applications, how they can be used to lower the costs to the city. we are trying to take advantage of some of those technologies are on the e-mail project, how we provide web services and things such as that to leverage some of those cloud and web technologies. one of the hard things to do we have talked about in previous meetings is how you measure progress, how you measure success if you approve a plan like this over five years. if you look in the appendix of this plan, what we tried to do is lay out all of the requests that departments see themselves needing. not dissimilar to, as was pointed out, modeled on the capital plan where you look at the future and try to project, based on what has been installed or what departments think they need to do -- you end up with quite an extensive laundry list of projects that departments would like to implement over the next few years, whether they are replacing existing applications

or implementing new technologies. we tried to pull out of that through these meetings and highlight for you in this report perhaps 10 significant or strategic initiatives that we would recommend that we come back and report to you on a regular basis on how we are making progress. i could take a few minutes on this slide perhaps and give you some specific examples of what we mean. one, the open data, open sf initiative is one of those projects that epitomizes what we want to try to do to leverage the public interest in making government work better. this initiative was started quite a while ago. the idea is to put government data on the web, make it accessible to the public. it has been very successful. i know the general services administration department and 311 has now taken the lead on this and is getting departments more data on the web, but out of

this initiative, we had over 60 applications created at no cost to the city that the public, simply by having access to the data on their own time, whether it is companies, whether it is just interested citizens with technical abilities, have created applications that citizens can use in san francisco to access services to utilize the city data to get the services they want without going toward traditional us coming to you asking for money, going through a long process to create these applications. the next one, enterprise applications, is a generic term we use to talk about rather than doing things on a department by department basis, really looking for commonalities across departments where we have shared applications where we are doing similar things. there is a number of examples i think we could use to talk about why we want to leverage common needs. e-mail is a great one. we have talked about how we are

trying to take the 7 e-mailed existing systems around the city and collapsed them into one. the e merge project is a great example where you have multiple time keeping hr management systems in the city, and we are collapsing those. we will continue to look for opportunities to leverage, and implementing a single solution that meets all the needs of the city rather than individual ones. we have talked a lot of that data center consolidation, and that is near and dear to at least my department's heart. we have implemented that now in our move. we were able to collapse a number of our server is down. it helped us meet our budget reduction goal. we were able to meet our budget reduction goal to a degree because we were able to utilize this type of technology, now

that we have approval to take this idea out to all departments, work with them to find ways to take physical servers and turn them into virtual servers. we think this is a real opportunity to report back to you on how the city can reduce its data center footprint and save money in the future around equipment. city-wide broadband and wifi access -- this is a significant way. i'm sure you have heard from your constituents, they would like to see more free wireless in public buildings and public spaces, and we started a steering committee with the library, with the parks and wreck -- rec department, and we have an initiative under way to make sure we have republicanwifi -- free public wifi in the city. by putting them on broadband, we think we can improve services to city employees in those departments. the enterprise agreements -- we have talked about that a lot.

we implemented a few now. we just signed the enterprise agreement for e-mail to have a st. -- single agreement for e- mail in the city rather than multiple ones. we hope to bring back to you in the next few months working with the office of contract administration and enterprise agreement, and we're working on several others as well. city-wide security, you have heard in the news numerous times in the past. i know security costs a lot of money when we make mistakes, so we are starting an initiative again appeared rather than having every department have to solve the security problem by themselves, to share information, we have a monthly meeting now where we bring all the security personnel from the city together, and we facilitate conversations and look for solutions where we can address these security concerns. voice-over ip is starting to take off as an initiative. a lot of people are excited about this. we have an outdated integrated

phone system we use in the city, and we have a number of exciting pilots under way to start to really determine what the right solution is for the city for voice over ip. we told what we want to do is come back in the next few months and start to show what savings can be achieved. consolidation of staff and share building. i'm sure you are all aware that every department tends to maintain its own help desk staff, its old way of supporting its equipment within the buildings, so we are trying to leverage the good leverage thehsa -- we are trying to leverage the good work that hsa did. consolidation of reduction of mail services. again, it is an opportunity where we have similar solutions are around the city's embedded in apartments where we think this is another one where we can collapse into consolidated

services and perhaps save the city some money, be more efficient. my favorite, having come from the private sector, looking for ways to market things is we have a lot of opportunity, i believe, and i am happy to say that we signed up our first customer on this plan that as we deploy fiber technology around the city, we have the capacity, we have the ability to also provide this type of fiber services to other government clients that nonprofit agencies to, frankly, to other businesses. this is a way we can actually generate revenue using our technology investments we are already making that have very low incremental cost to generate revenue over time for the city, and we are excited about not being seen as a cost center, but as a potential revenue source for the city and helping contribute to the funds of the city. one of the challenges when you do a plan like this, as you are

aware, with any process, and i know you will be going through the budget, is we are such a large organization -- 40 or 60 apartments, depending on how you want to classify, and we face the same challenge when we are working on the strategic plan. what we decided to do, even though the appendix really does include all of the project that every department and the city is really asking for over the next five years, in the plan itself, what we tried to do is consolidate and come up with a middle ground that paints a picture of what we're trying to accomplish, what our goals are by major service area. if you are familiar with the budget document, it leverages how we handle the budget document and handle the safety area so when you read the documents, please keep in mind that is why we do the major service areas approach because we want to highlight the commonalities of some departments and maybe where they can work together to come up

with shared solutions. supervisor chu: we have a question from supervisor kim. supervisor kim: when you say city technology leaders, who are you referring to? >> every department typically has a head i.t. manager, and we conducted several workshops over the last few years asking them to come in and combine the groups by service area and talk about what their service area was and how they saw themselves contributing to the overall i.t. vision for the future. that is what we mean. supervisor kim: do we ever reach out to the tech sector in san francisco, the private sector to ask for their feedback and input on what we can do to upgrade our technology? >> we do. we actually sponsor a number of events with the department of technology hosts experts coming in and speaking at brown bag events where we invite i.t. leaders and have industry experts come in and talk to us from either stanford -- stanford often comes and speaks to us. a lot of start up companies come in and speak to us.

some of the capital venture folks. they come and talk to us as i.t. leaders about what they see in government or what they see in private sector and how that can be applied. supervisor kim: can we get a list of folks you have reached out to in the private and academic sector? >> sure. the report also includes how we are distributing funds, and this is just to give you a sense of, not dissimilar to the budget process, there is a lot of departments that need technology, and we tried to give you a picture of how we are distributing i.t. funds are around the city and how these funds contribute. when you look at these funding levels in the report and went back to what the goals and objectives are, you can often see the opportunities or challenges that major service areas might have in achieving some of their goals over time,

so hopefully, you can see some of these. you can see how that perhaps it's into this plan and the major service areas they are associated with. one of the most important things for me in this plan that we spend a lot of time working with the controller's office on and the mayor's budget office was the financial section. often, i see these strategic documents that come out around technology and environmental technology, and they do a good job taking a vision and talking about what they want to achieve over time, but what i have often seen in the past in this type of documents is a lack of financial detail about how we are going to accomplish these. at the end of the day, if we do not have the resources, do not have the money, do not have the staff and we are not honest with ourselves about what it will take to accomplish these visionary ideas, we set

ourselves up for failure, so we work closely with the office, would be cfo's around the city to talk about how we would change our approach strategically to funding some of these initiatives going forward. the guiding principles, i would say, behind the idea is we would look to consolidate. we would look to standardize, rather than ever when buying their own unique technologies, rather than looking for standard technologies that meet our needs, and we would try to simplify a lot of processes, creating a lot of individual systems and trying to figure out how to tie them all together. we would try to find ways to streamline and simplify things. this is the last slide. it starts to paint a picture about where we are trying to get over the next five years financially and solve perhaps,

again, not unlike the capital plan problem, the fact that there is a huge demand when you look in the appendix, when you look in the report, a huge demand by departments for technology expenditures. as we have had these conversations before, we are all keenly aware of those technology requests that seemed to be in competition oftentimes with other important items that you folks are considering to fund on every fiscal year. when you look at the -- at this table here, what it is really trying to paint is a picture of the future. looking at, for example, the funding source and the second column, the initial project request, and then the proposed plan, it starts to show you over the next five years where we want to be. for example, one of the areas we have not taken as much advantage of as we want to in the future is using finance vehicles to fund technology going forward. initially, what we saw was

around $18 million worth of the technology requests citywide, taking advantage of financing, and we think that we can change that so that we can shift about $96 million of those technology requests to a finance-type vehicle. similarly, the grants area we are showing rather flat right now. but, you know, that is an area of the department of emergency management, my department, other departments, we are trying to invest more resources in that area to look for federal grants come homeland security grants, other grants like that to use to fund technology. as a caveat, having gone through this a number of times, the danger of grant-funded technology is it can lead you down a road where you spend a lot of grant money to procure technology, but if you do not build in the capability to maintain or replace that technology over time, it creates a huge asset cool that you need to find a way to either finance or replaced over time.

the non-general fund -- these are the large departments that you hear from. we see spending to be rather constant in those apartments over the next five years. i'm sure you are aware mta, airport, and you see are all heavy users of technology, but the technology they use within their department is critical to their ability to provide services. the good thing about the project is their projects do not typically impact the general fund where we see the deficits. the change that has been happening over the last year is now, we are not just looking at those apartments at silo the part of that employment their own technologies. we are taking advantage of their investments in technology to provide a benefit to the entire city i.t. infrastructure. a great example, for example, to

the data center consolidation project is the fact that the airport has taken the leadership role in constructing a data center for every department in the city to use at the airport without that huge capital impact we would have seen on the general fund otherwise. then, of course, the thing we're really trying to achieve is the reduction in the impact on the general fund, so you can see from the chart that initially, what was projected to happen was about $164 million impact in technology requests to a general fund source. we think we can reduce that to about $40 million, which is about an $8 million goal year to year over the next five years, and technology funding, which is significantly less than what was originally anticipated to be the impact of the general fund for technology in the future. then, as i said on one of the previous slides, really ramping up the opportunity for additional revenue, using some of our technology investments, not only to provide service, but to look for opportunities to

generate revenues. having said all that, not giving enough time to ask questions, our goal is to report back to coit, which has directed us to take these 10 key strategic initiatives as indicators of health of the plan. we see this as a living plant. we told everyone we do not want the plan to be approved and put on the shelf and then five years, we pull it down and reflect back on what we thought we wanted to do. what we want this to be is a living document that every year we can update, and they have directed us to come back and collect information from the leaders in these areas and report back on a regular basis on the progress we are making, both in accomplishing the goals of the projects associated with these initiatives and how they are improving services and/or saving the city money. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor chiu: thank you for

the presentation. i have two, is based on what you just said. first of all, i appreciate that you will be taking the next step of figuring out what we are going to get things done. let me take a couple of the i examples of things that are embedded in this that had taken a while. consolidation of e-mail. we decided at the first meeting i attended in february 2009 that we were going to consolidate. it is now two and a half years later, and it is not done. data center consolidation -- we said early last year we would have a plan by the middle of last year, and there is no deadline of when that project is slated to be completed. i know it is complicated, but we have not put a mark in the sand on when we expect to get that done. and a price agreements -- it was in 2007 that we did an audit where we said we were going to get this done. in 2009, we provided funds to your department to move forward with conversations around the city to consolidate enterprise agreements. we are still not half way there. then, one major project, which i

know is removed from your department and moved over, is our run the justice program, which we had said over 10 years ago we were going to move forward with, and 10-plus years later, that is not done. my question to you is what is your intent, and how do you expect the various departments to set deadlines and actually accomplish them? that is one of the challenges we have, and i think the customers of san francisco have as well. >> that is a good point. maybe i can speak to that a little bit. i think that is where we see the power of coit, quite frankly. where we have to move the conversation away from is each department on its own charge with an -- succeeding or failing as an individual department. i think we have grown the committee. the mayor's office, the board of

supervisors, 10 representatives from the largest to the smallest i.t. groups around the city, including anti a, pc, airport, -- mta comedies -- mta, puc, airport. we are contributors and leaders, and it is a city challenge now, and i think they've taken seriously now that progress is not being made, and that is why there were not regular updates on the project, that day, as the leaders, are going to step in and ensure that those projects make progress. so we are committed through the subcommittee structure and our regular reports to clearly identify why they are not moving if they are not moving, what we need their assistance on to move them forward, it is resources, conversations we need to have to move the ball forward. i think we can use the committee

to accomplish those goals. supervisor chiu: i hope you are right. i think the challenges with large bureaucracies and the committee is even if you have one body, -- as you know, it is made up of department heads and folks from many departments. there is not a single point of accountability that we are all looking for, but as someone who sits at the table, i look forward to being part of that and seeing what we can do to say that we're going to meet the deadlines that we put down, and that is something i will hopefully be working with the mayor's office to do as well. the other question and comment i have is, obviously, the appendix lays out the potential projects over the next five years. many of these projects, just by their top line description, seem like things that could cut across a lot of apartments. for example, if i look at the mta, it lists projects having to do with asset management, computer room consolidation,

desktop refresh, disaster recovery, help desk management, internet filtering, oracle database consolidation -- these all seem like projects that could cut across a lot of different departments. my concern is that we need robust and strict use of criteria to decide which projects get identified, particularly when their projects get cut across particular departments. as i look at the list, many of them do not seem to be specific to a department as things that we could spend for citywide. >> the motion was made when coit approved tentatively these projects to go forward. the appendix is flat for an

opportunity for consolidation. so we plan on using the coit project review process. every dollar that is expended to the computer store, for example, goes forward. we're going to ask if this is not an opportunity to consolidate, an opportunity to revisit. >> again, i thank you for all your work. we will be talking. supervisor kim: just a couple of follow-up questions as well. one feedback i have gotten from some folks is that it is difficult for a vendor to come for the pipeline if they do not have a level of competency, that they have already contacted with

you. it is certainly not unique to the apartment technology or to the city of san francisco -- it is certainly not unique to the department of technology. i was wondering if this was a serious issue. >> the way we currently do that, to answer your question, you are correct. i think the government has a complex procurement contracting process that is unique from government to government, it was never the same from one city to city or county to city. what we have tried to do, and i know what the office of contract administration has tried to do is be clear with vendors and work with them in advance.

oftentimes, we will have a vendor come in and pitch a great idea, and i'm sure it is frustrating for us to tell them that we cannot just contract with them. that they have to meet city requirements for contract in, and i think the office is doing all they can to streamline the process to make it easier and faster. we also have a great tool in the city which we call the computer store that the office of contract administration manages where vendors who want to provide services or commodities can subcontract to a preapproved vendor and thereby have a contract vehicle where they can provide those services. it does require them to develop some type of relationship or vendor agreement with a preapproved vendor, but it is a process that a lot of states use peer they call the master services agreement, and a lot of other services used to allow those small vendors that do not

have full-time lawyers, that do not have the knowledge of complexity of government contracting to quickly provide services to the city without having to go through what they sometimes see as an onerous process. we are happy if people want to talk to us about it, to try to give some guidance on how we can connect them with the right contacting authorities in the city. supervisor kim: that would be helpful, and also as the province keep that in mind as they did contract thing, the delay in areas of technology where things are changing quickly. i do not want the city to be left behind because it is easier. and i get it -- it is easier to contract with folks we have been contacting with already, and i see it regularly with the approved contract that we begin to folks we have been contacting with, that it is generally an issue across our city departments. around city-wide broadband and wifi access, which i am glad this is listed as one of the

goals -- i wonder if you had any more specificity if there is a time line, the way you are evaluating neighborhoods based on lower income households or percentage of seniors, and what kind of our approach to the will be our ability to partner with private companies. do we have a timeline? >> absolutely. this is where we do have a project. we had set up the steering committee of some department heads and books we think have a good connection to the community office of economic development, we met last month and talk about a list of potential sites that we felt were good potential sites based on need of the population, distribution around the city, ease of implementation from a cost and complexity standpoint. i am happy to share with you and anyone else interested what that looks like, and we think we can rapidly bring some of those sites online in the next few months. supervisor kim: we will start providing free wifi in the next

few months? we have a plan in place in terms of whether it will be going? >> we have a large list. we know we cannot do them all in three months, but we would like to approach three sites every three months and bring up three sites and on, and we think that is doable. supervisor kim: that is great. it would be great to get that list and have the policies developed. i am very happy we are doing this report, and i know it is a positive step forward. while all the goals are laudable, it is hard to see how we are actually going to do it, where it will happen. i think my last question was around moving from traditional pc's to a virtual pc. i wondered what our plans were to do that. i know we have to invest in hardware, i assume, in order to share -- ensure that they run as

fast as pc's do, and while i am not worried about virtualization, i wonder if the city is able to invest. workers will be frustrated at computers moving slower. kind of your thoughts are around that. >> you are right. this is a project that is in its infancy, frankly. this is one of the ideas that was brought to us by the private sector when we met with a lot of the private corporations and private sector folks who said this is where they were investing their time and money for their workers. you are correct that they have the luxury of perhaps more phones and better technology than we do. so we started a pilot in this. we do not want to stifle our workers. we do not want to make it worse for people. some departments in the city had very good networks, a very good equipment that would probably not see the benefit of a project like this. where we see the project benefiting is those