CC_Minutes_2013_0715 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 15,2013 Page 15 Mr. Miller advised cost allocations for the business model were revised annually based on a proportion of costs shared by all agencies. Mr. Miller noted that this business model had been developed in 1997, and did not include a multiplier as referenced by Mr. Schwartz for engineering services (1.9) that would allow Rose- ville to be a profit center. Mr. Miller advised that the true benefit for the consor- tium was sharing fixed costs among 28 different entities for expensive systems (e.g. back-up system), essentially saving Roseville dollars by spreading out those fixed costs, lowering the costs, but not covering all of them. Mr. Miller opined that if a multiplier was applied to cover Roseville's IT costs, it would no longer be a competitive or beneficial option for partners. At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller confirmed that when any new JPA is executed, additional staff costs, equipment costs, license agreements, number of users, and other components were all figured into the agreement. Mr. Miller clarified that those cities continued to pay for their own licensing fees and computer costs, while the City of Roseville purchased them on their behalf, with the costs borne by the individual partners. At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Miller clarified the ownership of assets, with each city having its own network switches and equipment for each building served, providing some true benefit to the City of Roseville in having partnerships so its fixed costs were spread over a larger area. As an example, Mr. Miller advised that the City was going to require $50,000 for storage capacity for Roseville alone, but the storage had been intentionally oversized to allow other cities to store their information on that network and pay Roseville proportionately. Mr. Miller advised that the advantage to Roseville was that it obtained a$50,000 piece of equipment for $10,000, but the City of Roseville still owned the equip- ment that it would need to buy anyway,but it now also could support multiple us- ers. Mr. Miller noted that another advantage, excluding any crisis with a partner in the consortium, was that the Roseville IT staff of twelve (12) could be put on a spe- cific Roseville job to get a task accomplished sooner; and without the opportunity provided by the consortium, the City would only have 2.5 IT members available, which would provide an entirely different business model than currently available through regional collaborations. At the request of Councilmember Etten regarding the extensive hours provided by all IT staff, Mr. Miller advised that of the twelve (12) IT employees at this time, five (5) were exempt, with the remainder of the employees hourly and only work- ing 40 hours, since there was no provision for overtime in the current budget. At the request of Councilmember Etten as to the ratio of IT staff available for the consortium and industry-recommended standards, Mr. Miller advised that in the quarterly meetings of partners in the consortium,members had agreed to fund ad-