. For example, it may become advisable for the Authority to invest in additional fibercapacity to enhance network capacity or resiliency. In that case, the Authority would need to identifyadditional funding sources or models to pay for such improvements. The Authority could look to grantf und ing , o r va ri ous cos t sha r i ng mode l s to add ress such n eeds , i f and wh en t hey o ccu r . A t p r esen t , suchcosts remain speculative and therefore are not addressed in detail in this report.Total Est imated Cost to MembersDue to the s ign i fi can t var iance o f cos ts am ong s i t es , user leve ls , con nec t iv i ty and sy s tem a pp l ica t ion fo rindividual agencies, a total cost of participation cannot be calculated. This report provides one-year costp ro j ec ti ons f o r those cos t ca t ego r i es t ha t may b e es t ima t ed w i th a f a ir deg ree o f ce r t a i n ty , and r ange s o fposs ib le cos ts fo r those ca tego r ies tha t a re less ce r ta in . In som e case how ever , cos ts a re ex t reme lylocation- or jurisdiction-specific. Members should consult with their staff to properly calculate thosecos ts fo r t he i r j u r isd ic tions .Many o f the costs ident i f ied in th is report are projected to remain som ewh at consis tent in future years.A three-year pro ject ion of certa in costs in included in Attachm ent A.

13


26/123

ATTACHMENT AThree Year Cost Estimates


27/123

1 . COS TS TO ALL MEMBERSa. Annual Mem bership Fee Paid by Mem bers to the Author i ty

Assum es that the annual mem bership fee wi l l remain at$24,500 A nn ua l $ 24 ,5 00 pe r M em b er fo r th e firs t th re e y ea rs ofoperat ion.Sub-total Membership Costs per Jurisdiction, Year One Through Three = $73,500

b. Site Costs (Moto rola wi l l execute s i te use agreemen ts direct ly wi th s i te owning jur isdict ions )$1,200-Electrical $4,800 / Annualsite

Cost of e lectr ic i ty consumed by Mo torola equipment.Monthly usage rate based on equipment speci f icat ions.

$0-Site lease $30,000+ Annual/ siteFor sites that jurisdictions dont already own or that faceincreased lease costs. Costs w i ll vary great ly dependingon wh ether th i rd-party s i te own ers require leasepayments . Inc ludes engineer ing s tud ies o r leaseapplication fees.

$0 - One-t ime andS ta ff tim e $10,000 / annua lsite

May include one-t ime costs such as coordinat ion ofproject implementat ion, construct ion perm it ting, andenvironmental studies, as wel l as on-going costs such a ssecur i ty and escort ing Motorola maintenance or serv iceproviders on s i te. Costs wi l l vary from si te to s i te andagency to agency.

Sub-total Costs ~er Site, Year One Through Three = $3,6 00 - $134,400

15


28/123

2. COSTS TO MEMB ERS WITH USERSa. Dev ice Costs (Jur isdic t ions m ay pu rchase devices from Motorola or ano ther comp l iant vender ;jur isdictions incur co sts only i f and to the ex tent that agencies elect to purchase devices)

Dongle andhandhe ld $450 -dev ices $1,500and/or p erve h icu la r dev icemodems

On e- t ime, everythree yearsDevices are not current ly avai lable on the m arket and socosts are hard to est imate. Dongles wi l l be pr iced at thelow end, han dhe lds in the m id- range, and veh icu la rmodem s at the high end.

Vehicularmodeminstallationandmain tenanceSub-total Costs per Device, Year One Through Three = $450 - $1,500

b . M e m b e r A ,q e n c V B a c k O f fi c e C o n n e c t iv i ty (Jur isdict ions inc ur costs on ly i f and to th e extent that theyuti l ize the system or specif ic applicat ions on the system )

One- t imePSAPconnect iv i ty na One t imeIn i t ia l in tegrat ion eng ineer ing costs depend o n Mem bersabi l ity to support data exchange with 911 core system s;may include upgrades such as da tabase access, E-t icket, Video display monitors, VLPR , VolP Telephonesystems, and lnternet .

Ongo ingPSAPconnect iv i ty $4,400+ /PSAP AnnualIncludes broadband connect ions from back roomequipment to a designa ted dem arcat ion point . Costs wi llvary depe nding on locat ion, exist ing connect iv i ty , andbandw idth needs of the appl ications to be supported.

Sub-total Con nect ivity Costs per PSAP, Year One Through Three = Co stsdependent on circumstances of each individual facility

16


29/123

c. User Fees ( M o t o r o l a wil l execute service agreem ents direct ly wi th user agen cies; jur isdict ions incu r costsonly i f and to the extent that agencies elect to use services. Mem bers pa y user fees di rect ly to the JPA .)User fee $38/charged by usedMotorola month Annua l

User fees charged by M otorola wi l l chang e annu al ly afterthe f i rs t year. For purpo ses of th is report , an est imate of$38/user /month is used for year one through three.

BayRICS $5-$8/Authority user/surcharge month Annual

Includes costs of b i l l ing, roaming, and excessadmin is t ra t ive expenses no t covered by the an nua lmembership fee (see Attachment B). In-system roamingcosts cannot be calculated with precision unti l after thecoverag e evaluat ion per iod, which w i l l take place dur ingthe f i rst year of service. The su rcharge w i l l be revisedannua l ly based on a rev iew o f the ac tua l revenues andexpense s for the pr ior year and the need to addcoverage or roaming enhancements .

Backhaul $500,000 Annua l

The JP A is current ly evaluat ing backhaul opt ions (e.g.,munic ipal f iber, BayLOOP, BART f iber) . If s igni f icantbackhau l costs arise, the JPA has s ome , but limi ted,resources to pay these costs. As Motorolas systemdesign is finalized, specific backhaul responsibil i t ies areident i fied, and th ird party providers a re secured,backhaul costs - i f any - can be est imated with moreaccuracy.

Sub-totalFees~erUser, Year One Through Three(not including backhaul )=I$1,548-$1,656

17


30/123

ATTACHMENT BADM I N IST R AT I VE F UNDI NG PL AN

Years One - Three

18


31/123

Year One (1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012)Expenses

Administrative Staff:1 F T E ED/P ro j ec t M anage r,5 FTE Bi l ling Clerk.5 FTE Admin. Assist . $250,000Bookkeeping/Account ing $7,500Legal Services

Gen eral Legal (12 months x $5,000/m) $60 ,000F CC W a i ve r $100 ,000

Technical Consulting $28,000Spec t r um L ease $15 ,000I nsu rance $10 ,000Misce l laneous Expense $17 ,000Backhaul Costs $78,000TOTAL Expenses $ 565 , 50 0

R e v e n u e sMembersh ips 15 $ 2 4 , 5 0 0 $367 ,500Authori ty Surcharge 2,000 $60 $28,000BAUASI Fund ing $17 0 ,000Total Revenues $ 565 , 50 0

S y s t e m L o a d i n g b y Mo nth: 20122012 Ja n Fe b M ar Apr Ma y June July Aug Sept O c t Nov Dec TOTAL

Users 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 200 400 700 1000 1200 2000Surcharge55/month 50 50 50 50 50 5500 5 1 , 0 0 0 52,000 $ 3 , 5 0 0 55,000 5 6 , 0 0 0 510,000 528,000

19


32/123

Year Two (1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013)Expenses

Adm inis trat ive S taf f:i FTE ED/Pro ject Manager.5 FTE B illing Clerk.5 FTE Admin, Assist. $250,000Bookkeeping/Account ing $7 ,500Lega l Se rv ices

Gen eral Legal (12 months x $5,000/m) $60 ,000F CC W a i ve r $4 0 ,000

Technical Consult ing $28,000Spec t r um L ease $15 ,000I n s u ranc e $10 ,000Miscel laneous Expense $17 ,000Backhaul Costs $218,000TOTAL Expenses $645,500

Revenues ,Membersh ips 15 $24,500 $367 ,500Authori ty Surcharge 4 ,000 $ 6 0 $ 1 9 3 ,0 00BAUASI Fund ing $85,000Total Revenues $645,500

System Loading by Month: 20132013 Jan F e b Mar Ap r M ay J u n e July Au g Sept O ct N ov D e c Total

U s e r s 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000Surcharge

$5 /mon th $11~000 $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 $13,000 $14,000 $15,000 $16,000 $17,000 $18,000 $18,500 $19 ,000 $19,500 $ 20 ,0 00 $ 19 3,0 00

20


33/123

Year Three (1/1/2014 - 12/31/20i4)Expenses

Adm inis trat ive S taf f:1 FTE ED/Project Manage r.5 FTE B illing Clerk.5 FTE Admin. Assist. $250,000B o o kke e p in g /Acco u n tin g $ 7 ,5 00Lega l Se rv ices

Gen eral Legal (12 months x $5,000/m) $60 ,000F CC W a i ve r $40,000

Techn ica l Consu lting $28,000Spec t r um L ease $15,000Insurance $10,000M isce ll aneous Expe nse $17,000Backhaul Costs $ 2 63 , 49 5TOTAL Expenses $ 680 , 9 9 5

RevenuesMembersh ips 15 $24,500 $367 ,500Authori ty Surcharge 4,000 $ 60 $313 ,4 95BAUASI Fund ing $0Tota lRevenues $ 680 , 9 9 5

System Loading by Month: 20142014 J a n F e b Ma r Apr May June July Au g Sept O ct N ov D e c Total

U s e r s 4200 4400 4699 4800 5000 5200 5400 5500 5600 5800 6000 6100S u r c h a r g eSS/month $ 2 1 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 0 0 0 $ 2 3 , 4 9 5 $ 2 4 , 0 0 0 $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 $27,000 $27,500 $28,000 $29,000 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 $30,500 $ 3 1 3 , 4 9


34/123

DRAFT ATTACHMENT D

December 14, 2011Undersheriff Richard T. Lucia, ChairpersonBayRIC S Joint P owers A uthori ty1401 L akeside Drive, 12 th FloorOakland, CA 94612Dear C hairperson Lucia:On December 13,2011 the San Jos~ C ity C ouncil approved the following comments forsubmittal to the Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications Joint PowersA uthority regarding the Draft System Funding P lan.A ccording to the JPA Mem orandum of Understanding, mem bers of the A uthori ty have90 days to provide comm ent before the Board of Directors can take action and thatsystems contracts may not b e entered into prior to .adoption of a S ystems Funding P lan.T he MO U states that the Board shall:2.05 (d) T o use its best efforts to develop and ad opt expeditiously, as described in S ection5.02, a Systems Fun ding P lan specifying a means or form ula for funding the design,ci~nstruction, operation, maintenance, expansion, and lifecycle replacement of anysystems that further the purposesof this Au thority. A Systems F uriding Plan shall includebut isnot limited to the follow ing: (i) the design, construction, operation, maintenance,expansion and lifecycle replacement costs of the Systems; (ii) specification as to how sitecosts and/or site rem ediation (e.g., electrical, air conditioning, back up ge nerators, andpow er) of specified antenn a sites by jurisdiction shall be paid; (iii) the

san jose staff report re bayweb 12/13/2011

Documents