accomplishments over the past two years since the last plan was developed. based on some of the main initiatives that were set forth in it. ~ the plan before you today for the next five years is different in a number of ways from the current itt plan. the current ict plan sets forth 10 strategic initiatives while the new plan is the next iteration of that, which really looks at the strategic goals that the city needs to move forward it in the city. ~ the last, the current also was divided by group projects by major service area such as recreation, public safety, but the new plan before you really groups them by the primary goal that they support. we added an additional project category around critical project development which i'll reference a little bit later. the existing plan was more focused on a smaller subset of city departments that were primarily responsible for most of the it spent in the city. but the plan before you today reached out to all city departments, enterprise and general fund and sought to seek what their it needs were over the next five years. so, it's much more expansive than the earlier version. the current plan had descriptions of the it, each of the initiatives that were more for the rationale and anticipated results by the proposed plan, dives a little deeper as the supervisor mentioned earlier. gets more detailed project budgets, includes timelines, and then provides a status on current projects. and then lastly, the financial strategy portion of the plan has been more refined with some additional options added for use of one-time sources of funding as well as looking at new pre-planning funding being available for projects. there were three main guiding priorities for development of the itt plan. innovation, sustainability and resilience. we talk a lot about whether innovation in and of itself should be part of the ict plan and decided whether innovation needed to be looked at across every it project we do in the city and wasn't so much a goal as it was, and i approach how we look at itt projects for city government. sustainability we really talked about two key factors. one, attracting, developing and maintaining it personnel and there was a separate working group with the hr, number of unions and a number of city departments. right now looking at how we can strengthen it hiring and retention efforts in the city. and then also it is important for sustainability is how we plan and how we monitor projects as they go along. and that is emphasized in this plan more than the prior one. and then lastly, looking at the resilience of our it sis at thectionv. -- system. that's both from a disaster pre-faredness system and security. preparedness ~ the new itt plan is based around four strategic goals and this provides an overview of the goals and the [speaker not understood]. the four goals are make government more efficient and effective through technology, improve public access and transparency, strengthen security [speaker not understood], and support and maintain critical infrastructure. -- it infrastructure. there were 122 project requests we received from various city departments that support these goals. ~ the total estimated cost over the five-year period for these 132 projects is $5 48 million. and chanda will be discussing in a few minutes the financial strategies set forth in the plan for addressing that significant need. and then i also wanted to mention there is a table within the plan itself starting on page 53 that provides full listing of all 132 it projects by department by fiscal year request over the five-year period and then also which specific strategic goals they support. the next few slides just provide a summary of examples of the information that are in the plan. using goal 1 here making government more efficient and effective through technology, each of the plans have two or three strategies that we felt were essential in order to achieve the goal. in this case it's maximizing the use and effectiveness of current technology to provide the best service possible. deploy viable technology with tangible benefits to constituents and support green technology to reduce the city's carbon footprint. and then here there are a number of featured projects throughout the plan. we have some major initiatives and future projects that support each of the goals as well as the full listing of the projects. and one of the things i want to point out here which we'll reference more when we get to the financial strategies discussion is the functional category break out that we did for each of the projects. in addition to the -- looking at projects whether they were new or replacement or maintenance effort, we added the new critical project development category, and that was really to focus on pre-project development and planning so that the committee in coyt had a better understanding of what was really needed for that project before we made a significant investment of city resources. so, the next few slides just provide other summaries of goals 2, 3 and 4 in terms of how each of those goals are supported with the detailed strategies and some of the featured projects of those. we can go into any of those in more detail if you have any questions. so, at this point i want to turn it over to chanda who will talk about the financial strategies portion. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is chanda chan from the [speaker not understood]. i wanted to give you an overview of the city-wide it budget as supervisor chiu mentioned. as you can see here, the city budget is approximately $208 million in the current year for it. as you can see, 59%, a large portion of that budget, is for personnel costs which is i think more than we anticipated. if we look at the professional services that is a little over 10%, and that is a little lower than we anticipated. so, i just thought this was an interesting way of looking at how the city spends its money now as we look at the five-year request going forward. this slide here, again, shows the requests that have come through. [speaker not understood] request by general fund and nongeneral fund projects. you can see 293 million was the request that comes through as nongeneral fund projects that represents 53% and 55 projects. those projects have identified sources of funding. on the general fund side there are 47% of requests at 254 million. those have at this stage only 49.1 million in identified funding which is the general fund coit commitment that the city has made and the current ict plan. so, that leaves a 205 million dollar funding gap we are looking at. a substantial portion of that 205 million is the replacement of several legacy it system in the city. ~ there is the city's replacement of financial system which is $72 million request. replacement of the public safety radio system which is 69 million. the replacement of the city tax system to the assessor and treasury tax collector, those are approximately 20 million. so, though four requests we consider major it investments and they makeup a substantial portion of the general fund credit. ~ request. this next slide shows the relationship of those major it investments over the course of the five years with the other departmental requests. the major it investments are in red and in blue are the other departmental requests. and you can see that low line going along the bottom, the green line, is the current coit allocation. so, you can see the substantial funding gap that we're looking at. and, so, there were many considerations that needed coit was looking at when developing the financial strategies. a lot of these financial strategies that are in the fct plan are building off of what is in the current plan. this plan does have the financial strategies categorized. the first category is improving planning and increasing collaboration. this is, again, emphasizing the importance of planning and critical project development for these major projects. this is underneath this category is also project deferral which as you can imagine, many of the project requests that have come through will need to be deferred over five years. under alternative funding sources is the financial strategy of sharing city-wide costs between general fund and enterprise departments. a large it project that comes to mind recently was emerge was funded in this way. this may be something we look into for future projects. also under this category is the identification of state and federal grants to help pay for some of these projects. and the last category is budget reallocation, and this is something new that i guess some of the items in here are new to ict plan. i want to highlight the first bullet which is identification of one-time versus the funding. i don't think this is new in terms of how the city funds projects, but it is something that is called out in this plan. and the second bullet is, again, funding the general fund commitment that we already have in the current plan. this final slide is showing how these financial strategies help us reduce that funding gap. so, you can see at the top, again, the 254 million in requests, and the first financial strategy is grow general allocation by 10%. 10.1 million. that leaves us with 205 million left to reduce. the second strategy is improve planning and increase collaboration. this is really identified projects where there are opportunities to consolidate efforts. we have identified approximately 12 million in that area. the third is project deferrals. so, what really this large category of strategy is suggesting is that we will not be able to fund all of the major it investments over the course of the five years, that we will need to make some difficult decisions about potentially deferring some of them. and that is at 4 million. the second to last one is alternative funding sources. this is suggesting that if we were to fund one or more of the major it investments, that we would need to share some of those costs between general fund and enterprise departments. and the final strategy that we looked at is budget reallocation, and that is the identification of one-time sources of funding to help us meet this funding gap. so, that is, you know, the -- i guess this is an overview of what the plan is recommending. there are no funding recommendations in this plan. one of the things that we will be doing going forward is the budgeting -- budget and planning subcommittee is reviewing projects for the next two years. that committee will have recommendations and quite will make recommendations based on that. again, another area that supervisor chiu mentioned that coit will be working on over the next few months and years is the improvement of city-wide performance measures and metrics. and finally, we will continue to review opportunities for collaboration, standardization and consolidation city-wide. thank you. >> colleague, any questions, comments at this point? supervisor avalos. >> i'm just looking at your table on page 15. a lot of these line item look kind of the same to me, you know, grow coit general allocation 10% a year. how is that different from the budget reallocation at the bottom of that chart? alternative funding sources, could that be budget reallocation, too? part of deferral -- it's just not clear there is anything substantial. >> the current ict plan there is a commitment the city has made to increase the general fund allocation. at that time it was 6.6 million. to increase that by 10% every year. and, so, in 2014 that amount is $8 million. so, that is something that as the budget and planning subcommittee is reviewing projects, that is the commitment level that the city has made. and when the decisions are made and projects are prioritized, it's using that amount. i think the budget reallocation is a little bit different in that as we look at some of these major it investments and the amount of the coit allocation, there really is no way that these major it investments can be funded through the coit allocation as it is right now. they're just substantially larger than we have in any given year. so, really, the budget reallocation is really saying that when there are one-time sources of funding available that perhaps it projects are prioritized for some of those funds. so, that's how that is different. project deferral is really saying that through greater planning, we can sequence a lot of these projects. so, those projects have the greatest priority are then funded and then we go through the process of, you know, continually reviewing those to make sure that the city is supporting the goals that are highlighted in the plan. >> i look at them as very broad guidelines. >> yes, they are. >> [speaker not understood]. not magic. last question touched upon, drilling down deeper into the program within coit, i recall when i was chair of the budget committee a few years back, every year and before that, every year there was the [speaker not understood] would come forward. i haven't heard -- they didn't come before budget last year and i'm not sure if it came before us the year before, i don't recall. and just wondering where -- what the status is of that project. i know it was a very large allocation that we made year after year and i'm happy that we haven't had to do any reallocation for that, but just kind of wondering where things are, how that project is coming together. >> supervisor, i believe if it came before the budget committee, it was likely more at the request of budget committee members. there's been an ongoing allocation for the justice project as a continuing project previously within the department of technology for the past couple of years. it's been within the city administrator's office. there are no new coit requests or increased funding requests related to that project so that's probably why it also hasn't come up on the radar. regarding status update, that's one of the projects the performance committee is looking at, updates. the most recent one, i understand, is that they are looking at the end of this calendar year to be able to complete some of the additional modules. one of the biggest questions is the court system which we have somewhat limited control over, being able to get them to move as quickly as we'd like and to prioritize their work in order to connecting with the system. >> okay, thank you. >> thanks, supervisor avalos. any other questions, colleagues? okay, seeing none, thank you very much, much appreciated. all right. mr. clerk, did we call items 4 and 5 together here? >> yes. >> so, at this point open it up to public comment. anybody want to comment on item 4 or 5, please step forward. thank you for the opportunity. my name is mort ray field and i was a member of last year's civil grand jury. there are other members in the audience who were my colleagues in this adventure. you may recall the government audit oversight committee has reported back to you on our report earlier this season. i'm not quite sure if it was in this calendar year, but i think it was in the last calendar year. a number of our recommendations and finding have a bearing on what's before you today. while an improvement over the current ict plan, the proposed ict plan is hardly sufficient in our -- looking at this as a city in-house technology plan. there is not much strategic about it. we find the proposed plan remains primarily project and department oriented while four very general goals are stated in the proposal there were very few measurements that could portray their success. since coit and the ict plan are relatively new, many projects have preceded the goals. the reverse of the traditional way to plan for progress. within the proposed plan, little mention is made of specific savings or efficiencies from new projects nor ways of calculating them. recent efforts may have introduced -- wow, is that a minute? >> you have 30 seconds left on that. if you have 30 seconds left, specific saving or efficiencies, recent efforts have introduced timelines and budgets when few timelines and budgets have been met historically and there's no penalty for failure that is mentioned. there is no mention of current trouble projects -- skew me, president chiu mentioned earlier. is that my -- >> why don't you keep going for a minute. sure. okay. i only have two minutes to go. applied to the four general goals, there is very little discretion of city values and strategies for technology development city-wide. nothing or mean for improvement and cooperation and communication among departments a major need the jury found is commented on. this would require understanding and working on organization, design, and policy for considering the plan to become strategic. there is little unintroducing priorities for technology personnel, equipment and money particularly on a city-wide basis. the ict plan need to develop into a road map for the future, a useful plan should provide direction as well as goals for technology development. where we want to go, why we want to go there, and how to get there. the plan needs to provide underlying philosophy and values to city-wide technology. it need to provide guidelines to action to achieve well thought out goals, budgets, financial direction are just one part of a planning process. ~ there is little effort in this and the current plan to describe one measure technology on a city-wide basis. this eliminates knowing how the city is doing overall within in-house technology. there is no city-wide data on the city-wide technology plan. perhaps that's a reflection of the history of city-wide technology culture. [speaker not understood] the board of supervisors to urge city administration to engage in a more comprehensive city-wide technology planning process. the civil grand jury's report found city technology to be mired in a culture that focuses on departmental independence in technology. a major step in promoting greater focus on overarching city values in city technology would be through a serious strategic plan. that may mean moving -- >> martin, could i ask you to wrap up? you're over the time. two sentences. may move further away from the passive role of responding to department initiatives into promoting and developing programs and initiatives that meet city-wide objectives. we believe the payoff is well worth the effort. >> thank you very much and for all your service on the grand jury. next speaker, please. hi, my name is todd [speaker not understood] and i was a member of the same civil grand jury that looked at technology in the city. i just wanted to add one thing. when supervisor chiu was here, he mentioned that we're looking at like a 500 million dollars worth of needs and about a $200 million shortfall. based on, you know, they're just sort of starting the coit plan in a lot of ways and they're not used to this sort of five-year planning cycle. so, a lot of the numbers that are in there are for the first couple of years. and if you just kind of extrapolate those numbers out, i think we're looking at more like an $850 million amount of requests and about a $300 million shortfall. and $285 million worth of that is from the general fund. and at, you know, the current allocation of about $9 million when adding 10% every year, we're never going to get to $285 million. so, we have to figure something out. >> okay, much appreciated. any other member of the public wish to comment on items 4 or 5? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, we have -- this hearing has been held. can we pass a motion to table item number 4? do so without opposition. [gavel] >> and we have a resolution in front of us adopting the five-year it plan. we can move that forward with recommendation. [gavel] >> mr. clerk, can you please call -- oh, sorry. i have one more thing. can we take a motion to excuse supervisor eric mar from today's meeting? can we do so without opposition? he is feeling ill. okay, so moved. and mr. clerk, do we have any other items? >> that completes the agenda. >> okay, we are adjourned. [gavel]