a scenario of 34 for record of comparison and a scenario where we repurpose cj 2 to the level of security housing that is being proposed in the original project. as well we are looking at a project that would situate the facility whether 512 or 384 entirely within the san bruno location. we are looking into this. it's my response. >> in terms of the analysis coming out shortly, i'm glad we are doing that. i think it's very important to continue to make decisions on this, are you basically going to wait for that analysis before moving forward on considering the various

options? >> we are expecting to assemble our appreciation for the different scenarios both in logistical and budgetary. it's a matter of examining which of them demonstrate more feasibility than the other so to speak and as far as the policy which to advance is outside of our view of public works. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? >> yes, mr. hicker, i just want to ask, the 340 bed option, what is that cj 2 and the rebuild of cj 3 combined. what is that 340, 80 bed option? >> that 340 is a unit of

construction of what is possible at the bryant street site. it's 128 less than 512 which is our two pods of 64 beds a piece. it's an exercise of a function we know that is feasible at that location for the configuration of that particular pod. it could be variable on the 64 number. >> okay. i do feel like the upcoming hearing that will come up will allow us to understand more of the decline in the jail population and the need and having it with some of your staff, i see the safety issues, improving the visitation area like san bruno. so i definitely understand the conditions and to some of the public commenters, the safety of the prison population and dignity and humanity of the

conditions there are really important. but i still see the community side are advocating if the numbers are going down, why do we need to rebuild. i do want to say from my perspective, splitting off this part of the capital plan to talk more about the jail, i guess, i'm open to that because i know that's what's been advocated. i don't sense there is a majority of support on this body but pulling individual items off the capital plan defeats the purpose of having a citywide capital plan. i will ask brian or mr. seg era, if we strip this from the plan what would be the impact? >> first i will respond, whatever the number of beds that the city should decide to commit to provide within the context of a new facility, the

most effective and efficient way to accomplish that is through a single venue billion -- building, so to speak. the difference to respond to different buildings, then we create greater cost and less efficiency to services for those individuals held in the facility. time will tell a couple weeks before we arrive to this understanding how that resonates especially around the accept i don't -- scenario of cj 2. i will let brian talk about the capital plan. >> thank you, supervisor mar for the question. the capital plan is just that, it is a plan. it's a planning document. it does not

appropriate dollars, or the sale of bonds and doesn't even require that we apply for a grant. those are subsequent actions that you would need to take. i think it's important for the capital plan to continue to put it's best foot forward in steps. and stay cohesive. i would further avoid moving away from the project. i see that we part of what we do is we come up with the best numbers as we can and that's why we come back every 2 years to do this and we also recognize when legislation goes forward, when bonds go forward, when those things go forward, the

numbers change. that's part of the process. we when we get more information, we want to change the plan. i think it's the best focus for today and that's where we came out with the numbers on this issue. >> i want to defer to the capital plan, i know in 48 hills, tim red mond the bond that the mayor is proposing and doubling that to $500 million . i know we have a $1.7 billion bonding capacity. but where is the focus that housing is addressing the affordable housing addressing the crisis before us and is it anywhere?

>> i was surprised we were going to get through more discussion on this without regard to the housing bond. i can't speak to the numbers i would allow kate howard to talk about that and the housing crisis. again when the capital plan was created i think it was in 2005. that timeframe where we added a similar crisis to let just let the capital plan focus on city owned infrastructure. it doesn't mean that we don't ignore the other critical and housing issues. i would think the housing crisis would contribute

to that and whether the soft story proposal for geo bond for soft story and i think it's perfectly legitimate to talk about here. i don't know if you would talk about that. i know if the numbers go up, it will impact the other programs, the public health bond and i saw two other folks who just left but it will affect the critical projects that are in the line waiting to come forward. >> ms. howard? >> thank you, supervisor. kate howard, budget director. a couple things to respond, director spoke accurately about the impact about potentially increasing the housing bond on the rest

of the geo bond program. over the last nearly 10 years now that the capital plan has been in existence worked really hard to sequence the bonds and to ensure that we stay under the property tax cap which allows us to talk about our bond attend insures that all the members of the public don't go up even though we are measuring the capital work. that's the 1st thing. the second is i would encourage us to think about is how that bond or type of approach may fit into a broader capital plan over time. so you will note that the capital plan has sort of a repetition almost of bonds that flow through it. so you see an easter bond, health bond and now a transportation bond and for the first time the

mayor is proposing housing bond to be part of that. i do think we might think about how to sequence that kind of a bond into our overall planning over time. the third thing i would say to your question about what's enough. this has been one of the mayor's top priorities since he took office. he started out by creating the housing trust fund. that's been a huge source of revenue to affordable housing production but that started in the wake of redevelopment solution. that was one of his first priorities. we've done a little bit of looking and i would be happy to talk to you about it off lean -- line but over the next few years we'll been investing nearly 2.5 billion $2.5 billion

through a newspaper of different financial tools through gop, bonds, trust funds and housing fees and inclusionary fees. the $250 million bond that it mayor has propose is 1 piece as part of a major package. i would be happy to talk to you more about and go through the details of and this is certainly his stop priority and we are looking to spending more than $100 million each of the next 20 years on affordable housing. >> can i add that rehabbing public housing and small sites acquisition and rehab are really really important and i'm supportive but i know with the bay area government regional housing needs assessment goals of 60% of hosing --

housing be affordable and like you said it's really important but not getting to what the huge need is. i appreciate those comments. >>supervisor katy tang: i know that a lot of this capital project has been focused on the jail and swapping out with other priorities. i would just say that from my understanding from past approvals of our capital plan, there have been actually changes. i don't know if this provides any reassurance for any committee members but there have been changes that were made even after a capital plan was adopted. when we were talking about 2014, i was supportive of animal control as part of that bond, however it was not part of that, it was pushed off until later. secondly i know that the crime lab was going to be part of easter one but was part of our second easter bond

and now the public health bond and that will include animal control and station 49 and in terms of the transportation bond that we all unanimously worked on, that was also mained as part of our efforts that we could have a geo bond last year in 2014. i think the capital plan really lays out a framework for us in identifying needs that we have in the city overall. i would feel comfortable moving this item forward because again even though we have passed our capital plans, there have been changes that come subsequently and for example the conversation about the jails really warrants a larger discussion and that would come to the hearing that supervisor kim has called an we

look forward inform participating in that but to move forward i would move this resolution forward. i'm glad that san francisco has this plan. it helped us move forward on big significant projects. i know that you spent a lot of time on this. thank you. >> supervisor yee? >> >>supervisor norman yee: i concur with supervisor tang. i am support ever -- supportive of this plan. if we are going to make any decisions about the jail, we need to have a separate and thorough discussion about that. i'm more than willing to see this move forward. i know that things can change. a few years ago there was no housing bond and now it's included. so i will be supporting the motion to move it forward.

>> supervisor mar? >> yeah, thank you. i agree with supervisor yee's approach as well. you mentioned the cascading of bonds over the years and mr. strong did as well, just want to ask what is the san francisco unified school district and community college district may have impacts on this as well? >> we don't have authority or control over the issuance of bonds by the school district or the city college district. they are part of our capital plan as an external agency and in fact they model the capital plan and moving forward with the general obligation bond since 2016. they have not given us a number as to what that will be. the city college, they are really sort of evaluating and we heard from

the new facilities director capital plan they are evaluating what they need and don't need. they have expressed no intention at this time of doing any type of a bond. >> but possibly as schools bond sometime in 2016. >> in november of 2016 is what we heard. >> thank you. >> okay, from my part, mr. strong, i want to thank you for all of your hard work and concur with the statements that the city had historically not done the type of planning that we have a foresight in the process. i think we are very fortunate that we have that process. thank you for your hard work and getting here today. all right. colleagues we have this item in front of us and budget analyst to approve this item. >>supervisor katy tang: i would like to recommend this to go to the

full board with a positive recommendation. >> we have a motion and second. we'll take that without objection. >> item no. 3. 5-year information and communication technology plan fy 2016-2020.: >> okay. are you all set. >> good afternoon chair ferrell, members of the committee. i'm the director on the committee on information technology. on behalf of koit, it's my pleasure to present to you the proposed communication and technology plan for fiscal

years 2016-20. before i begin my presentation i have a request to make an amendment to the legislation. there is a typo online 12, the whereas clause where approved this plan on february 26, 2016, it should say february 2015. >> if i can start that presentation. the itp plan to fund and plan the projects to align with the city's goals to be innovative and resilient. it's updated every other year and adopted by the board of supervisors by may one of 2015. a major part of the development

of the ict plan koit gathered data over the last year to widen perspectives and balance for a citywide vision and approach.

>> we also recognize the work of jay nash and the work at the it highering group led by the department of human resources and they are looking at how we recruit and train and higher it professionals in the city. and most recently the community's cio, we have a plan for the city. through a series of strategic it sessions koit has recognized two major opportunities for the city and these are a shared strategies for the city and as well as the public strategies for the city and thinking about all the ways that the city engages with the public.

major components through the plan and through the annual process koit makes recommendations annually to the next 2 fiscal years. all projects are evaluated based on their impact and supportive it plans strategical that are out lined here and goal one was established as the highest priority for us to be focused on which is support, maintain and secure critical infrastructure. followed by increased sufficiency and effectiveness and improved access and transparency. through the budgeting process koits provides funding for a number of

sources. the annual allocation to address all of general fund needs. one of the biggest highlights is the i guess of major project funding for several major legacy systems. so the addition of this allocation has increased the general fund sources the in this plan by $91 million and approximately 200% increase from what we have identified 2 years ago in the plan. and the last two categories, the sponsoring department of the department is fund to use on the technology project and to some rate of allocation for general fund and non-general fund departments to help fund the citywide effort. non-general fund sources can range from enterprise department funding, departments who have internal operating funds to pay for projects as

well as grant funding. >> the focus on the general fund portions that i recommended immediately, recommending $150 million in general fund. as you can see the major it projects allocation has substantially increasing the city's ability to fund critical it projects. >> in the current 5-year cycle they have received funds like never before totaling $613 million over the 5 years. the addition of the major project has enabled the city to fund the projects however with a $61 million will

have to prioritize. a substantial amount of general fund request are coming from three major it projects defined by koit as complex, multi-departmental and major legacy system for the city. the three projects we have identified in the plan are not new to this plan. they were identified 2 years ago. these projects are the financial systems replacement project. the public safety and public service, radio project and property tax data base. these are $101 million in general fund over the 5-year plan. ultimately as koit takes a look at these projects in the annual budget cycles, there are a number of strategies that we have to consider in thinking about how and what the city can afford in any 2-year period. i think most importantly one of

the things strategies that we know that maybe necessary is project sequencing, understanding the city will most likely not be able to afford all of these projects at the same time. so in the i ct plan in the radio replacement projects have been identified as high priorities and through the business or occupation -- work their various permits will begin over the next several years. this project requires another year to complete that process at which time the assess or recorder for review. we also want to highlight to you the potential need which

is the department of public health unified electronic medical records project. this project is estimated to be around $225. million. currently we are not considering this as a major ict project as they may have internal, they can pay for this project within their internal operating budget. but we are tracking it as if because should they require funding, it would change our major fund project. understanding the major funding project allocation is a single general fund source that will be evaluated during the cycle and the ict makes a funding recommendation for the major it project allocations.

so ultimately the recommendation that the ict major project has for recommendations that it's completed annually and the second recommendation to the extend possible. koit recommends allocating one time funds to project and should that fund become available and ultimately the city funds project for project mrems dshg implementation and not based on budget constraints. the second general fund allocation that i wanted to discuss a little bit today is the annual project allocation. again historically this was the one funding source for all general fund request. for it, we are assuming $59 million over the can course of 5 years, as you can see there is 110 million requestover that time period

and through this process koit will have to determine the highest priorities to fund over the next 2 years. one project that has risen to the top is depth of technology network project. this project has been identified as a priority due to the facts that it is helping to fix some of the city's core it infrastructure. so the foundation for which all of our other project need to be built on including a number of our major it projects. this project started in the current fiscal year. over the next 5 years it's estimated at another million dollars. the recommendation for annual projects allocation, the first is to don't grow this fund by 10% annually, the second recommendation in consideration all of the many critical ict infrastructure needs that we have as a city to

take a look at the funding allocation it's for the next year and the third recommendation to identify one time funds help fund priority projects for the city. lastly i just wanted to give a little preview, we are working on a micro site for the ict plan and make it more accessible and more transparent. this is a sdeen for our home page as well as the inter pages of our website. that is my presentation. thank you very much. i am available to answer any questions. i know that miguel gammano is also available. >> thank you very much. i'm just curious relative to other cities and so forth, have we done a study of our