Regarding Council Item 7.

10 on tonights agenda, below are several issues to

consider related to Oaklands radio system and the East Bay Regional
Communications System Authority (EBRCSA).
You are being asked to accept the report on an independent assessment by RCC of the Oakland and
EBRCSA radio systems, and approve negotiations between the City and EBRCSA in consideration of joining
the EBRCSA system.
The RCC report essentially confirms that Oakland has a system that operates at least as well as that of
EBRCSA, that interoperability can be achieved should Oakland stay with its system and that joining
EBRCSA would cost Oakland more in the long run than staying with its own system.
Just as the independent auditor compared both systems, the City could get maximum benefit by
negotiating with both EBRCSA and Harris/Dailey-Wells (provider of the Citys current system) so that
you have a more complete comparison of costs and benefits as well as the advantage of competitive
pricing. This is an amendment to the Finance Committee recommendation that you may want to
consider and put forth.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND RESOURCES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED TO BRING
OAKLAND TO THE POINT THAT THE CITYS SYSTEM IS WORKING AS WELL OR BETTER THAN
EBRCSA, TECHNOLOGY IS READILY AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE INTEROPERABILITY IF WE KEEP OUR
SYSTEM AND STAYING THE COURSE WILL COST THE CITY LESS IN THE LONG RUN, SO WHY
WOULD IT BE IN THE BETTER INTEREST OF OAKLAND TO CHANGE?
You have an opportunity to emerge as one of our level-headed leaders who gets it and wants to take the
logical path.
Below are specific points to consider:
1. Conservatively, joining EBRCSA will cost Oakland an additional approx. $4 million above keeping our
own system, just to address communications within Oakland. How many officers can the City hire with
that $4 million? AND Oakland would still have a well functioning, interoperable system. With the
savings that might be realized from staying with its current system the Council may be in a position to craft a
win-win outcome for the city and OPOA.
2. According to the current EBRCSA agreement with its members, once joining there IS NO WAY TO
DISENGAGE should Oakland later decide that being part of their system is not in the better technical OR
economic interests of our city. This fact alone warrants GREAT CAUTION.
3. As a member of EBRCSA, Oakland will be responsible for costs related to communications within
Oakland PLUS have proportional responsibility to pay for additional build-out, etc. of the EBRCSA system
outside of Oakland.
Two questions to definitely have answered in addition to discussing the points above:
1. What indebtedness does EBRCSA currently have, including any loans, bond principal or interest
payments or any other commitments? Remember, as an EBRCSA member, Oakland is liable for
proportional payment of EBRCSA expenses and debts, and Oakland will be a large contributor.
2. What future 2 county-wide system build-out projections, requirements and costs might be incurred? Again
keep in mind that as a member of EBRCSA Oakland will be responsible for paying a large proportional share
of these costs.
Finally, below are specific issues and recommended Oakland protections should membership in EBRCSA be
seriously considered:

AREA

ISSUE

OAKLAND
OAKLAND PROTECTION

Financial
Full costs commitment unknown.

Full cost commitment must be specifically

identified/disclosed with ceiling amount
guarantee over next 10 years

EBRCSA system was originally projected to

cost at least $70 million; federal grants of
City must ratify any future cost increases or
approx. $52 million have been awarded to
EBRCSA, leaving a considerable funding gap agreement is nullified
with no additional federal grant funds
anticipated.
City must commit bonding capacity
Amount/level of bond commitment must be
specifically defined.
City must ratify any bond commitment beyond
initial amount/level or agreement is nullified
Governance
All seats on Board are currently filled. Thus,
Oakland, as a large system contributor will
have no say.

Guarantee Oakland a minimum of four

permanent seats on the board.
NOTE THAT at this number, Oakland will still not
have representation in proportion to its financial
liability and could be easily out voted on how its
money will be assessed and spent.

Operations
System performance: Oakland systems
performance meets and exceeds national
performance standards (as verified by
OPD daily logs)
Coverage: Oaklands system operation
currently exceeds public safety standards
Dispatch consoles and control

Staff Training: EBRCS only provides

infrastructure, Oakland maintains
staffing. System training required at
start-up and for changes or upgrades.
Problem response time

Guarantee greater performance consistently

greater than 99.99%

Guarantee that system will always exceed public

safety standards
Guarantee that EBRCSA will cover any and all
console-related operations and maintenance
costs over life of Oaklands participation in
EBRCSA
Guarantee that Oakland retains control over all
dispatch-relate operations and activities over life
of Oaklands participation in EBRCSA
Guarantee that EBRCSA pays for all initial and
any subsequently required training for all
involved/impacted Oakland workforce over life
of Oaklands participation in EBRCSA
Guarantee 15 minutes system problem response
time over life of Oaklands participation in
EBRCSA
EBRCSA must clearly and in detail define
problem response protocols

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

kathy
Bolotina, Olga
Item 7.10 on Tonight"s Agenda
Tuesday, January 07, 2014 4:37:45 PM
EBRCSA Issues and Oakland Protections 2.0.pdf

Hey Olga,

Please see attached.

Kathy Neal
Kneal Resource System
6114 La Salle Ave. #641
Oakland, CA 94611
510.220.6214/cell

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Subject:

Meeting with Lewis Loeven (on behalf of Kathy Neal)

Start: Tue 1/21/2014 11:30 AM

End: Tue 1/21/2014 11:50 AM
Recurrence:
Organizer:

(none)
Kalb, Dan

OAKLANDS PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

Oaklands network went through a rough period but since it hired a radio manager:
o It has operated above public safety standards without interruption
o a plan has been created to replace police radios with newer, state of the art radios
o a maintenance plan has been implemented that will allow Oakland to continually operate its network to
the highest public safety standard
o the system has not had any outages or failures while the EBRCSA network has had two major failures in
the last two months alone. (No system is perfect).

The Oakland Network is:

o As good as if not better than the regional network
o Paid for in full
The myth that Oaklands network is inferior was dispelled by the RCC report. Since this report
states that the systems are compatible at the very least, what is the compelling reason to give
up a network that Oakland has bought and paid for and switch to EBRCSA?
o Fully interoperable
The Oakland/EBRCSA disconnect has been manufactured by EBRCSA. EBRCSA has refused to
provide its frequencies to Oakland because Oakland will not pay into their network.

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
Other than a conscious policy, what prevents you from providing seamless mutual aid
between your members and Oakland?
Are the individual EBRCSA members who are also vulnerable because of this policy,
specifically against having proper mutual aid and interoperability?
Are you stating for the record that Oaklands network cannot be interoperable with
EBRCSA for any other reason than the policy?

QUESTIONS TO STAFF:
What is your view of this issue?
Is our system not interoperable?
Can you clarify the BART interoperability issue?

Predictable on cost, while the regional network may have hidden costs
An independent and thorough economic analysis needs to be done. Such analysis must find
ALL costs, such as the amounts currently and projected to be covered by Alameda County that
may not be reflected in the EBRCSA budget projections.

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
Do you have any issue with an independent analysis being performed on the
economics of EBRCSA?
Does the County currently provide certain equipment, services or other resources that
are not reflected on the books of EBRCSA? If yes, how are we guaranteed that those
costs will not be transferred over to EBRCSA in the future?

The Citys own independent consultant found:

o The EBRCSA network is not interoperable with BART (the Oakland network is)
o EBRCSA (for no technical reason whatsoever) refuses to create seamless mutual aid for Oaklands
neighbors

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
If EBRCSA wont provide mutual aid interoperability to Oakland due to lack of
membership, is it EBRCSAs plan to continue that same policy with BART and any other
non-member entity, such as the Coast Guard?

The EBRCSA network is not superior to the Oakland network. The performance and costs to move to the
regional network make it clear that there is no compelling reason to switch
Joining the regional network would:
o Create more debt for the City of Oakland
Base on the reading of the RCC and Oakland City staff reports. If those reports are not to be
believed, then an independent economic analysis must be done.
o Require that money be spent on moving to the regional network that could otherwise be spent on more
police, more city services, street repair, etc.
o Irreversibly obligate the City to be part of a Joint Powers Authority
Irreversibly delegate to the JPA, the authority to create debt for which the City would be
obligated to pay
o Place Oakland in the position of having to pay whatever the Authority decides without Oakland having a
dedicated and proportional say in this decision making.
Although it would be the largest single contributor of funds to the JPA, the City would be
overwhelmed by the smaller contributors and have little say over policy and spending
The proposal to provide Oakland representation on EBRCSA through an MOU strategy with
other organizations does not guarantee Oakland a permanent seat at the table. Nor does it give
Oakland proportional representation.
A PROPORTIONAL SHARE OF VOTES BASED ON NUMBER OF USERS AND ON FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO AND CONTROLLED BY OAKLAND. IF THIS
ISNT IN THE JPA AGREEMENT, THEN WHY NOT OPEN UP THE JPA BYLAWS AND CHANGE
THEM TO FIX THIS PROBLEM?
o Create a de facto sole source to Motorola, taking away the Citys ability to take advantage of price and
technological innovations of a greater industry
o

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
What percentage of radios on EBRCSA are Motorola? Broken down by manufacturer,
how many radios are there for each manufacturer?
When was the last time an RFP was issued for purchase of radios or equipment for
EBRCSA?
Are we in a de facto sole source environment at EBRCSA? (NOTE: the City is with Harris
system, yet the City is authorizing an $8M purchase of Motorola radios on its
network).
EBRCSA is not as sustainable as it claims
o Some cities may be failing to pay for the EBRCSA services, thereby causing the JPA to rely on the
counties to pay more as a bridge to sustainability

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
Are all entities that are part of EBRCSA fully paid and up to date? Has anyone disputed
the amounts they are being charged?
Would you mind an independent analyst looking into that?

Eventually current county bailouts may be settled through unknown increased dues that are spread to
cities that are already paying their fair share

QUESTIONS TO EBRCSA:
How many radios are on the EBRCSA system today? How many were there in each of
the last 5 years?
If the number of users goes down. Then the cost per user goes up, is that correct?

As a final note: Oaklands system is supplied by a vendor that has received awards for being the the most ethical
company in its industry. This vendor, Harris, stepped up in the name of public safety and provided over $1 million in
goods and services at NO COST to Oakland - to assist the City in fixing internal issues and getting on its feet.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

kathy
Luby, Oliver
Oakland Radio System
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:26:09 PM
Notes for Ccl Kalb.docx

Dear Councilmember Kalb,

Attached for your consideration is a two-page synopsis of Oakland radio system issues and
concerns. Additionally, it has been suggested that Alameda County is currently supporting EBRCSA
with in-kind services and if true, you might want to consider what could happen to Oaklands
obligation to pay when tough times hit the County and the EBRCSA JPA has to start charging its
members for these services.

One other key issue is that of interoperability. The current technical capability has been somewhat
misrepresented and taken out of context by EBRCSA proponents. Oakland has P25 interoperability
with BART through ISSI technology that has been demonstrated and proven to work. This
conforms and operates according to the established public safety standard and San Francisco is in
the process of deploying the same link. ISSI has been adopted by the national folks in charge of
public safety technology and is also in place and operating elsewhere. If its OK for other
jurisdictions, why wont EBRCSA deploy this same technology so our firefighters maintain the same
type of functionality that we already have? How does EBRCSA justify telling us that we should just
accept what could be a lower grade solution?

I hope this is helpful. At least the comments above as well as content of the attached should provide
you with: 1. A more balanced perspective; and, 2. Pertinent questions, the answers to which could
aid in your decision making.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Warm regards,

Kathy Neal
Kneal Resource System
6114 La Salle Ave #641
Oakland, CA 94611
510.220.6214/cell

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

kathy
Bolotina, Olga
Oakland Radio System
Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:16:18 PM
Notes for Ccl Kalb.docx

Dear Councilmember Kalb,

Attached for your consideration is a two-page synopsis of Oakland radio system issues and concerns.
Additionally, it has been suggested that Alameda County is currently supporting EBRCSA with in-kind
services and if true, you might want to consider what could happen to Oaklands obligation to pay
when tough times hit the County and the EBRCSA JPA has to start charging its members for these
services.

One other key issue is that of interoperability. The current technical capability has been somewhat
misrepresented and taken out of context by EBRCSA proponents. Oakland has P25 interoperability
with BART through ISSI technology that has been demonstrated and proven to work. This
conforms and operates according to the established public safety standard and San Francisco is in
the process of deploying the same link. ISSI has been adopted by the national folks in charge of
public safety technology and is also in place and operating elsewhere. If its OK for other
jurisdictions, why wont EBRCSA deploy this same technology so our firefighters maintain the same
type of functionality that we already have? How does EBRCSA justify telling us that we should just
accept what could be a lower grade solution?

I hope this is helpful. At least the comments above as well as content of the attached should provide
you with: 1. A more balanced perspective; and, 2. Pertinent questions, the answers to which could
aid in your decision making.

Thanks so much for your consideration.

Warm regards,

Kathy Neal
Kneal Resource System
6114 La Salle Ave #641
Oakland, CA 94611
510.220.6214/cell

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Bolotina, Olga
"kathy"
RE: Item 7.10 on Tonight"s Agenda
Tuesday, January 07, 2014 5:06:00 PM

Got it! Thank you!

Olga A. Bolotina
Community Outreach Director
Office of District One City Councilmember Dan Kalb
City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612
Direct: 510-238-7240
obolotina@oaklandnet.com

From: kathy [mailto:kathy@kneal.com]

Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 4:38 PM
To: Bolotina, Olga
Subject: Item 7.10 on Tonight's Agenda

Hey Olga,

Please see attached.

Kathy Neal
Kneal Resource System
6114 La Salle Ave. #641
Oakland, CA 94611
510.220.6214/cell

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Mario Juarez
Mario Juarez (Viridis Fuels)
We have good news to share with you!
Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:13:22 PM

See: http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/349407/uniqueoakland-biodiesel-project-receives-3-4-million-grant

Unique Oakland biodiesel project

receives $3.4 million grant
By Ron Kotrba | April 08, 2015

Viridis Fuels' build site is at the Port of Oakland at the foot of the heavily traveled Bay Bridge.
Photo: Viridis Fuels

Viridis Fuels, a state-of-the-art biodiesel project in Oakland, California, is prepared to receive

an official notice of award today for a $3.4 million state grant at a California Energy
Commission business meeting in Sacramento. A notice of proposed award to Viridis Fuels was
given in December after a revision of the original selection proposal excluded the company.
Four other companies, including Crimson Renewable Energy LP, Community Fuels, AltAir Fuels
LLC and UrbanX Renewables Group Inc., were also included in the award proposal.
Viridis Fuels plans to build what it calls Americas most visible biodiesel plant, as its project
site is situated in the Port of Oaklandthe fifth busiest shipping container port in the U.S.at
the foot of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge five minutes from San Francisco where more
than 225,000 drivers cross on a given day, Viridis Fuels President Mario Juarez told Biodiesel
Magazine.
The company envisions one of the most unique biodiesel plant designs, aesthetically speaking,
with a sleek wall of LED lighting obscuring the tankage and process equipment. Viridis intends
to gain project partnerships with diesel auto manufacturers, displaying their vehicles on the
LED wall and illuminating the benefits of both biodiesel fuel and clean diesel technology.
You need to be creative in todays market, Juarez said.
Viridis Fuels has chosen SRS Engineering to provide a turnkey operation that will utilize lowquality, low-cost feedstock for manufacturing up to 20 MMgy of biodiesel and 4 MMgy of
technical-grade glycerin. The SRS Engineering biodiesel process at Viridis Fuels will include
degumming, bleaching, cold soak filtration, transesterification and esterification, patented

resin purification, and removal of sulfur and heavy metals.

Viridis Fuels has a long-term land lease agreement for its project site in the port, one that has
already been approved by the California Natural Resources Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Gaining CEQA approval was our biggest environmental hurdle, Juarez said.
He added that the city of Oakland has provided only one franchiseeOakland Maritime Support
Servicesapproval for the next 35 years to sell fuel to the 10,000 diesel trucks entering the
port daily. Juarez said Viridis has signed an agreement to sell up to 5 MMgy of its biodiesel for
distribution in the port as B20.
With such high truck traffic in and out of the port, biodiesel blends from Viridis Fuels can help
clean the air for local residents who, according to Juarez, suffer inordinately high rates of
asthma.
Poor people live near the port, he said, adding that Viridis Fuels seeks a modicum of
environmental justice for those less fortunate by providing a cleaner fuel option for trucks in
the area.
Juarez said part of Viridis Fuels appeal to investors is the executive team and board of
directors.
We have a solid board with members from different business backgrounds, he said.
The Viridis Fuels board of directors includes Chairman Elihu M. Harris Jr., an attorney, business
owner and former Oakland mayor; Vice Chair Dan Boggan, a current board member of Clorox &
Collective Brands Inc., the former vice chancellor of UC Berkeley, and former NCAA senior vice
president and chief operating officer; and Chief Financial Advisor Arnold Grisham, the
president and CEO of Tri Valley Bank and former member of the San Francisco Federal Reserve
Bank Board. The CEO of Viridis Fuels is Kathy Neal, a former California environmental regulator
and Port of Oakland commissioner with 30-plus years of business experience.
For us, we have a statement to make, Juarez said. We are a women-owned, black-owned,
Latino-owned company. Black women and Latinos have a place in industries like biodiesel.