02/23/1989 - Minutes )48.7
MINUTES: Committee of the Whole
Thursday, February 23, 1989
5: 30 - 7:00 p.m.
City Council Conference Room
Suite 300, City Hall
324 South State Street
In Attendance: Florence Bittner, Wayne Horrocks, Sydney Fonnesbeck, Alan
Hardman, Tom Godfrey, Roselyn Kirk, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Lee King, Christine
Richman, Mike Zuhl, Emilie Charles, Rodger Neve, Ken Cowley, Steven W. Allred,
Sgt. Mac Connole, Press
1. Steven W. Allred, City Lobbyist, briefed the City Council on the
results of the legislative session. He indicated that the fine arts funding
which was included in the Governor's budget passed. He also indicated that
the 6 point plan which would have impacted the taxing abilities of
municipalities had failed. He stated that the City had agreed with the
Governor's task force to develop equitable taxing programs. Mr. Allred stated
that the bill eliminating the City's ability to charge a transient room tax
failed as well.
2. Rodger Neve, Director of Administrative Services, and Ken Cowley,
Manager of Data Processing, briefed the City Council on the policy issues
facing their Department in 1989. Mr. Cowley reviewed the history of data
processing in City government, indicating that the City must now decide in
which direction they would like to go. He indicated that the Department had
established a system which used multiple vendors, but purchases are approved
by a central steering committee. Council Member Hardman asked if the
Department would be willing to have a Council Member or a Council staff member
on the steering committee. Mr. Neve indicated that they would be happy to
have the Council involved. Lee King, Council Budget. Analyst/Auditor, stated
that he would suggest that the Council serve only in an ex officio capacity
since they have final approval through the budget.
Mr. Cowley stated that. the Department's second issue is the way the
City wants to deal with developing trends in technology. He stated that the
City is currently positioning itself to take advantage of any of the
networking systems which are being developed by computer companies. He stated
that the Department's goal is to avoid purchasing equipment which will be
redundant when the major player is determined.
Mr. Cowley indicated that the City's programs are being developed in
high productivity language which will be compatible with any of the three
network systems being developed. Council Member Roselyn Kirk asked if Mr.
Cowley anticipated any reductions in FTEs as a result of the Data Processing
division's work. Mr. Cowley indicated that the City has already experienced
efficiencies in the Department's as a result of automation. Council Member
Bittner indicated that at some point automation must result in increased
service to the public at a lower cost. Mr. Neve told the Council that
computers make existing staff more productive. Council Member Godfrey asked
if the goal was to save money or to serve the public more efficiently.
Council Member Bittner indicated that at some point the taxpayers must see a
return on their investment.
Council Member Bittner asked if the Department expected any changes in
their base budget this year. Mr. Neve indicated that the Department did not
anticipate any budget increases for Fiscal Year 1989/90. Mr. King asked if
the Department expected the City to reach a point where additional automation
won't be necessary. Mr. Neve stated that there are still employees in City
who do not have access to computers. Mr. King asked when the Department
expected the Automation Master Plan to be published. Mr. Cowley stated that
they anticipate the Master Plan release in Fiscal Year 1989/90.
W. . "WUL IE" _ E , CHAIR
ATTEST:/
CI Y RET
First Interstate Building
Suite 1000
170 S.Main Street
P.O.Box 11508
Salt Lake City,UT 84147
801531-6888
•
February 14, 1989
GrantThornton TiT
Kendrick D. Cowley, Manager Accountants and
Information Management Services Management Consultants
72 East 400 South The U.S.Member Firm of
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Grant Thornton International
•
Dear Ken:
There may be some confusion concerning the audit that we recently conducted on
the Water and Sewer Utility in regard to our recommendation on the use of
• microcomputers. Our recommendation was as follows: • "We recommend that the
Utilities consider purchasing their own software package to calculate
depreciation on the microcomputer to avoid the amount of time required to
adjust the City records. The Utilities could, as an alternative, input all
the corrected information onto the City's data processing system to adjust
their records to the actual and eliminate the errors by building a new file to
be saved and used in the future."
We were suggesting that with this specific application a microcomputer would
be a possible alternative. This recommendation does not mean that we are in
any way recommending that the Water and Sewer Utility should divest themselves
of the City's Information Management Services and attempt to do all their work
on microcomputers.
When we conducted an audit of the City's Information Management Services
Division, as part of the financial audit that we conducted in 1985, we
reivewed the IMS Division's organization, management, systems development
procedures and general controls. Based upon that review, we made
recommendations for improvement. These recommendations were of a refinement
nature, as the basic controls we considered necessary were in place.
Furthermore, we stated to the City Council the complimentary nature of our
findings based upon that review.
It has been a pleasure working with you over the past several years and we
appreciate all that you do to assist us. '
Sincerely,
A;ii?
Dennis J. RoSbins
Partner
DJR/mlz
I
SALT'LAM OW OORPO.° TONT
OFFICE OF _THE CITY COUNCIL
SUITE 300. CITY HALL
324 SOUTH STATE STREET
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
535-7600
TO: Council Members
FROM: Lee King
RE: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE POLICY REVIEW
DATE: February 21, 1989
In reviewing City department's during the budget process and in
preparation for various policy discussions, it has become apparent that
Department's are unaware of the direction that the City is moving towards in
Information Management. The confusion over when a department can request
additional funds for computers during a budget opening versus when the IMS
Steering Comrnittcc approves the purchase is just one example of the process
that staff is concerned with. The Management Audits of Finance and Parks
conducted by Hughes, Heiss & Associates and Peat Marwick also pointed out
areas where the City can improve its data processing procedures. The
guidelines that department's are currently operating under are more of a
collection of individual policies rather than a blueprint for future
direction.
The attached briefing paper from Administrative Services begins the
process of formalizing Information Management needs. INS tried to keep out
all the jargon. However, in some cases it starts to become a little too
detailed. Ken Cowley will be here to clarify computer jargon where possible.
The goal of this policy discussion is to formally publish an
Information Management Plan. Staff recommends that Administrative Services
publish a coordinated master plan for IMS, to include the overall philosophy
that will guide departments in their equipment purchases and when personnel
requirements will change.
RODGER P. NEVE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
72 EAST 400 SOUTH. SUITE 100 PALMER A. DEPAULIS
DIRECTOR MAYOR
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
535-6131
February 15, 1989
Salt Lake City Council
324 South State Street
3rd Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Dear Council Members,
Attached to this brief summary are two policy issues related to
the City's Information Management System. The first issue is the
City's Data Processing Strategic Master Plan. We want to address
the questions 1) Do we have the proper balance of microcomputers
and mainframe computers? 2) Do we have the proper level of
centralization and decentralization of departmental equipment?
3) Do we have too strong a of commitment to one vendor? We also
want to address the intent of the comment that Grant Thornton
made recently when they conducted the audit at Public Utilities.
The second issue is technology trends in the computer industry.
We will answer the questions as to the directions we are taking
and why we are very cautious in some particular areas.
We will make a five minute introducti. • . each issue and then
respond to your questions as you dire
41(710;10"
it
Rodger P. Neve, Director
Administrative Services
RPN:jj
L476
ISSUE I
SALT LAKE CITY DATA PROCESSING STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN
It is one of our goals for fiscal year 1989-90 to publish a high
quality blueprint indicating the proposed future directions for
Information Management Services. When that document becomes
available, we will forward a copy to each of the council members.
To explain where we are headed, we need to first step back and
see where we have come from. In 1971 each department in the City
was headed in separate directions in regards to computers. The
Finance Department had an NCR computer which was out of capacity
and needed a major equipment upgrade. The Water Department was
using a service bureau that was utilizing Burroughs and NCR
equipment. They had major problems and the computer was a
million dollars out of balance with their manual system. The
Police Department, using Univac equipment, had a good system, but
wanted a major expansion. The Traffic Violations Bureau was
using IBM equipment. It was out of capacity, extremely labor
intensive, not meeting the needs of management, and they wished
to expand the system.
The City formed a citizens steering committee which evaluated the
entire City's needs and made the following recommendations: 1.
Immediately centralize control of data processing. Each
department planning its own destiny was leading to chaos as far
as a controlled citywide plan. 2. Hire trained data processing
personnel. 3. Combine the four departmental systems into one
centralized and centrally controlled system thus achieving
economics of scale.
In 1972 this recommendation was implemented and the city signed a
two year contract with Salt Lake County to share their IBM
computer. During these two years, the four departmental systems
were replaced using the IBM system. The administrators from the
departments were much happier with the results. There was
centralized citywide planning and control of Data Processing.
This worked well, but at the end of the two year contract, Salt
Lake County increased their rates to the City by 300%. After
considerable evaluation and counselling with the Steering
Committee a bid was released by the city to acquire their own
computer. Specifications were written for an IBM computer system
similar to the one the City and County had been sharing.
However, Burroughs submitted a superior bid and was awarded the
contract.
From 1974 to 1980 these basic concepts were followed: single
vendor, large mainframe and centralized equipment. There were,
of course, several upgrades during that period of time but the
concept remained the same.
By 1981 computer technology had increased to the point where
computer to computer communications was becoming a reality if
there was tight control over equipment selection. At this time,
we started the move away from centralized equipment and installed .
equipment at the department level where it could be economically
and operationally justified. The City retained centralized
control through the System Steering Committee. This concept of
placing some equipment in departmental areas is commonly referred
to as Distributed Systems. Some examples are: A Pertec
minicomputer at the Police and Traffic Violations Departments, a
Data General system for the Water Department, a Hewlett Packard
system for Fleet Management, a Digital System for Computer Aided
Dispatch System at the Police and Fire Departments and
microcomputers were installed in almost every department
throughout the city. This was the beginning of a migration from
single vendor and centralized equipment to multi-vendor
decentralized equipment.
In 1987 with the Council's and the Administration's approval, we
made a major step forward and moved from distributed systems to a
Distributed Network. A Distributed Network is where many
computers (which may be manufactured by different vendors) can
be connected into a unified system. The easiest way to
understand the direction we are headed is to visualize an
electronic cable connecting all the major City departments
together. Each department can connect the most appropriate
equipment to that cable. It may be A microcomputer that can do
most of its processing locally but on occasion needs to tap into
other corporate data through the network. It may be a terminal
that has no local processing power and gets all of its processing
from another location. This movement, by necessity, must be very
well organized, planned and controlled. We do not want to
progress too fast. You may hear from time to time that we should
be doing this or that, but we do not want to move too quickly
into unproven technologies. Also we want to insure we totally
integrate all systems and avoid costly duplication. However, we
do not want move too slow; in fact we may want to move a little
faster when the future technology is more clear.
The "Golden Rule" that we have been following is to operate at
the proven level of technology. In Exhibit F, you see an arrow
that represents technology. The trailing end of that arrow is
the older and more obsolete technology, while the front of the
arrow is the latest technology. The guideline we are following
is to keep the city in the front of the safe area. This will
insure we do not lag behind or use inefficient and outdated
technologies. We want to stay with proven technologies and not
venture into areas of high risk technologies or philosophies.
ISSUE II
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
The following are the kinds of problems and challenges that the
City will be facing in order to determine the correct approach
and strategies for the future.
Currently there is a tremendous amount of change in the
microcomputer industry. There are questions as to what is going
to be tomorrow's standards. Currently the most popular micro
computer standard is commonly referred to as IBM compatible (MS-
DOS) . However, IBM announced over a year ago that this system
had major limitations in the business environment and recommended
it be replaced with an operating system called OS/2. However,
OS/2 has not been widely accepted and probably will not be a
major force for a few years. Furthermore, the Unix operating
system is gaining major popularity, but there is currently
questions as to who will maintain the standards and set the
direction for that system. There is no question that within a
short number of years many of these problems will be resolved.
However, it would be extremely risky to make this choice now. It
would move us further into unproven and high risk technologies
than we consider acceptable. Therefore, we do not want to move
faster (though there will always rbe pressures from some
departments wanting us to) . We want to be in the upper front of
the safe area and prepare ourselves to take full advantage of the
new technologies as they become practical for Salt Lake City.
The recent acquisition of the Unisys LINC software is a major
step in the preparation to take advantage of these new
technologies when they become available. LINC is specifically
designed to be a "MULTI-PLATFORM" system generator. This means
that systems designed using it will run not only on Unisys
equipment, but also on other major manufacturer's equipment
utilizing the winner of the UNIX, OS/2 and MS-DOS battle. We are
positioning ourselves to take advantage of changing technologies
while maintaining acceptable risk.
Our goal is to maintain the proper balance between micros and
mainframes by staying within the acceptable risk area and without
moving too far into advanced technologies. We are moving as fast
as is safely possible in moving away from a centralized
environment to a decentralized environment. We have been moving
and will continue to move in the direction of a multi-vendor shop
thus reducing our commitment and reliance on any single vendor.
This should give us maximum flexibility and maximize savings
potential.
>-
4$'
.1„...\47.. ,,,,. .\\
CD)
C=i)pp n no, -.'Cr )
C.:0)
��\
NI
U n
C)
(._D
\\.„.
II n II
DISJOINTED SEPARATE SYSTEMS
(MULTI -VENDOR)
FINANCE WATER POLICE TRAFFIC VIOLATION
DEPT DEPT DEPT BUREAU
SERVICE
NCR BUREAU L UNIVAC 13N
NCR/BURROUGH
CENTRAL.. . ZED
(SINGLE VENDOR)
/
BV
(SHARED COUN IY'S SYSTEV )
CENTRALIZED
(SINGLE VENDOR )
BOGHS
B6700
DECENTRALIZED- DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS-DEPARTMENTAL COMPUTING
(MULTI -VENDOR)
NCIC
WASH INGTON D.C.
J
STATE
5/1\
H.P. / 2 \ BURROUGHS / \ r DATA\
3000 DEC ,� PERTEC GENERAL
1/7% 87800 \
TERMINALS TERMINALS TERMINALS TERMINALS
AND AND AND 212
PRINTERS PRINTERS PRINTERS AND
20 55 250 PRINTERS DEVICES
MICRO MICRO LEXITRON
COMPUTERS COMPUTERS WORD
IBM BURROUGHS PROCESSORS
SALT LAKE CITY ' S NETWORK :.
( DISTRIBUTED NETWORK / MULTI — VENDOR )
1987 — PRESENT c, c
STA E
VARIOUS OF
PUBLIC UTAH
MICRO MINI TELEPHONES NETWORKS
B20 B20 (1225)
(12) (33)
MICRO B2D
TERMINALS IBM (175) -' M � sl-
and (97) AV-, 1� us
PRINTERS �`'� PF, a���N\5•C5
(300) �� OP',CAGR StrQ_ TEST
G ,cooEXNOv�\-\"' SYSTEM
E .EG UNIX
o-s _t�N DIGITAL
vEpR- � TELEPHONE
PBX
\1—, NORTHERN TELECOM
�•/\ . _ MINI (6)
MINI MINI PERTEC
DIGITAL
MINI H/P VAX 8350
UN ISYS 3000-37 DATA ENTRY
MAINFRAME STATIONS
U N I SYS AS TERMINAL (7)
ERMINA and
A 15 PRINTERS PRI f/15RS
02)