Budget & Performance Subcommittee April 1, 2016 · 4/1/2016 · City Demand for VoIP / Unified Communications & Collaboration • VoIP saves costs and provides more features than

Budget & Performance SubcommitteeApril 1, 2016

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 305

San Francisco, CA 94102

1

AGENDA

1.Call to Order by Chair

2.Roll Call

3.Approval of Minutes

4.FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 Budget Presentations

5.Public Comment2

3. Approval of MinutesAction Item

3

4. FY 2016-17 & FY 2017-18 Budget Presentations

4

Fix the NetworkDepartment of Technology

5

Existing Problems

Network performance

& VPN

Data Center Connections

InefficientRouting Design Security

Fix the Network

Fix the Network Summary

Key Tasks

• Update legacy network equipment (e.g. routers)

• Optimize network routing (choose best paths)

• Simplify network topology (neater design)

• Enhance security (less intrusion)

• Enable internet failover (no interruption)

• Eliminate single points of failure (no weakest link)

Outcomes• More resilient and secure network (enables re‐routing)

• Higher network availability (less downtime)

• Easier maintenance (lower support costs)

• Greater network throughput (e.g. better streaming)

• Standardized network (more plug‐and‐play)

• Greater capacity for growth (to meet demand)

• Enhanced data & voice quality (clearer phone calls)

The goal is to have a scalable, secure, resilient, high‐availability network that can accommodate future applications and support the growing mobile landscape.

Accomplishments Since December 2015

8

Accomplishments Related Project or Initiative

Resource

WiFi infrastructure completed – expanded with failover capabilities (because of an extra controller at Rancho Cordova)

Expand Wireless Network Team

Brought up ONS ring on CCSF network, connecting three data center facilities

ONS Network and Data Center Teams

Migration and upgrade of secure FTP platform completed Simplify Security & Internet Failover

Security Team

A new, redundant circuit deployed to SFO Reduce Single Points of Failure

Network Team

Remaining FY 15-16 Activities

9

Activities Related Project or Initiative

Resource

Complete high level and detailed level designs, to prepare for later implementation of new firewalls and VPN infrastructure

Simplify Security Network TeamCisco

Migrate off of AT&T external IP addresses Internet Failover Network Team

Migrate network devices to newly installed ACS (Access Control Server) environment

Upgrade Security and Network Hardware

Network TeamSecurity Team

Build out Rancho Cordova leg of ONS (phase 2) ONS Network Team

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun July‐Sept Oct‐Dec Jan‐Mar Apr‐Jun

Fix the Network

Update Internet Facing Hardware & Software

Enable Internet Failover

Expand Wireless Capacity

Enhance Remote Access

Eliminate Single Points of Failure

Optimize Routing

Simplify Network Security

Wireless Capacity

Expanded

More Resilient Network

Network Design Complete

Network Configurations Simplified and

Secured

Today

Input: ONS deployed

Update Customer Fiber WAN Hardware & Software

ONS Phase 1 ONS Phase 2

2015-16 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

11

KPI # Project Component Key Performance Indicator Measurement Target Current Status

1 Update Hardware/Software Increased Throughput 25% Faster Routing

Performance 0%

2 Eliminate Single Points of Failure

Reduction in Single Points of Failure 50% Reduction in SPOFs 13%

3 Simplify Security Reduction in Access Control Lists 15% Reduction of ACLs 2%

4 Optimize Routing Reduction in Routing Distribution Points

25% Reduction in distribution points 0%

5 Remote Access Faster, Simpler, Secure Connection 25% Faster VPN connection 0%

6 Expand Wireless Greater WiFi Capacity 25% Increase in WiFi capacity 100%

Fix the NetworkTotal Funds Received (Year to Date)

Status Comment

Scope ONS was introduced 2015 Q4.

Schedule 20% complete, lagging due to unforeseen complexities and insufficient resources.

Budget On track.

Total Project Cost

Total COIT Funding

Total Other GF Funding

Total NGF Funding

Total NGF + GF Funding

Total Spent

$4,446,667 $4,446,667 - - $4,446,667 $3,772,770

Risks Resource Retention

Fix the NetworkSpend (Actuals) – which has been sourced mostly from COIT funding

Equipment, Tools and Services Cost FY Spend

NetBrain (Tool for network discovery, mapping and diagnostics) $242,840 FY 14-15

SmartNet (Cisco maintenance) $221,369 FY 14-15ASR 1002 Upgrade Aggregation services router enabling multiple WAN connections, encryption & traffic management. (Upgrade of card from 1Gb to 10 Gb) $64,871 FY 14-15

Firewalls (Total of six) $1,089,838 FY 14-15

Firewall Design Services Cisco consulting services $270,710 FY 14-15ACS 5.6 (2) Access control server platform supporting an identity-based networking solution for Cisco intelligent information networks (replacing ACS 4.2) $60,746 FY 14-15

Wireless Controllers Provides visibility, scalability, and reliability needed for highly secure, enterprise-scale wireless networks $895,659 FY 14-15

Cisco Prime Network management strategy and product portfolio that simplifies management operations $148,836 FY 14-15

New ASR 1002 (2) Replacing 1002s at Rancho to support multiple 10 Gb links $177,753 FY 15-16Network Switches Replacing old Juniper switches and support 10 Gb at 200 Paul Avenue and Rancho Cordova facilities $290,000 FY 15-16

Salaries & Benefits Network Engineer $273,000 FY 15-16

ONS Upgrade Amplifier for SFO to DEM leg $37,148 FY 15-16

TOTAL Through March 2016: $3,772,770

Equipment, Tools and Services Cost FY Spend Origin of Funds

City Hall and Fox Plaza Network Upgrade 20 wiring closets + core switches (Q3 FY16) $950K FY 15‐16 COIT

Extranet Re‐Configuration Switch and router replacements (Q3 FY16) $100K FY 15‐16 COIT

Physical Fiber & WAN Augmentation Multi‐PlexingSwitches (Q3 FY16) $350K FY 15‐16 COIT

Encumbered Total $1.4M

Total Spend To Date $3.8M

Total Project Cost $5.2M

Balance $0

Fix the NetworkFY 15-16 To-Be Encumbered

Fix the NetworkBudget Request for FY 16-17 and FY 17-18

Project Budget FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18 Description Benefit

Software $62K $62K DNS software/licenses Network and Security Upgrade

Hardware $2.4M $1.7M Routers, Switches, andUPS Equipment

Network Performance Upgrade

Professional Services $475K $125K Implementation for

Network Equipment

Network Performance Upgrade

Total Project Cost $2.94M $1.89M

VoIP ProjectDepartment of Technology

16

City and County of San Francisco Department of Technology

City Demand for VoIP / Unified Communications & Collaboration

• VoIP saves costs and provides more features than traditional PBX

• 20K End-points (desksets)

• Six Identified Contact Centers

• Department of Technology considered multi-year costs across the following alternatives:

Existing Telecom

New On-premise

New Fully Hosted

Department of Technology*City HallRetirementAdult ProbationSF EnvironmentRec & ParkController (1155 Mkt)311HSS25 and 30 Van Ness AvenueHSADPH / HospitalsSFPD Facilities

17

Where is the Demand?

1

2

3

Currently on-premise, DT-supported call management system


Objectives and Outcomes for the City

Objectives

• Review telecom marketplace for leading providers/solutions

• Evaluate City network/Internet capacity for Cloud VoIP

• Provide recommendations for Citywide solutions• Conduct Pilots/POCs• RFP preparation and management

Outcomes

• Dramatically decreased telecom. costs• Simplified, rapid deployment of services• High quality, reliable video conferencing & unified

communications• Fully enabled mobile functionality• Location agnostic service• Enhanced functionality for all users and Contact

Centers

18

The goal is to have a cost-effective, secure, high quality, scalable voice and unified communication system that addresses needed upgrades for end-of-life phone systems and contact center functionality.


Summary of Options and ROI

19

Existing

(Avaya + Cisco)

CISCO UC

On-Prem. Upgrade

HOSTED

(Cloud)

ONE‐TIME

EQUIP & STAFF $4.0M 33M +7M = $40M $36.0M $5.4M +$1M= $6.4M $2.6M

ANNUAL RECURRING

LIC. / MAINT. $5.0M $6.6M $1.6M $6.5M + $1.2M = $7.7M $2.7M

CIRCUITS $13.0M $1.0M ($12.0M) $1.0M ($12.0M)

OPEX $18.0M $7.7M ($10.3M) $8.7M ($9.3M)

TOTAL $22.0M PAYBACK 3.5 yrs. 3.5 mos.

1 2 3

FY16-17 COIT Ask$3.0M POCs +$500K Prof. Svcs.

311 Call Recording and Quality Analysis ReplacementAdministrative Services

20

Project Objective• The objective of this project is to upgrade or replace only the components needed to bring recording, monitoring, and quality assurance systems back on line.

• The project assumes the replacement of all the included components if a partial solution can't be found.

• This is a short term fix with a long term benefit of upgrading core components shared by other CCSF agencies.

Major Stakeholders• SF311 is the central intake point for requests for service and information. All departments count on accurate information and the ability to use SF311 call data to validate information provided to clients.

311 Call Recording & Quality Analysis ReplacementSF311

21

Problem Trying to Solve:• Our call recording applications are connected to an aging shared telephone system. The applications are required to validate information provided to the public and validate (or refute) claims made against the City.

• In Nov 2015, one of the servers failed, causing the call evaluation system to stop working. Due to the age of the systems, the vendors were not able to bring the system back on line, and SF311 has been unable to use the call recording options for call validation, auditing, or quality control purposes.


22

Project Implementation Stages/Phases


Planning Installation TestingTraining

Go Live

Dates: Month 1 Month 2 –Month 3

Month 4 –Month 5

Month 6

23

Project Budget FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18Number of FTE 1 1FTE Classifications 1042 1042Salary & Fringe $137,155 $137,155Software $574,187 ‐Hardware $63,167 ‐Professional Services $189,977 ‐Materials & Supplies ‐ ‐Total Project Cost $964,486 $140,613


24

311 CRM – Digital Services UpgradeAdministrative Services

25

Project Objective:• Stay within Vendor Supported product versions• Provide responsive web forms with improved logic and workflow• Fix major compatibility issues with department applications• Provide improved access to information on department Websites• Provide detailed analytics and usability metricsMajor Stakeholders• Public• City Agencies

311 CRM – Digital Services UpgradeSF311

26

Problem Trying to Solve:311 is the primary contact center when the public needs information or service. Departments count on the information and processes defined in the CRM to be accurate and complete. Technology continues to evolve and compatibility gaps impacts both the customers and employees. This project:• Provides responsive web forms with improved logic and workflow• Fixes major compatibility issues with department applications• Provides improved access to information on department Websites• Provides detailed analytics and usability metrics• Improves the core integration services for connected departments


27


Planning Installation TestingTraining

Go Live

Dates: M 1 – 3 M 4 – M6 M7 M8


28

Project Budget FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18Number of FTE 0 ‐FTE Classifications N/A ‐Salary & Fringe N/A ‐Software $11,644 ‐Hardware 0 ‐Professional Services $200,000 ‐Materials & Supplies 0 ‐Total Project Cost $211,644 ‐


29

E-Filing Conversion ProjectEthics Commission

30

Project Objective• Strengthen government transparency and accountability.• Simplify steps needed to comply with the law.• Improve public access to information.• Increase accuracy when completing disclosure forms.• Increase efficiency of processing forms.• Leverage existing electronic systems city‐wide.

Major Stakeholders• Public & Press• Department Filing Officers• Designated (Department) Filers of Conflict of Interest Forms (ex. Form 700)• Regulated Community (Developers, Consultants, & Contractors)


31

Problem Trying to Solve1. Paper disclosure forms are manually processed and difficult for public to access:

2. Campaign disclosure data on SF Open Data is too complex and lacks critical research information.


Forms Total Paper Filings Per Year

Form 700 (Designated Filers Only) > 3,200 annuals

Sunshine Ordinance Declaration, Certificate of Ethics Training & Gifts of Travel Reports

> 820

Permit Consultants, Major Developers, Campaign Consultants, City Contracts

> 830

Total > 4,850

32


Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5

Dates: FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021

Description: Sunshine Cert.

Ethics Training Cert.

Gift Disclosure Report

City‐wide Form 700 (Jan. 1, 2018)

Campaign Finance API (June 30, 2018)

MajorDeveloper Report

City ContractReport

PermitConsultant Report

Campaign Consultant Report


33

Project Budget FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18Number of FTE 1 1

FTE Classifications 1052 1052

Salary & Fringe $111,296 $149,771

Software ‐ ‐

Hardware ‐ ‐

Professional Services $90,000 $80,000

Materials & Supplies ‐ $50,000

Total Project Cost $201,296 $279,771


34

Status Comment

Scope

Schedule

Budget

Commission has existing funds of $50,000 to pay for first-year of City-wide Form 700 licenses.

Total Project Cost

Total COIT Funding To Date


Total NGF Funding


Total Spent

$1,517,882 ‐ $50,000 ‐ $50,000 ‐

Risks

- Meet and confer with unions regarding e-filing of Form 700 could delay deployment.- Legislative changes are necessary to require electronic filing of some forms.

Project Start:

Project End:E-Filing Conversion ProjectEthics Commission

Start Date: July 1, 2016

End Date: June 30, 2021

35

Legislation DraftingBoard of Supervisors

36

Legislative Drafting and Management SystemBoard of Supervisors

Project Objective: Systematize and Integrate all practices that make up the Legislative Process Streamline the development for generating, amending, tracking and sending legislation Standardize format and style, and provide ability to store, retrieve and share legislation Legislative Compliance Control to ensure compliance with relevant federal, state and local laws/regulations

Support open government efforts by delivering legislation in a machine readable format Replace Legacy Legislative and Agenda Management System (Legistar) Integrate existing archives with Records Digitization Project Automate the process to send finally approved Legislation to the Code Publisher Social Media Integration and Enhancement, Online Public Engagement and Comment Forum Integrate with various Mobile technologies Public Records Request Search Portal

Major Stakeholders: Every City official, department, agency who submits or introduce legislation Members of the Public

37

Problem Trying to Solve: Nonconforming, disconnected practices that make up the Legislative Process

Current legislative drafting process utilizes word, is labor intensive and requires manual format and style, needs streamlining

Current process requires advanced knowledge of procedural and submission timelines

Version control, tracking amendments and sharing documents can be problematic

Compliance relies on a single point of failure ‐ does not fail

Currently cannot support open government principles legislation is not in machine readable format

Legislation is not stored with the bulk of the data, not easily retrieved nor shared

Integrate existing Legistar archives, and paper archives into existing Records Digitization Project Legacy Legislative and Agenda Management System (Legistar) contract expires in 2018 Removes the single point of failure when the code publisher retypes finally approved documents Board’s archives are not immediately available for inspection as required by the Government Code Difficult to retrieve this information from a Mobile device Limited capture of public engagement to lend to the legislative intent


38

Solution: Web based system will: Connect all systems that make up the legislative process Pre‐define all formatting, style and procedures Automate ability to track changes, amendments and legislative timeline Provide alerts for submission deadlines, meeting dates Support open government by delivering legislation in a machine readable format


39


Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Completion

Dates: July 2016 –September 2016

October 2016 –March 2017

April 2017 –December 2017

June 2018

Description: Solicit Professional services

Detail requirements

Issue RFP

Finalize contract Development,

testing & training

Implementation

Legislative Drafting and Management System

Board of Supervisors

40

Project Initial Estimates FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18

Number of FTE 3 3

FTE Classifications 5502, 1053, 1062 5502, 1053, 1062

Salary & Fringe ‐ ‐

Software $ 55,000 ‐

Hardware ‐ ‐

Professional Services $ 305,000 $ 30,000

Materials & Supplies ‐ ‐

Initial Project Estimates $ 360,000 $ 30,000



41

Status Comment

Scope

ScheduleDepartment expects to begin work in July 2016

BudgetNOTE: System will require annual maintenance budget after implementation(Estimated - $30,000/year)

Estimated Project Cost



Total NGF FundingTotal NGF + GF

FundingTotal Spent

$ 360,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RisksN/A

Project Start:

Project End:



Start Date: July 1, 2016

End Date: June 30, 2018

42

Open Source Voting SystemDepartment of Elections

43

Project ObjectiveDevelop San Francisco’s next voting system using open source software

Major Stakeholders• Board of Supervisors• San Francisco Elections Commission• Voters with Disabilities• San Francisco Voters

Open Source Voting SystemDepartment of Elections / Elections Commission

44

Problem Trying to Solve• No voting system on the market has software that is transparent to the public.

• No voting system on the market meets our other RFI requirements.• Existing approaches lead to vendor lock‐in and an inability to change or improve our voting system over time.

• Existing approaches result in having to pay all costs again each time we need a new voting system.


45


Phase 1 Phase 2

Dates: July 1, 2016 – April 30, 2017 May 1, 2017 – August 31, 2019

Description: Planning and Assessment: Develop detailed requirements, design, architecture, timeline, and costs for Phase 2

Development and Certification: Develop, test, certify, and pilot the voting system


46

Project Budget FY 16‐17 FY 17‐18Number of FTE ‐ ‐

FTE Classifications ‐ ‐

Salary & Fringe ‐ ‐

Software $2 million $2 million

Hardware ‐ $400,000

Professional Services $300,000 $200,000

Materials & Supplies ‐ ‐

Total Project Cost $2.3 million $2.6 million


47

Status Comment

Scope

Schedule

0% Complete

Budget

• Initial budget amount of $2.3 million for FY 2016 / 2017

Total Project Cost



Total NGF Funding


Total Spent

Unknown ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Risks

The project is unique to San Francisco and without precedent. All voting systems require the California Secretary of State’s approval prior to implementation and after any modifications.

Project Start:

Project End:Open Source Voting SystemDepartment of Elections / Elections Commission

Start Date: FY 2016 / 2017

End Date: FY 2019 / 2020

48

5. Public Comment

49

Documents

Budget & Performance Subcommittee April 1, 2016 · 4/1/2016 · City Demand for VoIP / Unified Communications & Collaboration • VoIP saves costs and provides more features than