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 small departments whose technology budgets have been cut or their equipment budgets have been cut, and they are perhaps working on pc's that are five or seven years old that are frequently failing or they do not have the money to replace. we actually have the data center consolidation projects already made a lot of those initial investments. it is the same technology we use to virtualize servers. it is looking at an opportunity to leverage technology we have already invested in. we are trying to look at smaller, underserved departments that have come to us begging for use computers, whenever they could get to improve their usage, and see if perhaps this supervisor kim: i do not want to discourage looking into that. those are just some of the

concerns i had about moving in that direction. i am happy looking at that direction. the last question i have is not an area i am super familiar with, but looking at open source software. i know for a lot of the software we by there is often a free alternatives. worrying about security and all of that, -- >> we actually passed a policy encouraging departments that any time they do and rfp for a solution, that they consider open source software for their solution and hope we can save the city money. we have had some limited success and there is concern about the sustainability of that model, there is a concern it will adopt a big critical to the operation and maybe the people whose support will go away, but we are

continuing to look at those opportunities to see if there is perhaps an expensive commercial version or free open source version. i know we use a number of open source solution for getting our work done. supervisor chu: i think a number of people would be interested in the wifi rollout. if you could distribute at two members of the committee and members of the board, i think people would be interested in where those sites would be. the plan in itself is more in general and sort of an overview of the technology programs that are happening. to be used more as a general planning document. one of the programs i am concerned about is the justice project. this may not be that tied to do about i would like to bring folks afford to give us an update about what is happening.

this has been with the city for a long time and i think it is about time we get a debate about what is happening. supervisor chiu: i have a hearing request that has been with the mayor's office for quite some time. i know there has been some transition in leadership but i have been told that the justice group, the newly formed justice team is ready to present. if we can have that with public safety. supervisor mirkarimi: we also had a preliminary with public safety. supervisor chu: why don't we go to public comment on this item? are there any members of the public who wish to speak on an item #8?

seeing the, public, it is closed. -- the seeing none, public comment is closed. why don't we move this item. do we have a motion? supervisor chiu: motion to move it with recommendations. supervisor chu: can we do that without recommendation? item #9. >> a motion extending the deferred retirement option program. supervisor chu: this is an item we have a number of people here to present. i know they will be providing the primary presentation from the comptroller's office and i want to recognize other individuals in the room today -- [reading names]

>> hello, supervisors. i'm from the comptroller's office. there are couple of slides i might be referring to. there are copies for the public here. i am going to go briefly through the summary findings. i'm happy to take questions after. after me, the actuaries, a city may be wishing i had talked longer. just a brief bit of background,

in 2008, this was proposition 8 -- a voluntary program to encourage police officers to continue working beyond the date they would have retired and reduce the need to recruit, hire and train new officers. there is an admonition that the program because neutral to the city. that is the phrasing that is used. the comptroller office has asked to make a finding on the subject at this point. the eligibility requirements, just briefly by way of background, to being dropped to 25 years of service and 50 years of age and then one or three years depending on your rank and eligibility. while someone is in drop, base receive their pay and benefits and make pension contributions. their pension benefit level is frozen at the point which they enter the drop but would have gotten if they retired at that

point. pension payments, i including cost of living increases are placed in a tax-deferred account and they get a lump-sum pay off when they leave drop. that is the basic description. a very quick look at the demographics of people in the drop program. we will speak more to this as well. the data that we looked at, by january, when the report was issued, from the beginning of the drop until january, to under 52 officers had retired. 169 of those, 67% for to is updated and 33% did not. here is the breakdown by rank. police officers have a three- year time frame of eligibility. lt. and captains have one year.

gary has more recent numbers for what has happened since january, but that is a brief look at the demographics. if you look at what has happened within drop -- that is what has happened since dropped, this is a very quick view of the retention in the program. just to explain it a little bit -- here are the first group of police officers who entered. this is a useful member to explain what has gone on. the median eligibility use -- a police officer could stay in the program for three years. how long did they stay? the people who retired used 37 present site of their eligibility or about one year, the same ordeal -- same order of magnitude as sergeants and lieutenants.