City Council Announcements
October 18, 2005
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. In keeping with tradition, each election year, Council staff provides a newly elected Council Member with an Orientation Manual that provides the following information:
Induction ceremony
History of Salt Lake City
Ethics
City players
Meetings: laws and procedures
Municipal budgeting
Community relations (constituent process)
Land Use
Mass Transportation
Boards and Commissions
Redevelopment Agency
In addition, a newly elected Council Member is provided a copy of the City Council Policy Manual.
Updates have been made to the Orientation Manual and policy manual since the last election. Would Council Members be interested in receiving an updated copy of these manuals?
2. Of the three audit firms on contract, we
received only one proposal from Matrix Consulting Group for the IMS audit.
The other two consulting firms declined, given that they do not have specific
expertise with IMS audits. Members of the Council Audit Subcommittee
recommend the Council move forward with Matrix Consulting’s proposal, as opposed
to going through the City’s full RFP process.
The lead auditor for Matrix
will be Gary Goelitz, V.P. of Matrix and the firm’s information technology
specialist. His prior IMS audits include Arlington, TX; Brattleboro, VT; Las
Vegas Police Dept, NV; Lathrop, CA; Long Beach, CA; Los Gatos, CA; Maricopa
County, AZ; Nashville, TN; Peoria, AZ; Southlake, TX; Springfield, MA; Walham,
MA; and Washoe County, NV.
The scope of services for the IMS audit is attached for your reference.
Does the Council wish to proceed with the IMS audit by awarding it to the Matrix Consulting Group?
All Council Members wanted to proceed with the IMS Audit by the Matrix Consulting Group
B. For Your Information
1. Attached are several grant applications submitted by the City.
Grant Submission Update Memo
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Cindy Gust-Jenson
FROM: Grant Acquisition Team
DATE: 11/16/2005
SUBJECT: 2005 Fire Safety and Prevention Grant
FUNDING AGENCY: U.S. Fire Administration FEMA
REQUESTED AMOUNT: $57,500
DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau
COLLABORATING AGENCIES:
DATE SUBMITTED: October 7, 2005
SPECIFICS:
Technical Assistance (Training) Equipment Only
Provides FTE Position(s)
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required No In Kind Cash
Computer Software Development In House Contract Services
New Program (City not performing function now)
GRANT DETAILS:
Salt Lake City’s Fire Marshall reviewed the city’s code enforcement procedures and the fire department’s role in maintaining a high compliance rate for the city’s new and existing businesses and structures. The Fire Marshall discovered that communication among the department charged with code enforcement was impossible due to a lack of technology. Information concerning code violation history is unavailable. A violation cited by a fire crew may again be cited by the building department or a fire inspector and what appears as a single violation is in fact a second or third offense and requires a different response. Another issue arose from inspectors not having portability of information and reference material when they are in the field. Fire inspectors are severely hampered by extensive travel time between inspection sites and the office to gain access to reference material and computer access. Productivity is far too low for the size of the city and the number of inspectors available, but understandable when viewed in light of the lack of appropriate and readily available technology.
Currently, Salt Lake City maintains separate databases, or in one case handwritten hard copies, for the commercial and high occupancy structure inspections and related information collected by the building department, the water department, fire inspectors, and fire crews. The building department has the most current information building remodeling, new business occupancy, and business type. The water department maintains the most up to date information on hydrant operability and location. Prevention Bureau fire inspectors have current contact information, fire alarm and suppression, and detailed building content information, particularly HAZ MAT data. The above mentioned information is stored in computer databases separately maintained by each department. Inspections conducted by fire crews are hand written and stored in filing cabinets in each station. In 2004, the department received funds through the MMRS to purchase software to establish a Quick Access Plan. Information collected by fire crews is now entered into the QAP and can be accessed during fire and medical responses. Fire crews perform approximately ten inspections each month. The time span between inspections for a specific building is twelve to eighteen months. Any changes that occur in that time span are not available in the QAP. The lack of current and relevant information places firefighters in unsafe conditions when they must enter a building where occupancy and contents are unknown, the floor plan is changeable and contact information for an owner or manager is out of date. The lack of communication among the departments can escalate into very dangerous situations for firefighters and increase response and rescue time for the community.
The Fire Marshall proposes to install on-site inspection software for all fire inspections conducted by the department; this includes inspections performed by inspectors from the Prevention Bureau and inspections performed by fire crews. The inspection database would be linked to the QAP and would update data collected during inspections. The inspection database would also be linked to the building and water departments so retrieve data relevant to the fire department needs.
Budget
|
Item |
|
|
|
|
# of Units |
|
Cost |
|
Total | ||
|
Software License |
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
$500 |
|
$16,000 | ||
|
Maintenance Contract |
|
|
|
1 |
|
$500 |
|
$500 | |||
|
Symbol Hand held Computers |
|
|
|
32 |
|
$900 |
|
$28,800 | |||
|
Digital camera |
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
$200 |
|
$6,400 | |
|
Printer |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
$250 |
|
$2,500 | |
|
IMS |
|
programming |
|
|
|
50 hrs |
|
$66 |
|
$3,300 | |
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$57,500 | |
Grant Submission Update Memo
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Cindy Gust-Jenson
FROM: Grant Acquisition Team
DATE: 11/16/2005
SUBJECT: 2005 Wal*Mart Safe Neighborhood Heroes Grant
FUNDING AGENCY: Wal*Mart
REQUESTED AMOUNT: $1,750
DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Wal*Mart
DATE SUBMITTED: September 30, 2005
SPECIFICS:
Training Supplies Equipment
Personnel:
Existing New Overtime Only Requires Funding After Grant
Match Required 25% In Kind Cash
Computer Software Development In House Contract Services
New Program (City not performing function now)
GRANT DETAILS:
The Police Department is applying for $1,750 to augment the current Safe Neighbors Project that was recently funded by State Farm Insurance Company. State Farm provided $10,000 to implement a neighborhood safety and crime prevention program that brings officers and fire fighters into neighborhoods to teach residents and small business owners how to make their property safe from crime and keep themselves, family members and customers safe on their premises. The Wal*Mart Safe Neighborhood Heroes grant will augment this program by purchasing additional fire extinguishers, carbon monoxide and smoke detectors, and security lights for residents who participate in the program. This will enable us to provide the services to additional property owners throughout the City.
Grant Submission Update Memo
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Cindy Gust-Jenson
FROM: Grant Acquisition Team
DATE: 11/16/2005
SUBJECT: 2005 Buffer Zone Protection Program Grant (BZPP)
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Public Safety / Utah Division of Homeland Security
REQUESTED AMOUNT: $276,417
DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Wal*Mart
DATE SUBMITTED: September 30, 2005
SPECIFICS:
Training Supplies Equipment
Personnel:
Existing New Overtime Only Requires Funding After Grant
Match Required 25% In Kind Cash
Computer Software Development In House Contract Services
New Program (City not performing function now)
GRANT DETAILS:
The Police Department is applying for $276,417 to decrease vulnerability and increase injury reduction capabilities in six “high-threat” areas of the City. The PD has applied for the funding through six different “Zone Applications”. Each zone’s application requests the amount needed in that particular zone. The types of equipment to be purchased are: traffic barricades, hearing protection, tactical SCBA’s, traffic cameras, IED remediation tools, night vision equipment, concrete barriers, 9-channel recorder, hydraulic bollard system, tire deflation devices, vehicle crash barrier, Nomex jump suits, CCTV system, Thermal Imaging Devices, etc. This equipment includes both community protection equipment and personal protection gear for public safety officers.
Grant Submission Update Memo
TO: Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Cindy Gust-Jenson
FROM: Grant Acquisition Team
DATE: 11/16/2005
SUBJECT: 2005 Crisis Intervention Team Project
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
REQUESTED AMOUNT: $50,000
DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Sheriff’s Departments, and Mental Health Agencies statewide, State Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health
DATE SUBMITTED: October 5, 2005
SPECIFICS:
Training Supplies Equipment
Personnel:
Existing New Overtime Requires Funding After Grant
Match Required 25% In Kind Cash
Computer Software Development In House Contract Services
New Program (City not performing function now)
GRANT DETAILS:
The Police Department is applying for $50,000 from the State of Utah to continue the statewide training of Police Officers in the Crisis Intervention Team project. This project trains officers to work safely, effectively, and with sensitivity with persons with mental illnesses. The PD has requested that the State provide funding to reimburse the police department for costs incurred in certifying officers in CIT above the amount that the current IOTI grant ($20,000) provides. This grant is to be an ongoing grant for as long as the State recognizes Salt Lake City Police Department as the lead agency in the program.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SALT LAKE CITY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
SERVICES DIVISION
MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Salt Lake City's Information Management Services Division operates as an internal service fund within the Department of Management Services and is responsible for the acquisition, maintenance, repair and disposal of the City’s technical information services and equipment necessary to support the City’s various departments as well as the City’s telecommunications system. The Division serves all City departments including, but not limited to Police, Fire, Streets, Refuse, Parks, Water, Sewer, Engineering, and Administration.
he Division consists of 59 full-time
employees, and has an internal services fund budget of
$7,539,285.
The Division manages 1800 desktops and 2300 network connections. It also manages the City’s geographical information system (GIS) database. As a result of its lease equipment program (leasing desk-top computers to City departments), the Division will be operating at a negative cash flow from Fiscal Year 2004/2005 to Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
The IMS Division provides the following services to City departments:
Management of computer networks.
Provision of telephone services including phone, voice mail, caller id, etc.
Acquisition, development and support of software.
Provision of support/services for the Internet and Intranet.
Provision of software training.
Citywide coordination, guidance and vision for existing and new technologies.
Management of SLCTV and audio/video-taping.
Management of network and information security.
Management of help desk support.
The auditors are to provide an independent and objective evaluation of Salt Lake City’s Information Management Services (IMS) Division and identify opportunities for improvement. The audit shall include, but not be limited to, analyzing, evaluating and making recommendations for the items described below:
I. General Description
The study shall analyze the policies, procedures, management and operations of the Salt Lake City Information Management Services Division. The analysis shall include comparisons with ten (10) similarly-situated cities in the United States. Such criteria as city size, demographics, large central city, etc. should be used in the comparisons. Additionally, the analysis will determine the extent to which the current IMS operations are cost-competitive with the private sector, and whether some services could be privatized.
A. Management and Performance Review
1. Review current IMS operations. The Consultant shall obtain an in-depth understanding of the IMS Division’s current operations and plans for future operation, and the extent to which desired results and benefits are being achieved. This information should be obtained via interviews with the Division’s employees, manager, other members of the City’s administration, and elected officials; on-site visits to the City offices; and a review of policies, procedures, manuals, budget documents, or other written information relating to the operation of the Division.
Special emphasis shall be given to the following areas of operation within the IMS Division during the management and performance review:
a. Organization, staffing, productivity, employee morale. Appraise the level of staffing, organization, and level of training of personnel. Evaluate indirect duties verses direct work. Evaluate and respond to the following questions: Does the IMS Division have sufficient staff? Is it utilizing current staff most efficiently? Evaluate service delivery to City departments and divisions.
b. Best practices. Compare Salt Lake City’s IMS Division operations with at least 10 other similar cities and utilize auditor’s own resources from past information technology audits to determine best management practices.
c. Operations and efficiencies. Appraise the effectiveness and efficiency of operations and determine areas where economy and efficiency can be improved and processes can be streamlined.
d. Administrative procedures, policies, manuals. Evaluate the appropriateness of and compliance with existing procedures and policies. Identify and evaluate the impact of such administrative procedures, policies and manuals on the efficiency and competitiveness of the IMS Division.
e. Computers and technology. Evaluate the computer and technology systems being used. Evaluate and respond to the following questions: Is the City’s technology infrastructure stable? Does the City’s network design have redundant systems to prevent downtime? Does the City have appropriate workflow processes established and are they adhered to? Is the City’s disaster recovery plan documented, tested and adequate? Is the City’s computer system being used to its full potential? In what areas should the IMS Division change the system to better support City programs and services?
f. Customer service. Determine the actual and desired levels of service (quality, accessibility, responsiveness, timeliness, downtime) and cost. If recommended service levels are lower than the current service level, identify and quantify all impacts on the affected customer departments.
g. Facilities. Determine whether existing facilities are adequate or whether there are opportunities for implementing cost-saving measures or consolidating functions and/or facilities.
h. Performance measures. Evaluate appropriateness and use of performance measures, tracking and current performance levels. Determine whether current performance levels are high or low compared to industry standards.
i. Lease agreements for desktop computers. Assess the current lease agreement practices of the Division. How do other cities handle this type of lease agreement?
j. Contracted services. Evaluate work that is being performed under contract with outside providers. Make recommendations regarding existing contracts and how to make them more cost effective or how to increase vendor performance. Identify functions currently being outsourced by the IMS Division and analyze the cost effectiveness and impact on service levels due to the outsourcing. When and how is it determined that outsourcing is appropriate? Which is usually more cost effective? How are the consultants selected?
k. Calls for service/trouble shooting for department. Review the number of calls received daily, the percentage of calls resolved at the Help Desk and the average time to resolve problem calls. Can this service be contracted out? Are there other functions that could be contracted out?
l. GIS system. Evaluate whether one-time funds for equipment or services would assist with the update requirements. Evaluate/analyze progress for fully implementing GIS. What resources would be needed to enhance the GIS system to assure its highest and best use? Compared with other City’s IMS divisions, are the resources available to our IMS about average, below average or above average? Is IMS maximizing opportunities to establish systems that allow for data sharing among City departments? How does Salt Lake City’s functional capability compare to that of like-size cities?
m. Phone system. Evaluate the City’s telephone system. What is the age of the system? Would additional upgrades add value or increase efficiency?
n. Utilization of current technology, i.e. servers, telecom, ISP, etc. Perform a detailed technology utilization analysis. Identify whether the Division’s current technology is adequate for the needs of the City. Identify additional needs or excesses.
o. Technology attrition program and funding. Evaluate replacement methodology of all IMS systems and software. Analyze projected annual savings in maintenance costs if additional money were budgeted for hardware replacement. Identify and report the industry trends for cost effective replacement.
p. Computer and equipment procurement process. Evaluate the City's attrition program for hardware/software including preparing budget estimates, and the process for selecting new technology.
q. Billings to users. A large portion of IMS costs are reimbursed via a transfer from the General Fund. A smaller amount is charged to individual divisions and cost centers. Evaluate the methods used to bill users for services. Evaluate the budgeting information and annual budget development process. Identify the following: labor rate calculation, equipment mark-ups, overhead rate, and related information. Make observations and recommenda-tions regarding how the City plans and develops its budget to arrive at the rates and charges currently used. Determine whether the rate charged to City departments is appropriate.
r. Equipment inventory, inventory control, level of inventory, service level. Evaluate the systems and methods used to manage inventories. Evaluate contracts with outside providers used for the acquisition of equipment and supplies.
s. Training. Evaluate all training programs, skills maintenance, certification, technical rescue, and other capabilities compared to best practices.
t. Ratio of technician to computer. Compare the City’s ratio of computers to technicians to other comparable cities.
2. Identify and provide, in quantifiable terms, best practice recommendations for optimum computer usage and service levels attainable with current and projected budget allocations. Service levels should be articulated in terms of acceptable downtime of systems and equipment provided and serviced by IMS.
3. Analyze the extent to which current and future operations are likely to be competitive with the private sector based on the review of current operations of IMS maintenance and best practices from other comparable jurisdictions. The Consultant shall make recommendations for improvements within the IMS Division that shall increase competitiveness with the private sector and overall performance, based on best practices.
B. Personnel management and training
1. How well does the Division assist with training new employees regarding the mission of the Division, technical aspects of their jobs, and the City’s expectation for customer service?
2. Do sufficient opportunities exist for professional and management training of employees?
3. Is there sufficient cross-training of employees such that there is no loss of service capability when absences, such as vacations, take place?
C. Data Management
1. Are present and planned information management and office automation systems for creating, recording, storing, retrieving, analyzing, using and distributing information appropriate and adequate for the tasks required?
2. To what extent are there expertise and computer capabilities within the Division to analyze the costs of delivering services? To schedule employees and their assignments? To analyze service level alternatives?
D. Fiscal Management
1. Are the Division's fiscal management practices adequate and appropriate with regard to budget development, preparation, management and control?
2. Is there appropriate fiscal analysis and management of assigned functions and operations?
II. Deliverables
A. Consultant will document all study findings, conclusions and recommendations in a formal study report. The consultant will identify opportunities for improvement, and develop specific recommendations for implementation of those improvements.
B. Consultant will conduct
interviews with City Council Members (at their option) and Council Executive
Director, Deputy Director, Mayor, CAO/Management Services Director, Management
Services Deputy Director, IMS Manager, and a number of IMS
employees.
C. Consultant will survey
other departments and divisions in the City to determine their views toward the
Information Management Services Division and their service delivery
expectations; and the survey will be included and reported in the final
report.
D. Consultant will survey
employees of the Division regarding their perception of Division’s mission,
goals and objectives, workload, information, supervision, training, policies and
procedures, promotion, resources, etc.
E. Consultant will provide
monthly status reports to the Council Executive Director / Deputy Director
including a summary of all costs incurred and work performed during the period
by project team members.
F. Consultant will provide
the Council Executive Director / Deputy Director, the Management Services
Director, and the IMS Division Manager draft copies of the final report of
findings and recommendations for review and comment prior to the final printing.
These reviews of the draft will be for factual accuracy (whether s/he disagrees
or agrees with the recommendations can be expressed in a formal response once
the final report has been delivered).
G. Consultant will make
oral presentations of the results of the study to the City Council to assist in
achieving a full understanding of the implications and
recommendations.
Consultant will provide thirty (30) copies of the final report and other documents to the City Council.
Additional Announcements
October 18, 2005
A. Decisions, Feedback & Information needed by staff
1. Petition No. 400-05-01, a request by The Boyer Company to change the Gateway Master Plan and to declare a portion of the 500 West Street right of way surplus and dispose of it through a sale, is scheduled for a City Council briefing on November 1. It has come to Council staff’s attention that declaring a right of way surplus requires a four-week public hearing notice. The Boyer Company has indicated that it would like a quick resolution of the petition. One way to do that would be to set a date for a public hearing on the same night as the City Council briefing. Would the City Council be interested in setting the date for a public hearing on the same night of the briefing?
All Council Members were in favor of scheduling a hearing for December 6 or 13, 2005.