HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1617) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
BUDGET REVIEW SESSION
JUNE 22, 1998
Oro Valley Town Council Chambers
11,000 N. La Canada Drive
Study Session - At or after 4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. Youth Summer Arts Program Presentation
2. Review of items from June 15, 1998 Budget Review Session
3. Police Department
a) General Fund
b) Seizures & Forfeitures
4. Magistrate Court
5. Administration
a) Town Council
b) Town Clerk
c) Town Manager
d) Finance Department
e) Economic Development
fl Legal Department
g) General Administration
Adjournment
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any
person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify Kathryn Cuvelier,
Town Clerk, at 297-2591.
Posted:
6/19/98
12 noon
sr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager 06i)
Finance Directory�'
David Andrews, ,
DATE: June 22, 1998
SUBJ: Follow-up Issues From June 15 Budget Review Session
A number of issues were raised during the Mayor and Council's Budget Review Session of June
15. This memorandum serves as staff follow-up to those issues.
1. Issue: Mayor Loomis requested a better breakdown of the contingency reserves amount
that was graphically depicted in a May 14 memorandum to the Mayor and Council.
Response: The memorandum indicated a contingency reserves amount of$14,783,918.
The breakdown of that figure is as follows:
General Fund $4,397,273
Highway Fund 1,319,272
Water Utility Fund 2,151,966
Water Connection Fees Fund 487,943
Water Company Acquisition Fund 2,000,000
Townwide Roadway Development Impact Fees Fund 4427,464
Total Contingency Reserves $14,783,918
A bound budget document will be developed and distributed after final budget adoption.
Typically, the document contains a letter of transmittal to the Mayor and Council from
the Manager and Finance Director. If the Council so desires, this contingency breakdown
can be included in that letter.
2. Issue: Water Utility operating costs.
Response: The issue was discussed in greater detail at a joint study session between
Council and the Water Utility Commission on June 18.
3. Issue: Combine engineering and planning to provide a smoother development review
process.
Response: The proposed budget recommends the dissolution of the Public Works
Department's General Fund budget. As a result, a civil engineer and civil engineer
designer would be transferred to the Planning and Zoning Department. The proposed
reorganization should accomplish an improved development review process for citizens
and businesses.
4. Issue: The Building Safety Division may need more funding in the outside professional
services line item for contract inspections.
Response: The Community Development Division will research and bring a
recommendation forward by June 22.
5. Issue: Add $30,000 to the Parks and Recreation Division's Arts Project line item as a
contingency for Town arts projects.
Response: The adjustment will be reflected in the tentative budget.
6. Issue: Availability of project management resources for the construction of the CDO
Riverfront Park.
Response: The Community Development Division will research and bring a
recommendation forward by June 22.
7. Issue: What are the allowable uses of Local Transportation Assistance Funds (LTAF)?
Response: Cities and towns with a population of 300,000 or less must use LTAF funds
for transportation projects including streets and highway projects and/or transit programs.
Cities with a population exceeding 300,000 must use the funds for mass transit systems.
Additionally, if State lottery revenues reach $23 million within a given year, then 10% of
LTAF funds may be used for cultural, educational, historical, recreational or scientific
facilities or programs. This portion may also be used to provide services to non-
residential outpatients who are developmentally disabled. However, this use would
require a 50% cash match from non-public monies.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to review these issues with the Mayor and Council.
CC: Don Chatfield, Community Development Director
David Hook, Town Engineer
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
'0-.C'
FROM: David Andrews, Finance Director 77
VIA: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
DATE: June 19, 1998
SUBJ: Oro Valley Computer Network Upgrade—Request for FY 1998-99 Funding
Summary:
The Town Council will review the General Administration budget at its June 22 Budget Review
Session. The purpose of this memorandum is to request that$47,500 be added to the General
Administration budget ($33,500 for hardware and software; $14,000 for labor) for computer
network upgrades. The requested amount is based on an evaluation of the Town's computer
network by Mc Knight Consulting.
Background:
Virtually all Town departments have been experiencing significant computer problems over the
past 12— 18 months since the conversion to Windows 95 and the Microsoft Office Suite. As
such, the system has been slow and unreliable.
Staff has had three contractors perform independent evaluations of the network system to
determine the cause of the problems. It appears that the problems are related to the following:
• Outdated cabling infrastructure is inadequate to support current and more complex
applications.
• Heterogeneous network interface cards (NIC's) in the various personal computers.
• Heterogeneous network software
• Inadequate and overburdened file servers
Over the years, the Town has budgeted funds for personal computers and software while
patching onto existing wiring and file servers. Due to the Town's growth and the increased
sophistication of software applications, this approach has left the network unreliable as problems
are routinely encountered by the various departments.
Conclusion:
The requested funds will solve these problems with 95% certainty according to discussions with
Patrick McKnight of McKnight Consulting.
I will be happy to answer any questions the Council may have.
Attachment: Recommendation from McKnight Consulting
From:Patrick E.McKnight To:David Andrews Date:6/18/98 Time: 11:11:36 AM Page 1 of 5
/ICKNI6HT CONSULTEV6
• 2110 E.Water Street• Tucson,AZ 85719-3437
Phone(520)322-9918• Fax (520)322-6705•Internet: pem@u.arizona.edu
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ORO VALLEY NETWORK UPGRADE
BACKGROUND
Slow network connections and limited storage capacity has rendered existing network to be incapable of
providing town with stable,reliable computers. Multiple operating system platforms require too many
different computer personnel to administer existing network. Finally,the various departments in the town
are incapable of communicating with one another: a situation that is not acceptable for the future growth of
the town.
OBJECTIVES
1. Improve speed of network and workstations
2. Increase reliability of workstations
3. Ease network administration burden
4. Increase storage space on servers
5. Improve file sharing capabilities
6. Enable inter-departmental communication
METHODS TO MEET OBJECTIVES
1. Improve speed of network and workstations
A. Ensure CAT-5 twisted pair cabling throughout town for fastest network connection
B. Upgrade cables if necessary
C. Replace over-burdened hubs with managed network hub system(100 Mbps -Fast Ethernet)
D. Upgrade network interface cards(NIC)to quality 10/100 Mbps NIC's
E. Upgrade servers from Novell to Windows NT
F. Upgrade server hardware if necessary to comply with specifications for Windows NT
2. Increase reliability of workstations
A. Identify problematic systems and upgrade or replace systems
B. Ensure that all network connections are sound
C. Ensure that all NIC's are exactly the same brand and model
D. Remote install all software from server to ensure conformity to standard installation
E. Upgrade all Windows 95 machines to latest version of Windows 95(OSR 2.1)
F. Apply all necessary patches to software
G. Ensure that all hardware is in fine working order
3. Ease network administration burden
A. Eliminate Novell Network operating system
B. Install Windows NT version 4.0 and configure remote administration utilities
C. Instruct low level staff to administer common network tasks
D. Centralize inter-departmental server for mail and other communications
4. Increase storage space on servers
A. Upgrade hard drives on server to larger and faster drives
B. Ensure that all servers are using the latest SCSI standard drives
NETWORKS• NEW AND USED SYSTEM SALES • TECH SUPPORT• TROUBLESHOOTING
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT• DATABASE DESIGN • SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
DOS• WINDOWS• UNIX• MACINTOSH
rrom:rauicrc c.iviGAnignt I o: David Andrews Date:6/18/98 Time: 11:11:36 AM Page 2 of 5
RCIINI6HT CONSULTIAT8
• 2110 E.Water Street• Tucson, AZ 85719-3437
Phone(520)322-9918• Fax (520) 322-6705•Internet: pem@u.arizona.edu
C. Share storage resources within departments to maximize efficiency of storage
5. Improve file sharing capabilities
A. Coordinate departmental servers to communicate with centralized server
B. Automate file replication to ensure proper updating of files
C. Configure network to accept passwords that server administrator can regulate users access to
town-wide systems
D. Ensure security for workstation access to network
E. Enable users to send files via intra-town network e-mail
6. Enable inter-departmental communication
A. Setup centralized server to handle e-mail communication town-wide
B. Connect each departmental server to centralized server
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
1. Lack of sufficient funding for complete network reconfiguration
2. Verification of cabling may be extremely time consuming
3. Some server hardware may need complete replacement
4. Software compatibility problems may arise with older programs
5. All problems may not be eliminated by these measures-some problems may be the result of current
software suites or configurations
FINISHED PRODUCTS
1. All workstations with same network hardware(identical NIC's and cabling)-recommended hardware:
3Com Fast Ethernet NIC's and CAT 5 plenum grade cabling
2. All departments(Town Hall,Planning and Zoning,Public Works, Legal, Courthouse, and Police)
running Windows NT 4.0 Advanced Server on Pentium II class systems (300 MHz or better)with
minimum of 64 MB RAM and 4 Gb SCSI-III hard drive
3. All departments operating switched fast-ethernet hubs capable of handling a minimum of 25 connects
4. Centralized server running Windows NT 4.0 Advanced Server for communication and file sharing
5. Detailed mapping of cabling, server, and workstation specifications providedby contractor
6. Upgraded Workstations to latest version of Windows 95 (version 4.00.950 B- OSR 2.1)and
configured for access to town-wide network
7. All existing software patched with latest versions
8. Configured network that allows departmental servers to communicate with each other and users to
communicate with each other via the centralized server
9. Automated file replication for file distribution on network
10. Remote access to Centralized server for remote administration and public access to public files via
modem using TCP/IP(FTP and HTTP protocols)
11. Intra and inter-departmental e-mail configured for all town systems and for future internet e-mail
12. Remote installation of all software from server for future upgrades and software installation
13. Knowledgeable office staff for routine administration of server and workstations
14. Automated centralized and departmental backup for all public and private files
15. Increased speed of network transmissions
16. Easier to use and administer network
17. Increased reliability of connections and workstation access to servers
NETWORKS • NEW AND USED SYSTEM SALES • TECH SUPPORT• TROUBLESHOOTING
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT• DATABASE DESIGN • SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
DOS • WINDOWS• UNIX • MACINTOSH
rrom:racricK t.ivlcKnignt To:David Andrews Date:6/18/98 Time: 11:11:36 AM Page 3 of 5
mouvi6HT c-olvsuLTING
• 2110 E.Water Street• Tucson, AZ 85719-3437
Phone (520) 322-9918• Fax (520) 322-6705.Internet: pem@u.arizona.edu
EXPECTED COST AND TIMING
Package A(Cabling and Network Improvements) ............ ......... ...... .... $7,500.00(hardware)
$5,000.00(labor)
$ 12,500.00 TOTAL
This plan includes the following finished products from above:
1. All workstations with same network hardware(identical NIC's and cabling)-
recommended hardware: 3Com Fast Ethernet NIC's and CAT 5 plenum grade
cabling
2. All departments operating switched fast-ethernet hubs capable of handling a
minimum of 25 connects
3. Detailed mapping of cabling, server, and workstation specifications provided by
contractor
4. Increased speed of network transmissions
5. Increased reliability of connections and workstation access to servers
Package B(Server Upgrade from Novell to Windows NT) ...... ......... ..... $ 10,000.00(hardware)
$ 8,500.00(software)
$ 5,000.00(labor)
S 23,500.00 TOTAL
This plan includes the following finished products from above:
1. All departments(Town Hall,Planning and Zoning, Public Works, Legal,
Courthouse,and Police)running Windows NT 4.0 Advanced Server on Pentium II
class systems(300 MHz or better)with minimum of 64 MB RAM and 4 Gb SCSI-III
hard drive
2. Configured network that allows departmental servers to communicate with each
other and users to communicate with each other via the centralized server
3. Automated file replication for file distribution on network
4. Intra and inter-departmental e-mail configured for all town systems and for future
Internet e-mail
5. Knowledgeable office staff for routine administration of server and workstations
6. Easier to use and administer network
7. Remote installation of all software from server for future upgrades and software
installation
NETWORKS • NEW AND USED SYSTEM SALES • TECH SUPPORT• TROUBLESHOOTING
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT• DATABASE DESIGN • SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
DOS• WINDOWS• UNIX• MACINTOSH
rrom:ratricK t.ivicr night I o:uavia Andrews Date:6/18/98 Time: 11:11:36 AM Page 4 of 5
MC/0116Hr CONSULTING
• 2110 E.Water Street• Tucson,AZ 85719-3437
Phone(520) 322-9918• Fax (520) 322-6705•Internet: pem@u.arizona.edu
Package C(Centralized Server) ............ ......... ...... ...... ... ......... ...... $4,000.00(hardwares)
$2,500.00(labor)
S 6,5000.00 TOTAL
This plan includes the following finished products from above:
1. Centralized server running Windows NT 4.0 Advanced Server for communication
and file sharing
2. Configured network that allows departmental servers to communicate with each
other and users to communicate with each other via the centralized server
3. Remote access to Centralized server for remote administration and public access to
public files via modem using TCP/IP(FTP and HTTP protocols)
4. Automated centralized and departmental backup for all public and private files
Package D(Workstation Software Upgrades) ......... ......... ...... ... ......... $3,500.00(software)
$ 1,500.00(labor)
$5,000.00 TOTAL
1. Upgraded Workstations to latest version of Windows 95 (version 4.00.950 B-OSR
2.1)and configured for access to town-wide network
2. All existing software patched with latest versions
3. Increased reliability of connections and workstation access to servers
If you have any questions or suggestions to make regarding this proposal and thero osed workplease
feel free to call me at once. p p '
Sincerely yours,
Patrick E. McKnight
Managing Consultant
NETWORKS• NEW AND USED SYSTEM SALES • TECH SUPPORT• TROUBLESHOOTING
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT• DATABASE DESIGN • SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
DOS• WINDOWS• UNIX • MACINTOSH
From:racnctc t.ivlcKnight Fo:David Andrews Date:6/18/98 Time: 11:11:36 AM
Page 5 of 5
MC/011611T CONSULTING
• 2110 E.Water Street• Tucson,AZ 85719-3437
Phone(520) 322-9918• Fax (520)322-6705•Internet: pem@u.arizona.edu
COMMENTS REGARDING EXISTING BIDS
Spectrum Communications Co.
1. Appears to be patching the existing system without addressing these concerns:
A. Speed
B. Efficiency
C. Reliability
D. Extensibility
2. The bid is quite vague and does not offer information regarding what type,brand,or specifications for
new hardware and software installation and upgrades P
3. The resulting network will continue to be slow with these recommendations due to several problems:
A. Slow network protocol still in use(10Base-T) instead of new faster standard(fast ethernet)
B. Novell 3.12 is notoriouslyslow at program � in
p g haring Windows environment
C. Network hubs are already overloaded and there exists too many on the network which leads to
an overall slower network
4. Bid is not clear in the overall plan of implementation nor does it specify what the customer ought
expect at the project's completion. g to
MicroAge
1. Bid appropriately specifies major shortcomings in the existing system:
A. No documentation for existing wiring and network topology
B. Too many different and incompatible network protocols implemented
C. Inadequate network security
2. The bidder does not make any attempt to delineate how they would approach theproblem
associated with theirapproach PProacand the costs
3. The document is very superficial overall and does not really constitute a bid orro osal for p work
General comments:
The bids appear to be submitted by two companies that have some hidden animositytoward
Neither bid is sufficient in its treatment of the problem and the exactimplementation
done another.
implementation of a solution. In
addition,the paucity of information for the existing network, servers, and workstations makes
process much more difficult. In light of this, we recommend that all the bidding
and require bidders to specifyin detail what RFP's include the information above
products, services and labor will be implemented in the
solution. Without this information, the bids will not be easily interpretable byeither the Town
by any evaluation group. Finally,the lack of specific information technology � officials nor
makes the recommendations for upgrades and configurations specialists for the network
Pg nfigurations much more difficult. It is our opinion that at
least a highly skilled part-time person could decrease the costs in the future dramatically.
cally.
NETWORKS• NEW AND USED SYSTEM SALES• TECH SUPPORT•
TROUBLESHOOTING
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT• DATABASE DESIGN • SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
DOS • WINDOWS• UNIX • MACINTOSH