COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PUBLIC WORKS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:15 p.m. - - - BILL No. 990284 - Authorizing the Procurement Commissioner, on behalf of the city of Philadelphia, to enter into a contract with Motorola Incorporated for the design and implementation of an 800-megahertz trunk municipal radio system for use by the City's public safety agencies and municipal operating departments, under certain terms and conditions PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/26/99 PUBLIC PROPERTY & PUBLIC WORKS I N D E X Louis Applebaum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procurement Commissioner Vincent Costello. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Director of Communications 7 Harold Hairston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Philadelphia Fire Commissioner John Timoney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Philadelphia Police Commissioner Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner . . . . . . 20 Department of Public Property James Roundtree, Director . . . . . . . . . . 30 Minority Business Enterprise Council Dean Kaplan, Budget Director. . . . . . . . . 34 City of Philadelphia Michael Athay, Esquire. . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Divisional Deputy, City Solicitor's Officer Melissa Hanlon, Motorola. . . . . . . . . . . 108 Alex Gross, Reporter and Photographer . . . . 122 Northeast News Gleaner - - - 3 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum present, and the Committee on Public Property and Public Works is now called to order. Would the clerk please read the bill 8 before us, Bill No. 990284.
Bill No. 990284, an ordinance authorizing the Procurement Commissioner, on behalf of the city of Philadelphia, to enter into a contract with Motorola Incorporated for the design and implementation of an 800-megahertz trunk municipal radio system for use by the City's public safety agencies and municipal operating departments, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Are there persons present in the room 20 who wish been to be heard to speak on this bill? If so, please join us at the table. Thank you. (Commissioner Louis Applebaum comes forward.)
Good afternoon, 4 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 Commissioner. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Good afternoon, Chairperson Clark and other members of City Council. I am Louis Applebaum, the Procurement Commissioner for the city of Philadelphia, and we thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today in support of Ordinance Number 990284, sponsored by Councilman Mike Nutter. I will provide a brief overview of the project with more specific testimony to be provided by Mr. Joe James, our Deputy Commissioner of Public Property; Vince Costello, Director of communications; Fire Commissioner Harold Hairston; and we expect Police Commissioner John Timoney to be here; and Mr. James Roundtree, the Director of the Minority Business Enterprise Council.
He is here. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Is he? COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: How ya doin'? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I didn't see him.
Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Just for the record, I have a very good 5 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 working relationship with Councilwoman Clark, and I notice by way of your testimony, both written and verbal here today, that you identified me as the sponsoring member of the bill. Not that I would have any problem sponsoring the bill, but I am not the sponsor of the bill; the Chair is the sponsor of the bill. And you could have a relatively nice day or you could have some other kind of day, but I didn't want to have that confusion on the record so. . . COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I apologize for the error, and I hope that is the only error that we make today.
Or that you don't make any that's more serious than that. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right, you're exactly right.
Please proceed. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Okay. The city of Philadelphia began more than five years ago to develop plans for a comprehensive modernization of our city's radio communications system. The current system, which was installed 6 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 in 1960, presents numerous problems for Philadelphia's radio communications capability. In 1994, the City advertised nationally for firms to submit qualifications for providing a system. The City received responses from Ericsson-GE Corporation, E.F. Johnson Company, and Motorola Corporation. A year later, in 1995, the City issued a request for proposal to all of those firms. Motorola and Ericsson responded with proposals, and E.F. Johnson declined to participate. The City appointed a blue-ribbon panel Selection Committee to evaluate the proposals with members representing City Council, Police, Fire, Water, Public Property, the Law Department, Procurement, and the Managing Director's Office. After lengthy evaluations of the proposals, the City Selection Committee and the City's consultant, RCC Communications, recommended unanimously that the City enter into negotiations with Motorola for the project. Motorola was selected primarily 'cause it proposed a system known as the 800-megahertz digital radio communication system that featured proven 7 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 technology already implemented in the marketplace. To help fund the acquisition and installation of the 800-megzhertz system, the State Legislature adopted an enabling legislation known as Act 78, and City Council enacted concurrent legislation that provided funding through a $1 surcharge on every telephone line in the city of Philadelphia. It is anticipated that this funding source, combined with contributions from the Water Fund and the Airport Fund, as well as revenues from the sale of 2-gigahertz bandwidth frequencies will fully fund the project. Further, the surcharge will continue to provide a continuing revenue stream to maintain the system. We are now going to go into the limitations of the current system, and Vince Costello, Joe James, Commissioner Hairston, and Commissioner Timoney will present to you their ideas, their concerns on the limitations of the current system.
Madam Chair, for the record, and members of the committee, my name is Vincent E. Costello, the City's Director of Communications. 8 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 I've had the opportunity over a period of years now to testify before Council on this project, it seems, and I'm glad that we're finally here with an almost-finished document. I'm glad we're approaching a point in time where we can look forward to some new technology and really an improved way of doing business in light of the City's radio system. As I've testified in the past. . .
. . . our existing radio system is from a 1960s generation. It was originally designed, as were all systems of that generation, for a mobile radio operation, mobile radios being high-powered 30-watt instruments which provide reasonable courage throughout the City. But even at that point in time, the City is a lot different today than it was back in the 1960s. Population patterns have changed and the City actually boundaries have extended to do the southwest, to the northeast and in areas where, even in the 1960s, there really wasn't a real heavy population. What has happened over the years is 9 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 that as technology has improved, as portable radio use or walkie-talkie usage has become in favor with the public safety agencies, and in particular with all the municipal agencies, our system was not able to accommodate the coverage requirements; because, once again, it was a system designed for a high-powered mobile radio. As the walkie-talkies came into vogue, we were forced into communications operation to find satellite receiver sites. We now maintain and service on a daily and weekly basis over 70 sites throughout the City to provide a reasonable level of portable radio coverage. Even at that level, it is frankly not acceptable. We have put whatever resources we've had into the public safety agencies for police and fire -- lesser for municipals because there's a limited amount of money and we knew a new technology and a better way off operating was on the horizon. Our system suffers from quite a few dead spots and lack of interoperability, and frankly, the most distressing things really is inadequate coverage in many areas throughout the 10 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 City. There is no predictable way to actually measure coverage, there's no predictable way to guarantee coverage. As a result, people who are using walkie-talkie radios in particular are often faced with the dead spots and just a lack of communication that they really depend on. It's particularly important and critical in the public safety agencies. We have asked the Police and Fire Departments to appear with us today to comment on the way the public safety agencies use the current radio system, the limitations that they see, and how they would like to see the future system operate. I'd like to ask Commissioner Hairston to first appear and provide his insight. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and --
Excuse me one moment. Just a minute, sir. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. .
Okay, Commissioner. How are you today. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: I'm actually 11 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 terrific now that I know that we are at least headed in the right direction to make sure that this system happens for us.
Well, a good deal of the enthusiasm for this project came as a result of -- COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: I've had a lot of enthusiasm for this project. I don't know whether you know this or not, but when we go back in the history of this whole thing, there were 30 channels that we had to get from the State. The Fire Department was the one that really was responsible for getting those channels reserved.
Right. I started to talk to you before you put your name on the record, so if you don't mind putting your name on the record for the benefit of the stenographer, we'll finish up this conversation after that. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Yeah. I'm Harold Hairston, the Fire Commissioner for the city of Philadelphia. And good afternoon to all of you. As I was saying, we really do have some enthusiasm for this because we've had some rather, 12 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 in my opinion, disastrous situations that never should have happened happen to us because of our present system. One of the comments earlier was that in the system we now have, we started out with what was scheduled to be a mobile situation. And for years and going back to when I first came in the Fire Department, we didn't have those portable radios. Now we have portable radios but originally, the system was designed for mobile radios. Now, you can't communicate very far with the portables. I don't know whether you remember this or not but you probably do. There was a lot of controversy about whether or not the lieutenant had called in when we had the two firefighters to die up in Oak Lane. We tested every frequency to see whether or not they were able to reach our headquarters with those portables, and we could not reach headquarters with those portables. Now, whether or not somebody's life would have been saved because of that, we'll never know. But I can tell you that that was a disastrous situation and so was Meridian. And if 13 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 you go into a high-rise building, you can pretty much count that is very, very unreliable. I don't care whether you're on the 3rd floor or whether or not you're on the 50th floor, you're not going to be able to communicate with any kind of reliability.
So you're saying that high-rise buildings will almost always be dead spots in the system as we're presently configured? COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Absolutely. So that means we had to refigure the way we deal with a lot of those kind of things. I mean, in some buildings, we actually require them to have a kind of telephone system and so forth. But as you could imagine, that's very limiting. The idea of it is for you to have instant information and to be able to pass it on because, in fact, no matter how I like to minimize in most cases, this is a dangerous job and things have to happen in a reasonable and quick way that is totally reliable. What happens is, you could be in some building, whether it's a dwelling or whether or not it's a high-rise building or in any of the 14 5/16/99 PUB. " And so if you don't get out of that dead spot, you're never assured that anybody is able to acknowledge what really happened. So consequently, you find yourself trying to make do all the time. Now, what's happened with us over the last several years is we've seen fewer and fewer fires, more and more medical calls. Now, if you were talking when we first started out taking people to the hospital and so forth, you probably have 20,000 people or something. Last year, we took 110,000 people. Our firefighters and paramedics go in buildings where they're unescorted by anybody, you run in to all kinds of situations. They can't communicate with headquarters that way. They have to get outside, get to a mobile radio before they can communicate. It's that kind of thing that has really kind of plagued us. The other thing is, because we have increased the number of responses so much over the 15 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 last few years, we've really taxed the system to the point where we don't have any available channels for any kind of expansion. So what we find ourselves doing is that in a major emergency where we like to assign a particular channel that everybody will be going, we have to go back and forth and then pick one and put all the things on another, which means that they're overtaxed. And because of all of this changing, what we find is, our system is really unreliable, it doesn't lend itself to any kind of expansion whatsoever. And one of the worse things for us -- and it's kind of ridiculous in today's atmosphere, I guess, and you probably remember this. One of the things that came out of the MOVE Commission when they had the report over it was that we ought to be able to talk to everybody. I still can't talk to the Police Commissioner unless I go get somebody and tell 'em to tap him on his shoulder. The fact of the matter is, we ought to be able to talk to anybody. I get people from the Water Department to come, they're on the fire ground and so forth. I have to call on one of our channels to somebody that may see the person in 16 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 the back or do it that way rather than deal directly with the person from the Water Department, or from the Police Department where I may want 'em to help us evacuate some area. The same thing with Licenses and Inspections. And probably the worse of all, I guess, is really dealing directly with the police from the fire marshal's standpoint. We ought to believe to have reasonably secure conversations. We ought to be able to contact the Police Department and not have somebody chase down where the detective is. The detective's in the right place, and we just want to be able to talk to him. So those are the kind of things that have really happened over the last few years. And if it sounds like I'm enthusiastic, it's because I really want to end this situation, it is because I am. I know that this system is worn out, it's absolutely worn out. It's like spitting chewing gum to put it together, and we need to change that. And the sooner we change it, the better off we're going to be.
It's better for firefighters' safety, it's better for the kind of operations we do on the fire ground, it's a much more secure 17 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 system. All of those are the kinds of things that I think would make all of us in the Fire Department feel a whole lot better about our ability to communicate. I don't know whether you have you have any specific questions for me, but I'd be happy to entertain 'em and I'll try to answer 'em for you.
Well, commissioner, what we would like to do is take the testimony -- let's take the testimony of all and let's get your whole case in chief before us, and then we'll do our questions. COMMISSIONER HAIRSTON: Okay, thanks for this opportunity then.
Thank you for your specific examples of why this system is necessary. (Commissioner John Timoney comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And it's a pleasure to be here. There is a degree much more to add to what Commissioner Hairston said emphasizing the 18 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 importance of the interoperability, the ability for firefighters and police officers to communicate underground and especially in serious situations. From a police perspective, in addition, just like the firefighters, the whole issue of safety in dead spots, I had mentioned, I think, the last time I testified. Up in New York a few years back, the issue of these radios having severe dead spots in the subways wound up costing the life of a young female police officer who was transmitting as she was wrestling with a guy who was trying to take away her gun. That transmission never went over the air, she was killed, and it wasn't till a few hours later that we actually found her as a result of the portable radio not working. The other part is, as you're well aware, we're heavily involved in the fight against narcotics in a big way, and there's a clear issue of drug dealers being able to monitor police bands. We need the ability to have encrypted digital code so that the police officers doing high-level investigations into narcotics can 19 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 communicate as they're approaching buildings or homes, with the freedom and the ability not to be overheard so that the drug dealer can do one or two things -- either get rid of the drugs, flush 'em down the toilet or, God forbid, prepare to attack the police officers as they're coming through the door. So for all the reasons outlined by Commissioner Hairston and some additional concerns for the Police Department, we think this is a great opportunity going into the new millennium for the City of Philadelphia to have a top-notch radio system.
Thank you. And for the record that was Police Commissioner Timoney. COMMISSIONER TIMONEY: Who is, in fact, here.
Who is, in fact, here in the flesh and in living color and a bright yellow jacket too. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Thank you, Commissioner. We will now hear from Vince Costello 20 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 and Joe James, who will give us a briefing on the project itself.
My name is Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. The project, the 800-megahertz project, is a comprehensive modernization of the City's radio communications system. The proposal provides for the creation of a state-of-the-art citywide simulcast digital radio system. This simulcast broadcasting system divides the City into two parallel 15-channel subsystems. Under normal operating conditions, the radio users are divided between the two subsystems. Should one of the fifteen channel subsystems, however, all users on the failed system automatically would be relocated to the other system. As a result of this, "redundant" capability provides significantly enhanced coverage in operations' reliability throughout the City. The project includes 30 broadcast 21 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 channels that will provide coverage for 95 percent of the City above ground and inside buildings. The proposed system would also provide 90 percent coverage up to three miles outside the City's boundaries to improve communication capabilities for police, fire, municipal, and especially airport subscribers. Providing underground radio coverage is optional in the current proposal submitted by Motorola, although the City does intend to pursue underground installation unless it can partner with a private/public entity that would enable the City to minimize its costs. Should an appropriate partnership --
In following your testimony, you left the word out the word "not."
Did you read it the way you intended it to be? Shall I strike "not" from the testimony?
I would appreciate the opportunity to read it as it's intended. 22 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
If I may go back to the -- providing the underground radio coverage is optional in the current proposal submitted by Motorola, although the City does not intend to pursue underground installation unless it can partner with a private/public entity that will enable the City to minimize its costs. Should an appropriate partnership be negotiated, the Administration anticipates returning to City Council for approval before it embarks on underground installation. Bill No. 990284 would be amended accordingly.
Is this the amendment that you have passed out to us? It is the proposed amendment to Bill No. 990284? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That is an amendment to that bill which clarifies the situation that that when we do have prepared and under a situation a contract for the underground, that would be brought back to City Council for presentation and review. That's what that is.
So this clarifies the issue that you come back to Council before you 23 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 go further in developing an underground capability. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Absolutely.
All right. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We will work on it. We have task forces working on it, and when we are fully prepared, we'll bring it back to City Council. As we are doing today.
Fine, thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Mr. Costello or Joe James is going to do the advantages.
Yes, sir. In discussing the advantages of the new system, I think we really need to reflect once again on some of the shortcomings that exist.
Vince, don't forget to tell your name to the stenographer.
Vincent E. Costello, okay. Once again, in discussing the advantages of the proposed systems, we need to look at some of the disadvantages or the shortcomings of our existing way of operating. Our problems can be described threefold: 24 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 We have a capacity problem; we've had that for a number of years, as do most other major cities throughout the country. We have a coverage problem, a severe coverage problems because we cannot predict the type of coverage that we're going to receive, nor can we predict the type of coverage we'll receive in any specific geographic area. Finally, we have a flexibility problem, all of the issues raised by Commissioner Hairston and Commissioner Timoney. We fully expect, and based on the state-of-the-art nature and improvement technology of 800-megahertz frequencies, we fully expect the system to offer and to overcome all of these disadvantages. I'd like to read from the prepared testimony just to go into some detail on the advantages of the system. A major upgrade in broadcast coverage throughout the City, creating comprehensive citywide radio coverage for the first time. The new system would raise coverage to 95 percent citywide, primarily increasing coverage for 25 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 portable radios, and up to 95 percent inside City buildings. As a result, these changes will improve public safety and assist a variety of other municipal services by greatly enhancing the communications capability of police, fire, and other municipal radio personnel. Secondly, it will provide emergency access, priority access by radio, and Push-To-Talk identification capabilities, all of which permit faster and more reliable emergency communications. Emergency access permits certain users designated as critical or emergency callers to override other users on any channel. Priority radio access allows calls to be preprogrammed so that they will be automatically prioritized when they call. When a user engages the Push-To-Talk capability, the user's identity is immediately displayed and transmitted to the Dispatch Center, thereby saving critical seconds in emergencies because the users do not have to stop and identify himself or herself on the radio. Use of encryption technology, which provides state-of-the-art security for all radio communications, thereby inhibiting the ability of 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 unauthorized individuals from eavesdropping or using scanners to listen to public safety radio transmissions. Interoperability between all agencies, which will enable police, fire, probation, and parole, and other agencies to communicate on the same channel at the same time, which is a critically important advantage in an emergency that does not exist in the City today. Multiple levels of redundancy to ensure that critical communications are supported under the worse of circumstance. A state-of-the-art network management system that allows the operators to respond to changing communication requirements on a daily basis. Computerized diagnostics and alarms that will enable the City to maintain maximum system availability by flagging repair problems immediately as they arise. And, finally, considerable capacity for future expansion of the system. And in dealing with the capacity issue, I'd just like to add that because of the shortage 27 5/16/99 PUB. /WORKS - 990284 of radio frequencies and the general capacity in existing radio systems, a number of agencies, particularly the municipals, have had over the years to go out and actually rent and continue to rent radio coverage. That includes the Water Department, District Attorney's Office, Recreation Unit. I know that whenever we have a major special event in the City, we ourselves in Public Property need to go out and actually rent a special radio system just to provide channels because we cannot infringe on those that we already have. So capacity is and continues to be a major concern and problem for us.
COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We'll now hear again from Joe James, who will discuss the scope of the contract.
Again, my name is Joe James, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Public Property. The contract for this projects calls for the construction and installation of the entire infrastructure of this system as well as the purchase of the necessary equipment and training required to operate the system. 28 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 The contract includes erection of three new radio towers and three replacement towers to provide citywide coverage for the 800-megahertz system. The system will employ four existing towers, making a total of ten broadcast sites throughout the City. The City has worked diligently to situate new and replacement towers wherever possible in low-density, nonresidential areas. The new towers are listed at Police Academy, Highway Department at Whitaker, the Waste Treatment Plant at the Airport. The replacement towers are located at Bustleton and Hoffnagel, Ford and Belmont, and 31st and Grays Ferry. The City maintains public safety as a top priority of this project and has insisted in the contract that the broadcast or radio waves from the tower sites will be done safety and in accordance with the FCC safety guidelines so that they pose no threat to public health. In addition, it is important to note that the tower sites have been selected with sensitivity to the concerns of community residents. The City chose to limit the 29 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 construction of new towers for this project. And in those cases where new towers are needed, the proposal calls for them to be replacing existing towers wherever possible. Moreover, several existing towers, including one at 24th and Wolf Streets and one at Port Royal Avenue, are scheduled for demolition under the project. In addition, the City is working with community leaders and elected officials, including various District Council members to ensure that the location of new and replacement towers are situated away from residential areas. The project includes installation of communications equipment and facilities at each broadcast site, which includes fixed network equipment critical to the operation of the system. Operator consoles, broadcast equipment, signal repeaters to enhance the strength of the radio system signals being sent to run the system from a variety of locations, including City Hall, Police Headquarters, the Fire Administration Building, and the Airport. The installed equipment provides for full redundancy. In the event that broadcast capability is lost at any of the sites, the other 30 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 sites provide for full coverage of the City. The contract includes the purchase of 6,685 mobile and portable radios for police, fire, airport, and other personnel who will be users of the system. In addition, the proposal also includes optional installation of the system on mobile data systems such as the 800 MDTs (or mobile data terminals) recently outfitted in police cars. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Mr. James Roundtree, the Director of the Minority Business Enterprise Council, will now report on the minority participation.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of City Council. For the record, my name is James Roundtree. I'm Director of the Minority Business Enterprise Council. We have reviewed this proposal for the minority, women and disabled business participation for this project, and it fits all the meaningful and substantial participation for minority and women businesses. Approximately 37 percent of the outsourcing in the contracts will be performed by minority women and disabled 31 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 businesses. The MBE's review would recommend acceptance of this activity. That was a brief scenario, Council Chair. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Thank you. Project costs and funding. The 800-megahertz project is scheduled to take 36 months to complete, at a cost of $51.2 million. This price has been held firm by Motorola through June 30th of 1999. The City's negotiating team obtained substantial discounts on the fixed network equipment and the radios estimated at approximately $15 million off of list price. Additional discounts for future purchases were also negotiated and included in the contract. Motorola agreed to provide the City with a percent discount on future purchases of 19 fixed network equipment and subscriber equipment 20 for 10 years. The City believes this to be an 21 important clause to guarantee savings should the 22 system be expanded in the future. 23 Funding for the project has been 24 established through the telephone surcharge. A 25 total of $23 million currently exists, with 32 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 $21 million anticipated to be collected through the life of the project. In addition, funding from the Water and Airport Revenue Bonds projected at $11.5 million and the $5 million from the sale of two-gigahertz channels not compatible for radio system use is planned for the project. The need to avoid the delay will now be presented by Joe James.
First and foremost, public safety demands that the City act as quickly as possible to implement the 800-megahertz system. The current system often operates at 100 percent capacity on busy days. Given the previously-identified deficiencies of the system, system including port coverage, lack of interoperability, and lack of redundancy, it is imperative that the City act to modernize its communications capability. Further, the age and deteriorating condition of the current system, including the towers and other elements of the infrastructure, a major upgrade -- costing millions of dollars -- will be required even if 800-megahertz is not purchased. As indicated previously, the City has 33 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 negotiated several hard-fought concessions from Motorola that provide for over million in 4 discounts and the purchase and installation of the 5 new system, including discounts on fixed-network 6 equipment, site development costs, and the cost of 7 radio equipment. Motorola has made clear that 8 these discounts are premised on the approval of 9 the contract by the end of June 1999. 10 In 1990, the City reserve with the 11 Federal Communications Commission 30 channels for 12 the future operation of a modern radio system. 13 Since that time, the City has received two 14 extensions from the FCC, the last of which is set 15 to expire by August, year 2000. There is fierce competition for the channels, including competition from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the surrounding counties. To hold these channels, the City must demonstrate to the FCC by August 2000 that the channels are in use (usage on a test basis will suffice) and that 70 radio units per channel are in operation. To meet that schedule, the City must begin work in the summer of 1999. If the channels are lost, the prospect of future 34 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 modernization and needed expansion of the City's radio communications system will be severely limited. If I may speak on behalf of all of us present, this concludes our testimony, and we will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you. I do have a few questions. With regard to the funding of this project, will any portion of the system be paid for out of General Funds?
Dean Kaplan, the City's Budget Director. No, we do not intend that any portion of the project would be supported by the General Fund.
Now or in the future, with one caveat. And that is that, as you know, in using City capital funds in certain other cases, there are always restrictions on how you may use them. For example, were we to choose to use a 35 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 capital funding process, there may be restrictions on the size and amount of the project. But as long as the 911 project -- should we intend -- we anticipate now that the 911 surcharge is going to be a continuing surcharge in the future. And should that be the case -- and we see no reason that it wouldn't -- there would be no expectation there would be use -- any need to use other source of funding.
May I conclude then that the $1 surcharge on telephones is anticipated to be sufficient?
All right, okay. Regarding most-favored customer pricing with respect to the project, I hear in your testimony that you were able to effect some savings. I guess my question was, did you leave any on the table? Could we have gotten any more? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We do not believe that we left any money on the table. We 36 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 did not receive favored nation's customer or most favored customer in the contract because it would be very difficult in the future to monitor such an item. We do feel very, very confident that we were able to develop significant discounts in our negotiations with them. We, through our consultants and through investigations of other cities who have similar system, we are very assured that our pricing structure is as low or lower than all others. We received 35 percent discounts on what they called "fixed network equipment." We received percent discounts on the other type of 16 equipment. And we are the only city that we know 17 of that has an agreement with Motorola that will 18 take us ten years into the future, achieving the 19 same level of discounts on additional purchases. 20
My question is to 23 the Budget Director. You indicated that this 24 entire project will be funded from the 911 25 revenue, the surcharge? 37 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
No, I said that in the future, I expected that most costs to the system would be borne by 911. And I also said that we don't expect to use General Funds to support it.
Now, how do you justify the Recreation Department special events to the 911 fund to subsidize those parts of the radio system -- mobile units in the Department of Recreation part, why should the 911 revenue pay for that?
Well, I think clearly, as Mr. Applebaum, Mr. Costello, and Mr. James have explained, as well as the two commissioners, we think we need the capacity of the system to do the City's normal day-to-day business and to have adequate reserve capacity for all sorts of I think normal, what I call "routine" emergencies. The fact that that capacity will also allow us to do special events or handle special visits, I don't think the marginal cost of that capacity is not additional to the system that we're buying.
You're going to purchase hundreds of radios for the Department of Rec. and other fleet management? That doesn't 38 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 seem like a 911 expenditure.
Well, I think that when the State, and perhaps I think Joe James had worked on this quite a bit with the State legislature. When the State approved the use the 911 revenues for this purpose, it did so because municipalities around the State were clamoring for upgrades like we're asking for public safety reasons. The fact that other departments can communicate on the system is in fact a tremendous advantage for all sorts of emergency situations. And the legislature, as I understand it, specifically amended the original legislation to allow this kind of interaction so that everyone could be on the same system. But perhaps that's a -- there might be a technical answer to that that's more helpful.
Thank you, thank you very much. I'm glad for finally the 911 surcharge issue is now being debunked, or the complaints 39 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 about it are being debunked. For years, people have complained that this money was being taken and not being used for any purpose that was clearly for communications or for public safety. It is clear now that waiting during the course of the consideration of this whole issue, that this issue money is now available and will be available into the future and should maybe stop some of the public complaints and private whisperings about this money being collected and not being used for the purpose it was intended so I had confidence that it was going to be used for that and I'm glad to see finally that it's coming to its fruition. The logistical problems of the installation, the actual installation of the equipment as it relates primarily to the PAB, not as much to the Fire Administration Building 'cause I think it's a more modern building with perhaps less activity in the radio room as opposed to the PAB. The actual physical installation of the equipment, we're not going to have a new building PAB building any time during the course of this project -- perhaps we should, but are we going to have any major disruptions in the use of the 40 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 current system as it transfers into the new system during the course of the installation period, if you're aware? If there's someone --
Councilman, I'd like to answer that question 'cause we were compelled to replace the existing radio consoles ten years ago. It is not an easy job but it is a job that takes an awful lot of coordination but it can and will be done. I mean, little by little, you know, one console comes on as another one goes off, and you're actually operating two systems at one time. It sounds logistically difficult, and it is. But, I mean, it's something that a professional operation like Motorola can and has done on many occasions. I mean, it would be ideal if we could say we're going to move into a brand new building so we'll operate the new system, and at 2 o'clock in the morning on a Sunday, everyone will move over and they'll be pre-trained. But, I mean, we don't have that luxury. It's a question of planning, it's a question of technical expertise, and it's something we've done before. So I'm confident 41 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 that it can be done very well here.
The issue of the installation of the equipment in the individual vehicles, the numbers of vehicles to be done at any particular time, the vehicles that far being taken out of service in order to do it, and also the issue of MDTs, how do they all relate to the difficulties in complications involving --
I think the Motorola, which was plan agreed to by the City, is to do our best to deliver to Motorola to the installation sites of vehicles a day. It does impose this 14 major problem for the non-public safety issue, of 15 course for the Police Department, where it will take 15 vehicles out of service, and to logistically move them from point A to point B or from point A to point C is difficult. Once again, I don't think there's a clear, irrefutable answer but I think it just takes planning and it just experience, and that's -- we've gone over and over and over that point with Motorola. They understand this, they've done it in other major cities, and they've accomplished it without, to my knowledge, any major wrinkles or 42 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 hurdles.
The issue of radio scanner eavesdropping, I guess, as the years go on and technology improves it's almost impossible to keep it from happening again, but is there a period of time industry standard-wise that this digital system would preclude that kind of eavesdropping from the point of drug dealers, to the point of tow-truck drives? I mean, there's a whole slew of people out there that are monitoring police radio transmission, I guess including myself at home. (Laughter.)
Which, I guess, will stop now. I'm just wondering, what period of time technology-wise does this window exist -- that this window is closed before it begins to open up again for this kind of activity.
Digital systems by their very nature are encryptic. We plan to put a second-level encryption on especially the police radios. As you suggest, however, Councilman, as we speak, there's probably someone making the 43 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 black box that will overcome this, even the dual levels of encryption, but it's really hard to predict when and if that might happen.
But we should have some period of time of relative privacy.
Councilman, the other thing I just want to add to that is because of the type of capability we have on the system, we will have the ability to mix talk groups. So in today's scanner environment, they usually scan for certain frequencies. In this type of system, they're using all of the channels. So for a lot of people to scan and fix in, we could have the talk groups spread amongst different channels using the channel as it becomes available. So I think in itself, the way the technology operates, it's going to make it very difficult for people, unless they spend a lot of time trying to understand our system for them to use it.
One of the other issues that was raised in more of or briefings was 44 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 the issue of the unauthorized use of radio frequency, I think, for the most part in the Police Department, there is some ongoing problems from time to time with the unauthorized use of the radio by particular officers or people who aren't police officers. My understanding of this system I'm talking -- do you recognize the problem that I'm raising? Okay. My understanding is, this system will enable us to perhaps cut down on that activity because of the ability to I.D. the person that's keying in on the particular radio. Is that in fact true?
That is true exactly true. We will be able to know exactly from the I.D. who's using the radio. And in fact, from the base station, turn it off and disable it. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Disable it and turn it off, yes.
And in everyday parlance, is that comparable to caller I.D.? A user's use of the system would immediately identify them? 45 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
Okay. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: And the user cannot change so that he can block caller I.D.
It leaves a fingerprint, just the very touching of the system puts a fingerprint on it, and he's unable to control or erase. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
How close are we in this system to cellular phone I.D. for 911 calls? For example, when an individual calls from the house, obviously, the number is recorded where the call is coming from, even if it's a phone booth outside, land-line phone booth. How close are we or are we anywhere near being able to I.D. 911 calls from the cell phone?
To try to answer that question, it's a very complicated issue. And there's two pieces that drive that. One is the industry itself and the technological hurdles of 46 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 trying to provide the number identification, the location, and information of a cellular caller. And there's probably a multitude of providers out there today who trying to design systems and then convince the cellular companies that this is the right technology for them to deploy. On the government side, our issue, of course, is twofold. The FCC mandate for providing that type of information requires that we provide a funding mechanism for the cellular providers to be reimbursed for providing this information, which is completely devoid of how we do today with land lines, so there's a funding issue that's causing a problem. And second, there is a contention between, if there is going to be funding, who should be providing the funding, whether the funding should be housed at the State level or at the local government level. And the service-providers are more inclined to have the Commonwealth control those funds.
And just finally, one other technical issue. The issue of security companies that have alarm systems that as I -- in 47 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 my view are, basically the alarm goes off and the person monitoring that system simply calls 911. To me, they're not providing all that much of a service, frankly, considering what it is they're paying for. Do we have an ability at some point in time in the future to consider somehow obtaining some level of the recovering of our cost from the company itself? I know we've done a lot of work on giving people so many free -- two or three false alarms, and then on the third or fourth, they wind up getting charged $25 or whatever it is. I'm wondering if there's some way, and maybe in another forum, we could perhaps investigate or look into the ability of dealing with these alarm companies, that basically are simply people who just dial 911 and send our police officers out. They get a paid a fee, we incur the cost, and I'm just wondering if you could just make a note to try to look and see whether or not --
-- that makes any sense in incorporation of this new system. 48 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 And just finally -- I know I've taken some time -- I just want to compliment this entire crew, from the Administration's people to the individual department people. This is one of the better and more coherent presentations about this very important system. I think you guys have done a -- I know it's taken a long time, and it's obvious why it's taken a long time, because you've done your homework. So I'd just like to compliment you all on your ability to explain it to us in layman's terms and for the good job you've all done. I want to thank you on behalf myself and the citizens. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We thank you very much for that comment. As you realize, this has been a team effort from a lot of people and a lot of departments, and we appreciate your kind words.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner or Mr. James, in the 49 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 testimony, on , in the Push-To-Talk identification capability, as Councilwoman Clark commented, that allows the dispatch area or the radio room personnel to automatically know, based on what's been keyed in, who the person is that's operating that particular radio. All this equipment is given to people on a permanent basis, or is there ever any interchangeability of these units between and among either police officers, firefighters, or general public employees who have access to this equipment?
Generally, the municipal departments, Councilman, the radios are assigned by call number. But as you've suggested --
Radios are assigned in municipal departments assigned by call number. For instance, the Public Property range is in the 500s. On the public safety side -- fire, police -- they are usually group radios, which are taken out individually. They would still be, however, assigned to talk groups so that the dispatchers would 50 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 understand and would know from which talk group those radios are emanating from. It may not be the individual but it would be a specific individual within the Police Department.
That it's the 8-to-4 guys and not the 4-to-12 people or something like that?
So it's not necessarily telling you that it's Officer Jones, badge number whatever, who's driving, you know, 1913 car, or something like that.
That is correct, but it would identify it down to the squad level and by district and by division.
It would, okay. Is it my understanding that there is an additional capability to also determine location 51 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 of the radio once the Push-To-Talk button has been activated?
There's an automatic vehicle locator -- they refer to it as "AVL" in the technical circles, an automatic vehicle location device. We have not pursued that option as part of this basic system, but it's a possible add-on in the future.
And when you use that term, are you talking about something that goes into the car or van or truck or something like that?
It nothing to do with radios; it has to do with the actual --
It's like a transceiver unit, a typical locator device. 52 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
Like a reverse Lojack kind of thing or something like that?
All right. On 5, in the scope of the contract issue, Mr. James, I think you may have covered this particular area. What monitoring, if any, do we plan to do with regard to the FCC safety guidelines and the issue of public health concerns? Do we currently monitor our towers, or do we plan to do any monitoring in the future on the public health issue?
To answer the question, as part of the overall project, I believe there's probably going to be two aspects that's going to deal with that. One, from a construction standpoint, the City's contract manager and project managers would be responsible as well to be a part of the inspection of the site to make sure that the site is being done according to the guidelines and consistent with the standards. And additionally, as part of our exercise to prove the coverage, there's going to 53 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 be a certain amount of monitoring to ensure that we have the coverage patterns that are being done. Currently today, because of the City's resources, we do not go out and do the normal what you would call the FCC guidelines for radio emissions. Similar to this project, based on the type of equipment, I don't perceive that we would have that initially, but if in fact, we want to ensure the health, there would be a certain amount of this study done just to ensure that the transmitters are not transmitting anything greater than what should be and they're falling within the acceptable FCC coverage.
Well, I heard what you said we're not necessarily going to do. Are you essentially saying that we're not going to have regular monitoring of our own particular towers as it relates to radio frequency emissions and what the levels may be around our towers all over the City?
Currently, we do not do that, and I don't perceive that at the end of this project that we would be continuing to do that. In particular, for this type of the new tower 54 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 sites, if we wanted to ensure that there was no 3 public safety health risks, we would do those types of studies just to prove to ourselves that the radios are transmitting in the optimal range.
You just lost me, you just lost me on that, Mr. James.
Well, he said we're not going to do it but we might do it as part of the --
I don't believe it was originally as part of the project. But making a very good point, I think it's something that we can certainly include into the project and it won't add any more to the project, to ensure ourselves that there are no more public safety risks.
If you could just restate what you said. Are we or are we not going to protect the public health?
We are going to protect the 55 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 public health.
Under the proposed plan, through what monitoring? How will we know?
We intend, if I can speak out of school for a moment, but I think I can speak --
Mm-mm, I'm not interested in out of school; I want you to be bound by what you put on this record. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Can we put on the record that our committee will review with Motorola the comments that you're making now, and we will do the best that we can to add that to the proposal, and we will report back to you directly.
I'm sorry, I just have one question in that area. 56 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 I recognize that there's been pretty extensive medical research on the issue of high-voltage electric wires and those kinds of things. Is there clear medical evidence that radio transmissions do the same thing? I know people in the community, anytime there's a cell phone tower or another tower, get very upset about the potentiality of that kind of emission, and I'm not discounting that it exists. I'm just saying, I'm wondering if there's any medical evidence that would indicate that it does exist and if it's something that we should be severely concerned about. I mean, I understand the high electric issue. I guess that's still disputed but it's -- there's still some more evidence there for that than there is for radio transmission. I'm just wondering whether or not this is something that is perceived or it's actual?
I don't think we've ever seen any conclusive evidence that there was any public health threat caused by radio transmissions. Councilman Nutter's question was somewhat of a curve ball. I am used to FCC 57 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 oversight of the communication system. I mean, generally, the federal government assumes that responsibility. And we have FCC officials locally, and their job is to deal with those types of issues, their job is to deal with interference issues. And we work on a pretty consist basis with the FCC local representatives. However, most of our work is done in the terms of interference. I mean, we will have occasions when we will be advised that perhaps our transmitters are tuned too high or too low. Or groups that come into the city -- we have a constant problem in South Philadelphia from Veterans Stadium with outdoor concerts, where there will be consistent bleed-over and almost an incapacity of some of our existing frequencies brought in by these hybrid systems that come from out of nowhere, often accompanying large rock groups and things like that who have their own entourage with local radio systems with no real designation from the City and really no 23 pre-knowledge of the City.
I think in Roxborough too, there's complaints by people of 58 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 bleed-over into TV sets and that kind of stuff.
I was just wondering from a medical standpoint, is there any evidence that there's a medical problem with radio transmissions?
But we're only responding to your comment, your printed testimony, your last paragraph on that says that the City maintains public safety as a top priority in this project and has insisted in the contract that the broadcast or radio waves from the tower sites be done safely, in accordance with FCC safety guidelines so that they pose no threat to public health. Now, I give you an opportunity now to say what that means in plain language. And if you have covered all of the eventualities, fine; but if you have not, here is the opportunity to preserve the space to come back and fix it. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We -- we will 59 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 review with Motorola the public health situation as it relates to the towers and as it relates to the last paragraph of , and we will report back to you.
If I can be clear, I mean, one, as Councilman Kenney raised the issue, I mean I'm certainly not making any particular comment or certainly any allegation about what the public health issues are or whether people are affected or not affected. What I do know is that there are concerns, and to the extent that there are concerns and to the extent that the FCC thinks enough of it to have guidelines, and even if we think we're within those guidelines, what I am asking is that during construction, we monitor it and for some reasonable period after the system is up and running, that we do our own tests for our own sites to ensure that they are within the FCC guidelines. And that's all I'm really asking for. Mr. James says it was not intended to do and we don't do, that's fine, but I'd like to get beyond that and ask that we actually take specific actions because I believe that it inures 60 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 to our benefit going forward to do that on our own for at least our own sites. We may not be able to control what other people do on their sites -- whether it's TV stations, radio stations, or anyone else, but we certainly have not only the capacity, but I believe, an obligation to do something about our own sites.
So that's what I'm asking for. I don't know what the cost issues are that are involved in that, and I don't, you know, throw it out flippantly that, you know, just do it, and we don't care and all that. I would like to know the details of it, but I think it's serious enough and important enough that it needed to be raised today. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right, we agree with you, and it is in the contract; so, therefore, Motorola is aware of it. The question is, how are they going to report back to us on these particular issues during construction and also on an ongoing basis? 61 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
Well, my only suggestion to you on that is that as you go through discussions with Motorola and reach some agreement about that, more than likely what they should do is agree to hire someone at our direction to provide independent test data information to go out to those locations and do whatever the normal testing is according to FCC guidelines, write a report back to us, and tell us what they found.
We do not wish to see our costs creep up. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We understand, and we will do that and we will report back to you with a written document as to how do we resolve this problem.
I think, Commissioner James, it might be helpful, and this 62 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 is just a technical comment that antenna locations, tower locations, the FCC and all the regulators have never blocked the installation of an antenna or a tower based on health; it's never been a factor, it can't be a factor. So I think that might be interesting that you comment on that.
Thank you, Councilman. Yes, to comment on that, it has been clearly articulated in just about every FCC ruling that the radio emissions from broadcasting radios, or even in the case of television and particularly in the cellular, that that cannot used by a community as a reason not to have it because it doesn't pose a health threat to the community. To Councilman Nutter's concern, I think it raises an issue that can be easily accomplished and will not add a lot to this project. But that is certainly something that we can accommodate.
Commissioner Applebaum, can we have your report prior to final passage? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Yes. 63 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
Thank you. Now I need to ask some questions to fill out my record. Did you have another comment?
Yes, thank you. On with regard to the minority participation, just so the record is clear about what we're talking about in terms of the numbers, from this Exhibit L, which may now be an additional exhibit that flushes out the section on minority participation, it's my understanding from this that 37 percent of the total contract hours to be outsourced will go to minority, female, and disabled/disadvantaged businesses, but that the total amount of contract dollars to be outsourced is $12 million out of 51.2? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
All right. So that represents 23.5 percent of the contract. And then 37 percent of the 12 million is what will go to the minority women, disadvantaged business entities, which is $4.5 million. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
And so what -- I mean, just so we're clear on the record, it's 64 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 $4.5 million out of the 51.2. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Roughly 4 percent of the total contract, realizing the total 5 contact is composed of the large percentage, which 6 is equipment and hardware that is supplied to us 7 via Motorola. 8
Right. So when you 9 go back to the $12 million, which represents 23.5 percent, are we to take from that the reason it's $12 million out of the 51.2 is because the other 76 percent or so primarily represents what Motorola is doing itself. Either in the way of providing equipment or personnel to fill out the rest of the contract? Is that why that number is what that number is? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right, that is correct.
Okay, so you've got Motorola providing three quarters of what's happening themselves. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
And the 12 million that's left over, 37 percent of that is what is going out to this particular community that we're 65 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 dealing with. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
Okay. And in the second part of this Exhibit L, you talk about how Motorola agrees to employment goals utilizing labor, and therefore, the creation of local jobs with employment goals of 30 percent minority and 5 percent women. How many jobs are we talking about? What kind of jobs are we talking about? And what's the nature of the work?
I'm James Roundtree, Director of the Minority Business Enterprise Council. Councilman Nutter, we don't have the specific number of jobs, but there are construction-related jobs, and it is meant that the 30 percent participation in employment goals is by trade and 5 percent for females is by trade.
That's the primary construction in this? 66 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
Everything else is primarily equipment and installation into, I guess, City Hall and a number of other places.
All right. I think, Madam Chair, I have two last questions that relate to the contract or the proposed -- I'm sorry, the proposed agreement. Section 3.7, which is , Technological Improvements, which carries over into of that same section. Early on this in agreement, there is a long list of definitions but I do not see a definition for the term "system staging." What is the system staging? In the context of it, it reads in the sentence: "City shall be entitled to receive and contractor install all software upgrades that are 67 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 available at the time of system staging." Does that mean at the time the system is essentially being turned on or being made operable?
Councilman, system staging -- the terminology "system staging" refers to an event that will take place at the Motorola factory in Schaumberg, Illinois, at world headquarters. Our entire system, everything that we buy, exclusive of all the portable and mobile radios, of course, is actually set on the floor of the Motorola factory. The system is operated, City employees, and contractor personnel will be there. We'll see how the system operates, we'll actually test the system at the staging area, and I think --
Exactly, Councilwoman. I mean, there will be many, many dress rehearsals before the system is really turned over to our public safety personnel, but this is the dress rehearsal at the Motorola factory in Schaumberg, Illinois. 68 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
To provide an opportunity for a last systems debugging and before it's sent out to be installed?
Before it's boxed and created and shipped to Philadelphia, yes, ma'am.
All right. And so this section is providing that on the day or days over which that happens, if Motorola comes up with a new idea or a new technology, that we at least get notification that that exists. And then they have to tell us what the pluses and minuses of that are, and we then get opportunity to decide whether we want that particular software item or other upgrade item installed in our system.
So that provision at least allows us at the time of system staging to have whatever access to whatever is the latest things out of the box to have in our system.
And, further, if we decide to take that new item, that goes into the change order category of Article 8 on ? 69 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 And can you quickly tell us how you deal with change orders and what's the impact on the cost of the system?
Well, depending on the type of modification, I mean, like any change order, Motorola will submit a cost estimate to us. We will evaluate the merit of the improvement, we will evaluate the logic of installing that improvement, determining that it will not in effect be a detriment to the initial operation of the system, but rather an enhancement, and either accept or reject that price differential.
Okay. In section 16 3.12 -- COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Let me interrupt with one thing. If they do have an upgrade or change that we buy, we have already developed the discount level on those items, so we'll get preferential pricing at that particular time.
That's the 25 percent? 70 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Excuse me?
That's the 4 percent discount that you speak of? 5 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right, 25 6 percent or possibly more, yes. 7
That's at anytime 8 during the first ten years. 9 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Ten years, 10 yes. 11
So any other 12 technology that comes along, even after the 13 system's been up and running here in Philadelphia, 14 we have access to upgraded technology at a 25 or 15 possibly more percent discount. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That's 17 correct, yes. 18
Except new 19 technology? 20 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: On brand-new 21 technology, I've just been advised that it was 15 22 percent on brand-new, out-of-the-box. When they 23 sell things, they don't like to share any 24 discounts but we have negotiated on new technology 25 15 percent. 71 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284
And otherwise 25 and up? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: If it's not brand-new technology, it's and up. 6
A variation on 7 something that already exists. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That's right. 9
Okay, in Section 10 3.12 on , in the section that talks about 11 approval of subcontractors, and in the larger 12 books, there's a list of these approved 13 subcontractors. Can you just tell me how people 14 got on that list? 15 It's in Tab G. 16
Okay, I've been advised 17 to explain the minority women and disabled 18 businesses that apply to that listing, and they 19 were sent to -- 20
Right. I'd be 24 interested in that but I was not only asking about 25 minority, female and other disabled businesses, 72 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 I'm asking, how did anyone get on the list, what was the process? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: These were all presented to us by Motorola as the subcontractors that they would be using, and we reserve the right to approve them or not approve them. And the one, two, three, four -- the first four -- kind of the fifth company were presented by Motorola.
I'm sorry, say that again? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The vendors listed are --
Are you talking about Hankels, Andrews, Center Cord, D.O.E., and Keating? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: They were vendors that were supplied and indicated by the Motorola Corporation of who they would use in our project.
Okay. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: We reserve the right to accept that, or for whatever reason, reject it. I believe that we have accepted them.
Right. 73 5/16/99 PUB. PROP./WORKS - 990284 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The other companies are the minority companies that also were listed by Motorola on their minority participation forms as the firms that they would use for minority participation. And MBEC, I believe, has reviewed those companies and have approved them.
So you could only get on this list if you came via Motorola, this list of approved contractors? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, that's the -- yes, I mean, they --