construction project. the office of public financing and the comptroller's office did do an analysis to try to compare the renovation potential to petite paul street site towards the future: site. we estimated that the cost for one market was in excess of $17 million. the policy -- the paul site was estimated at $1 million. the future on side was estimated to be 11.8 million. this took into account the tenant improvements and the mechanical, electrical, computer equipment, insulation moving costs. it was clear to us as we amortized the costs that it was more cost-effective for the city to actually luis the site and in

fact consolidate many of the other servers that might be located throughout the city and so with that recommendation, the staff did a study in a survey of all of the equipment in the city and there was a policy decision made that has been confirmed and number of times in the past that the city should begin consolidating their infrastructure. this is that one of two sites, either the paul street site or the airport site. >> thank you. i think there is a follow up question. >> i understand that it was $1 million but this is over the course of one year. what is the cost over the long term?

>> what we look at was a 20-year horizon for the analysis and for the one market plaza, that is also a leased facility. the cost or estimated at $52 million. for the paul street site, the estimated costs was $43.7 million. obviously, the future-owned site, the assumption there was that over time that would be the least expensive, the $28 million. we would have needed to invest in the infrastructure and construction. >> that was roughly 11 million come like that was $28.1 million. this is assuming that financing

would have been $28.1 million. >> thank you. >> just a follow question, the alternatives that you evaluated was that if we stayed at our one market plaza location, in order to receive the safety level as well as the improvements that we were talking about, they would have had to invest about $70 million to make that site comparable to the limited improvements which would be included at 200 paul street? >> i don't think it was an option for the city. the landlord had one of the city out there for a lot of years. when the recession hit a couple of years ago, some of the pressure was removed. i recall back seven or 8 years ago going with the department to look at the facilities and what

the potential costs might be to the data center so that this has really been on the planning for many many years to move out of the plaza because of inadequate space and keeping the city as a tenant. >> if we were to abstain, hypothetically, even if the landlord had agreed, it would be a $17 million investment into a private facility. >> that's correct. >> getting at of the lease after three years, i think it's ideal for the city, should there be movement in the future, but why is it that we cannot go down the path now in terms of getting a

facility that is city owned. could this have been made? what was some of the thinking there? >> in the yearlong study we have done, that work group that we work with did steady 11 different city-owned facilities in terms of evaluating them for retrofit potential. that compared this to the initial investment they would take in any other city-owned facility to locating things in 200 paul and still this came up as the best solution because it could not find another site.

in evaluating the other cities, we could not find a site that was better suited. even if we have found the money, we would still be talking about if it makes sense. to go back to the conversation about going with a dual data center approach, i can highlight where the discussion is going. it is really is a long-term goal of the city to continue to reduce the need for space. there is technology that is evolving. the lease that we are putting in place has two ingredients. one is that we're able to exit police. we are not signing a 5-10, 20

year lease. the reason we're building the facility is that over time we will have a good site and we do have a strategy over time to move city equipment into a city- owned equipment. >> i have a number of questions. let's talk about the airports. when are we looking at that

being completed. >> it that is 18-24 months. >> why are we not considering consolidating all of our servers at the airport? >> we are considering it. we are looking to shrink our equipment footprint and we might be able to fit into that space but at least initially the space needed will require some additional space in addition to what the airport has constructed and the strategy has another component that has been discussed a lot of people see the benefits to this. the weakness to the historic design has been there is no lack of center. in the case of a localized of

said like a building collapse or a fire, and a sense, all of our eggs are in one basket. the design is that there are always two sides in the city, a primary and secondary. as we bring people together, they might be bringing out of the main data center. there is a second that we can switch over to in emergencies. we are trying to avoid problems by putting all of our eggs in one basket. >> is there a consolidation of time once -- time lines? >> the two-year plan for

consolidation has been endorsed and that would be initiated this january. we will be meeting tomorrow to discuss the updates. >> how concrete is this? >> this is as concrete as we can make it but it does depend on and level of funding. >> it is my understanding that say that they can do this consolidation in one year. >> we have looked for every way to speed up this time line. we have been asking vendors to help us. if we can speed up the time line, we are happy to do so. >> there are vendors to say they can do this in one year, right? >> yes.

>> you will have to excuse me. for me coming in, a process did not make a lot of sense. back in 2008, why did we only get seven days? is that protocol? it seems unreasonable. it seems like that is why we only got two bids. >> actually, the request for qualifications, this goes through the computer store which has four vendors. what we do is that we usually put it out for whatever time period. we ask the vendors if they wished to bid on this and four extensions. it is not unusual for this to go by for a week or a month. in this case, we only put it

out if my memory serves me, two vendors felt like they wanted to bid. we did not feel the need to extend. >> he said it at seven days. >> this was the initial time line. we thought that they could respond. >> this was close to start on january 31st. now i understand that this is being pushed back a month. it seems strange that we are only being asked to support this now. what happens. what happens if we don't support of this?

>> when a bid goes to the computer store, that does not typically come to the board. that is what we are looking at. the project is going into a real estate type of deal where it is a direct agreement between the city and a landlord in this case. all real estate deals to come to the board for approval so that is why your seeing this now. >> it does not make common sense. this will come to us and the

move is coming in two weeks. even if you did not have to come to us before, what if this move was made already? >> with respect to the process, we would not bring to the board for consideration a lease if it is not agreed upon. we have some extensive negotiations, which is good. this means that we need to conclude the negotiations which occurred sometime around thanksgiving.

we have been in the analysis phase and now council for you for consideration. hopefully that will answer your question. >> yes, it does. >> i think i will toss this one back to my colleague. we might have some options with respect to extending the current arrangement but i'm not sure how relevant that would be. >> i want to make sure i understand your question. it was not the intent to surprise the board or preview in a position where you were forced to approve the deal. to go back in history and little bit, the department of technology when we first came to the board about 18 months ago asked for the release of the reserves. we had an extensive

conversation. this was why we are asking for the money off the reserve and what our intent was and i think that we were up front about relocating out of one market to this other side and that is why we needed the money. we felt that we had done some due diligence to explain what our goals were. we feel that we had to provide updates to the board and other areas of interest. this is not the perfect process of this is a governance process and the board has a member that sits on the port and the provide monthly updates. it was my understanding and we usually have the project hearings to get status updates. to answer your question more specifically, if you did not approve the lease, we would have to look at options to perhaps extend the current agreement that we have on a month-to-month

basis for the state's -- space that you are using and then looking for another site to relocate to that you would approve. >> by the way, the answer about the lease coming to us after the negotiation, i did not know about that. i notice as a few more questions. we need -- one called your office, we asked whether the cost savings had been quantified or identified. >> we have an outline and a spread sheet. there are no cost savings to the department of technology in moving from one market to 200 paul. i want to be very clear about this. this is actually a cost increase

on a month-to-month basis. we do feel like there is an opportunity to save the city money. we have a spreadsheet that we can share with you that has been presented it about what the anticipated savings are to the city and perhaps that is what the budget analyst is giving us and reporting back to you about the tangible progress that we make against that idea rounds consolidations and saving the money. >> my last question is probably harder to articulate is there an estimate for when our current

bandwidth capacity will be exceeded? it is that something that can be articulated? are we at 80%? >> we are actually at 150% of our current bandwidth capacity which is why we are proposing an increase. we recently had an outage due to the demands on the network being integrated. but we are seeing from our standpoint is dramatically more bandwidth needed because so many more applications and uses of online training being put on the internet and on the network are having to drastically increase. to the analyst's report, the doubling of physical infrastructure capacity, though that might seem like a lot, is

probably a wise investment to make given the fact that if we don't do that, we will exceed our capacity which will cause outages. >> how frequently have had failures and downtime? >> we have had three significant failures for a total of 7 hours. >> if we move to 200 paul, what percentage of the band with a capacity would it be? would it go down to 80%? >> closer to 75%. >> thank you. >> madam chair. members of the committee. it just as a follow-up to the question about what would happen if this was not approved. the board of supervisors has

every right to approve or disapprove every piece of legislation that comes before them. there was never any approval of this deal previously. there was no action taken. there was no understanding of the whole board of supervisors. there is either a vote up or down. i just want to make that very clear that the board of supervisors has a right to approve or disapprove of this legislation. otherwise, the department would not be here to request your approval. >> thank you. >> we appreciate that. we really do. along the lines of the question, the sequencing of this caught me a little bit off guard, especially in what was a down time for the local government and the transition time for local government.

-- when -- had come together to blast the plan, was this already determined before december that this move had to take place? when did that actually occurred? >> the department had determined -- the sequencing is out of sync. the department, as we have determined, to relocate from one market to 200 paul back in 1998. -- did not start engaging in the consolidation and where they should start relocating into january of 2010. we understood when we engaged as an equal partner in that discussion that if they determined that the two sides

had been one at the airport, we would have had to relocate it at that point. this would have had to go back to one of these sites. the decision by the department technology did not predetermined the decision made by kuwait. it was taken into consideration. this created an opportunity. i think it was discussions that were obvious that we would have to relocate again on a more cost-effective site. >> when we were deliberating on the legislation about the consolidation and the kind of reworking, did that include that

this was also leaning towards a move towards another location? >> i don't believe those recommendations around the code. i don't believe that this item ever came of specifically in that conversation. i think that there was an underlying discussion going on about the need to consolidate. the spirit of the legislation was to support this things. >> there is the upgrading and modernizing. >> we believe this is consistent. >> we want to understand how

this is coming in bits and pieces, not in a package presentation. be aware, we are moving towards this grand plan of consolidation. the president is part of that program and the need to consolidate, physically speaking, that is part that i was not clear on that is not clear on any of the documentations. >> in terms of sequencing because i can visualize us having this conversation in a few weeks, this item when we submitted this, there is actually through the last budget process, there is a board reserve on funding citywide for approximately $6 million related to the city show and progress. we have submitted some

information to the budget analyst office. the reason that we consolidated them is that we won to make sure that you understood that we feel like this project is in line with this idea around looking for opportunities to work together and consolidate and bring things into a single location. i don't want to leave you with the idea that this project is not supportive of the things that were reported as doing and when we are back before you in a few weeks talking about the reserves related to progress against consolidation, i would imagine that this conversation will come back to us. is this really showing progress towards our goal? >> explain to me is the bit on the december 16, 2010 meeting that -- had approved what is the final component of the

consolidation plan of additional servers, i am trying to understand and that one juncture what was the determination? >> we have had in both of their october meeting and the december meeting are important. there was a number of recommendations made to the board related to york datacenter is and consolidations. at the october meeting, they asked staff to provide additional information. the staff was working with the mayor's budget office and -- did formulate some more information. what was approved at the meeting on this was two sites, the

airport and 200 paul to bring other servers to the city. they are also refocusing additional staff to support the project. we have approximately hundred staff across the city and we were looking for seven of those people to work on those projects and to have those around the city. we would like to relocate the servers to one of these sites. >> when did this become a request for the board of supervisors and the budget committee? >> we submitted our original request i believe in november.

>> some of the larger concerns on the need to upgrade and modernize with regards to the department systems. there has been a longstanding example of problems, this function, what have you, for the city. what does this do for that particular challenge? >> when we look at what it takes to reliably run the i.t. systems in the city, i always say it takes good equipment and good people. the challenge from a facility standpoint with those systems is because they were both located at one market. we had some impact to users in the usability.