CC_Minutes_2013_1014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,October 14,2013 Page 29 At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Miller addressed how locally-funded IT posi- tions related to standby capabilities or if they were distinct in nature; and whether or not those non-local-funded positions could address the City of Roseville's needs. Mr. Miller advised that they could address needs to some extent; however, he noted that the staff shortage was specific to Roseville technology items and us- ers along, not the Metro-NET system; and in all fairness, should they pay more because Roseville continued to grow in its technology needs. While some of the expenses and staffing needs could be borne by all, Mr. Miller opined that it was ultimately up to Roseville to make some financial commitment to the technology items it had approved and applied. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Miller advised that approximately 9 or 10 of the 29 member cities in the consortium employed their own IT staff on some level. Also, Mr. Miller reported that, in only one situation with the City of Maplewood to a limited degree, the others take care of their own IT needs, with the City of Roseville supplementing those needs. As part of this IT model, Councilmember Willmus questioned if adjustments to the model had been considered as additional cities or agencies came on board, that they hire staff to service the broader consortium to get as some of Roseville's needs. While appreciating the presentation, Councilmember Willmus opined that it wasn't the City Council's desire for Roseville to be a standalone for IT needs; but he supported a deeper look at how partnerships are billed in general to step beyond the current model for relief of the City's employees through additional staff on their part or having a greater level of funding from the consortium. At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Miller provided information on the logistics of each Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with member organizations and categories of services provided specific to each user. Mr. Miller explained that each JPA was open-ended and cancellable by either party. As far as the fund- ing allocation, Mr. Miller noted that representatives of the user group met 4-5 times/year and discussed funding allocations; using a methodology or formula to show how costs are determined, with the total cost of the system allocated accord- ingly. Mr. Miller advised that a number of things provided were of general sup- port in nature (e.g. network access, desktop trouble-shooting) and costs based on their number of users; typically done on a proportional basis. Mr. Miller advised that each user group was billed monthly,with conversations held in the spring and fall, so commitments were available early in the budget process to determine their acceptability; and address any increases and their respective budgets. Councilmember Laliberte asked for a list of the twenty-nine member organiza- tions in one list; their number of users; and the services they utilized; with Mr. Miller duly noting that request.