Du Page County Police Records Management System Oversight Committee met Nov. 17.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Berlin at 2:00 PM.
Chairman Berlin called the meeting to order, citing State of Illinois Executive Order 2020-07 in response to COVID-19: "During the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation, the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120, requiring or relating to in-person attendance by members of a public body are suspended. Specifically, (1) the requirement in 5 ILCS120/2.01 that “members of a public body must be physically present” is suspended; and (2) theconditions in 5 ILCS 120/7 limiting when remote participation is permitted are suspended." He said that under Subsection E of that statute, the Governor has issued a disaster declaration related to public health concerns because the disaster is defined in Section IV of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act and all or part of the jurisdiction of the public body is covered by the disaster area and he has determined that an in-person meeting, or a meeting conducted under the Open Meetings Act, is not practical or prudent because of this disaster, so we will proceed accordingly.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Carlsen, Zerwin, Fieldman, Franz, Berlin, Vesta, Ginex, Bloom, Scalera, Martynowicz
ABSENT: Cronin, Mendrick
3. CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS
Chairman Berlin thanked the public safety agencies for their work during this pandemic, noting that public safety has not suffered because of their hard work.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Police Records Management System Oversight - Special Call - Oct 15, 2019 2:00 PM
RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rick Ginex, Village Manager, Village of Oak Brook
SECONDER: Linda Zerwin
AYES: Carlsen, Zerwin, Fieldman, Franz, Berlin, Vesta, Ginex, Bloom, Scalera, Martynowicz
ABSENT: Cronin, Mendrick
6. ACTION ITEMS
Member Carlsen said at the last meeting we discussed the 2021 budget and during the subsequent discussion we talked about not just the operational budget but also the equipment replacement and capital budgets as well as other costs going forward. Staff said we would put one document together for comparison, which Dave Jordan will present today.
Chairman Berlin asked members to speak up during the discussion if they have a question.
Mr. Jordan said he emailed the memo and document out to members last week, which are also included in the committee packet. He then discussed the overall system cost projections for FY2021, noting that the three largest expenses are for salaries, maintenance, and equipment replacement. Mr. Jordan said the second spreadsheet is the DuJIS operating costs that were submitted to the County through the IT budget, adding that the largest increase was a $10,000 increase in training for staff development. He said benefits have also been added into this spreadsheet, which brings it to a 1% increase. Member Carlsen noted that the reason benefits aren't included in the operations budget is because the County budgets benefits in one accounting unit, which Member Martynowicz confirmed. Mr. Jordan further stated that the salary expenses also include a 2% cost of living increase, which the County may not be doing as this time due to the pandemic so that may change.
Mr. Jordan said the next section on the spreadsheet is mainly the system costs. He said he added the RSA cost back as well as added the Illinois NIBRS cost. Mr. Jordan said the NIBRS cost includes the software, implementation services, and the interface with the state, noting that we are not paying Hexagon for any development work. Member Carlsen said that Aurora is in the same position as the County. He said the County team reached out to them to see if there was any way that we could share or cut that cost but it is a cost that each agency in Illinois will have to pay for NIBRS going forward. Mr. Jordan said the $51,000 amount is for OnCall Analytics, which was discussed at our previous meeting. He said the committee will need to make a decision as to whether or not they would like to move forward with it, adding that the team has some preliminary information on it and saw a demo. Mr. Jordan said the NIBRS tool is something we have to do, it is not something that is optional, so it is a cost we must incur. He said that must be done by December 2022. He said the RSA and OnCall Analytics are something we need to discuss if we want to move forward but they have been included in the budget so that they are accounted for.
Mr. Jordan said we are looking at a per user cost of $992 per person, which is an 11% increase, noting that there is an agency breakdown included in the packet. Member Vesta asked what the original budget projection was per user. Mr. Jordan said he wasn't sure at the moment but he could get those numbers for him.
Member Fieldman said there is a $169,000 increase, which is a 25% increase in this last section of the spreadsheet. He said he understands that NIBRS is an unfunded, mandated increase of $68,000, which is a pretty good portion of it, but he thinks the committee should have a discussion about the other items. He said of particular concern to him is OnCall Analytics for $51,000, which he would like to know what we get for that and why it is needed; an explanation as to why maintenance costs have increased so much in one year; and another look at the RSA contract.
Mr. Jordan explained that we purchased BI Reporting through our Hexagon contract. He said BI has its limitations, meaning there are reports that we cannot write because of the way it is configured. Further, Hexagon no longer has the ability to work with us on getting the reports needed through BI because they no longer have licensing with the vendor behind BI. He said the system is not giving agencies what they need because Hexagon does not have the licensing to do so, noting that it is affecting the CAD side as well. Mr. Jordan said he saw a demo of OnCall Analytics and it is built on newer technology. He said it is much more customizable and has access to all the data elements that we needs. He said it also provides a dashboard where the agencies and the chiefs can then go in and either use the reports we build for them or build on demand reports. He said this is not like NIBRS where we need to do it. He said it would be up to the committee as to whether or not we move forward, saying he could dive deeper into details and bring more information back to the committee. He said he could also engage the chiefs or some of the users to see if it is something they want, from a user standpoint, and see if the agencies think it would be of value or not.
Member Fieldman said he understands that at the policymaking level the report writing is not up to anybody's expectations, which he has also experienced personally. He said he doesn't want to pay $51,000 more because the original system never came close to meeting our expectations. He said his expectation is that Hexagon gives us a system that produces reports that we've always wanted and asked for. He reiterated that he does not want to pay $51,000 more to meet our original expectations, asking how can we make that happen. Member Carlsen said he shares Member Fieldman's frustration. He said reporting is probably one of the biggest things we do with the system. He said the product that came with the original bill is an inferior product and this is their fix. He said there may be a way to work with Hexagon, asking Member Zerwin if there is perhaps a credit that could be used towards this. He said the CAD side shares the frustration with the product. Member Carlsen said from a technology perspective, the SSRS is the standard tool at the County and is what he would have expected to come with the package, but instead it was an SAP product that Hexagon is now getting rid of.
Member Fieldman said Hexagon could drop the price of the RSA contract $51,000 to mitigate the cost of OnCall Analytics. Member Carlsen said that is something they could negotiate with Hexagon. Member Fieldman said we spend millions of dollars on a system that can't produce what he has locally, saying it is a terrible system. He expressed frustration in his team saying he expects more out of our team to get us a product that actually works.
Member Franz asked if the RSA contract was for a year and if so, when does it expire. Member Carlsen responded that we had anticipated this would be a one year contract to get us through the first year but staff has found it to be necessary. He said it has been helpful on both the CAD and RMS sides. He said they are finding the vendor management piece of it is a much bigger lift than they knew, as they are able to push upgrades and issues through on the vendor side rather than our team trying to make it work day to day. He said we can make it work without the RSA but we would suffer. Member Zerwin said the CAD part is functioning fine, adding that where they see the struggle is on the user end with the police officers. She said it is field-based reporting component or network connectivity issues rather than CAD issues. She said she and Member Carlsen have been looking at ways in which the County and ETSB can split some of the costs. She then said when she sent members the letters of intent, the user cost for the first year was $753 per user then increased incrementally per year. She said to answer Member Fieldman's question on why we see that increase in the operating budget, if we purchase the items in the budget, those are the corresponding maintenance costs which are high. She said it is not inconsistent with what they saw with the other products they were looking at.
Member Franz asked if it is time to look at alternatives to the RSA contract, noting that you could hire three full-time employees at that cost. He asked if there is an alternative way to provide the same services outside of the vendor. Member Zerwin said she and Member Carlsen looked into that and one perspective is we are 18 months away from the new platform so having an RSA onboard would be beneficial. She said she would work with the State's Attorney to figure out how much can be covered under the ETSB contract, though the whole amount is already under the ETSB budget.
Member Carlsen said had we known that an RSA would be necessary at the beginning of the project we would have recommended that cost be included in the original contract.
Member Vesta said in regards to the upgrade, it would be beneficial for Hexagon to demonstrate the new system so that we know whether or not we want the RSA. Member Zerwin said some staff have seen it; Mr. Jordan said he has not. Member Fieldman said this is a real concern, that costs continue to go up when we are unhappy with the product.
Member Bloom asked how confident staff is that the number of users will remain static, to which Mr. Jordan responded the number has remained static since last year. Member Bloom asked if it is a possibility for users to move away from the system. Member Carlsen said it is, and there is a natural discussion point. Member Zerwin said in 18 months users will decide if they want to renew or move to something else, though they would need to have a maintenance contract for a certain amount of time until they could move to something else. Member Bloom expressed his concern over agencies leaving due to the 11% increase. Member Carlsen said in his experience, with a system this large, it would take at least 24 months to procure a new system. He said he thinks we should make the system as good as possible for the renewal then see what happens. Member Carlsen reiterated the possibilities of cutting down the RSA cost or looking into a third party.
Member Fieldman said the implementation team and users are looking for direction from the PRMS Oversight Committee while the direction he is looking for is for our team and Hexagon to start delivering a product that meets our expectations without increasing our costs by double digits. He said he thinks someone should sit down with Hexagon to make them understand what our position is. He said if we as an oversight group cannot find a way to deliver a product that we all want and thought we were getting within the original budget, of course people will drop off and lose faith in this oversight committee and staff team. Member Fieldman said he doesn't know what the answer is but he is not prepared to vote in favor of a double digit budget increase on a product that is not meeting our expectation. He said he will be voting no on this budget.
Member Martynowicz asked if there is a mass of people complaining about the product. Mr. Jordan said they did a survey back when we were going through the final milestone at which point the results were fairly positive. He said he does hear quite a few complaints from different agencies, but he also hears from agencies who like the system. He said he works with the chiefs command group who express their displeasure with the system. He said he does not have a real good gauge on how many do or do not like the system, but they could redo the survey to find out. He said the frustration level is there. Member Fieldman asked Member Carlsen and Mr. Jordan isn't the frustration level there for them as well. Member Carlsen responded yes, they are caught in the middle as advocates for the County and user groups while also talking to the vendor. He said it is a complex and complicated system. He also said he believes it will be more difficult to communicate with the vendor without the RSA than with one.
Chairman Berlin asked Mr. Jordan to comment on a memo that Chief Flint sent out to the chiefs regarding patches and fixes that have been done. Mr. Jordan said we are making progress. He said Hexagon has done a lot of work, especially back at the beginning of the work. He said now we are struggling more with technical issues, noting that there is a list of Priority II tickets that his team is working through with the chiefs and Hexagon.
Member Bloom asked why we can't hire an RSA on staff. Mr. Jordan said the issue he is finding is a lot of the responsibilities have been moved over to the staff we currently have. He said the RSA has direct access internally with Hexagon staff, such as their developers and core engineers, and that is where they have been the most beneficial. He said they have internal tools that they do not share with customers. Mr. Jordan said he doesn't think we will ever get to that technical level of expertise. Member Carlsen added that the RSA was more of a conduit in vendor management.
Member Vesta said the chiefs have discussed that they know the County was trying to be respectful with when they hired staff for this project, and he expressed his frustration with the chiefs saying they wish they could go back to NetRMS because this system is not working how they had expected. He said he would like to see Hexagon step up and take responsibility for their poor product.
Chairman Berlin asked if it would be a good idea to sit down with or send a letter to Hexagon to negotiate the costs and see what their response is. Member Carlsen said the combination Member Fieldman suggested makes sense to him and might be an offer they could look at. Member Fieldman asked what the timing is on this budget approval. Member Carlsen responded that the operations budget should be approved today with whatever caveats are decided by the committee, as they start on December 1. He asked Member Martynowicz to weigh in on this as CFO.
Member Martynowicz said we have a little time and can delay the billing a couple of months while we go back to Hexagon and try to clear up a couple of these issues. He said one of the things he was going to suggest was to ask Mr. Jordan if there is anything in this budget as proposed that can be taken out to lower the percentage increase so all of the committee members don't have to go back to their individual boards and explain the double-digit increase for their PRMS costs. Mr. Jordan said the RSA contract and OnCall Analytics are optional and the numbers would look a lot better if those are taken out. Member Zerwin asked if Member Martynowicz was looking at the overall contribution because there is a lot of room in the equipment replacement contribution line, which can be dropped down. Member Martynowicz asked what the ramifications would be if we were to drop that amount down this year. Member Zerwin said it comes down to how we divide the number to get users to $3 million at the end of the project. She said in the last budget cycle there was agreement that we would be doing the renewal which allowed some window of opportunity to reduce that annual payment. She said if we drop it down now it will go up in the future, but if there is that much unhappiness with the increase then that is where she would reduce the contribution at this point. She said the other option is, the ETS Board somewhat nodded in agreement to split some of the cost of the RSA contract since there is work they can do for their side as well. She said if they were to take 50% of that cost it would drop the PRMS budget by half the RSA cost. She also suggested that she is not sure how urgent the NIBRS purchase is for the 2021 budget. Mr. Jordan said Hexagon will not start development of the NIBRS Illinois software until we sign the purchase order for it, adding about six months of development time to the project.
Member Fieldman said he said that is a great plan for equipment replacement. He also said he likes the idea Member Martynowicz suggested to keep the budget down. He said perhaps we won't expend all of the NIBRS funds in 2021. Member Martynowicz said if the RSA contract is reduced by 50%, or $125,000, and NIBRS is removed from 2021, that brings the contribution down by about $25,000 from last year's cost. Member Bloom asked if that would be just pushing the NIBRS cost back a year, creating this same issue next year. Member Fieldman suggested this could be a great negotiating tool with Hexagon. He said he really likes the idea of the $125,000 split with ETSB for the RSA fee and the idea of budgeting only the portion of NIBRS that we are going to spend in 2021.
Member Carlsen asked if splitting the NIBRS cost between 2021 and 2022 works. He said he is not sure what the payment plan is for that. Member Zerwin said to remember that ETSB is always paying forward as these items are always in the ETSB budget, so they would work out the repayment schedule once it is implemented. Mr. Jordan said the state is really pushing the NIBRS system. Member Vesta said he believes everyone was under the impression that it had to be rolled out by 2021, so he will relay the message that it must be done by 2022.
Member Fieldman said he would be supportive of a budget that is $125,000 less, with splitting the RSA contract with the ETSB, and passing that savings on to the users.
Member Vesta reiterated that the goal is to discuss OnCall Analytics and, if it is a great product, people would be willing to pay for it, but he thinks Hexagon has a responsibility to bring the cost down for it. Member Carlsen asked if OnCall Analytics is a third-party product. Mr. Jordan responded it is an SSRS product. He further explained that the $51,000 includes a swap out of the licensing as well as the configuration, delivery services, and training.
Chairman Berlin asked for clarification as to whether or not an amendment to the budget includes removing the $400,000 for replacement equipment. Member Fieldman said he is in favor of keeping those funds.
Following discussion, Member Martynowicz moved to amend the proposed budget by removing the $127,500, which is half the cost of the RSA consultant fee, to be covered by the ETSB, for a new total proposed budget amount of $1,615,034.72, an increase of 3% from the FY2020 budget. Member Fieldman seconded the motion. On a roll call vote, all ayes. Motion approved.
Member Fieldman then moved to approve the FY2021 budget as amended, seconded by Member Martynowicz. On a roll call vote, all ayes. Motion approved.
A. Action Item -- 2021 Budget for PRMS Operations and Equipment Replacement Funds
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Fieldman, Village Manager, Village of Downers Grove
SECONDER: Jeffrey Martynowicz, Chief Financial Officer
AYES: Carlsen, Zerwin, Fieldman, Franz, Berlin, Vesta, Ginex, Bloom, Scalera, Martynowicz
ABSENT: Cronin, Mendrick
7. OLD BUSINESS
None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, Member Carlsen moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Member Bloom. All ayes. Meeting adjourned.
http://dupage.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=7459&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up