In light of the facts presented here, my technical recommendation is that the City should seriously consider joining the County in this endeavor.

Transcription

1 Memo To: Mayor Bieter, Boise City Council From: Greg Whyte, IT Division Subject: Technical recommendation on Ada County proposal for a phone system at the Public Safety Building Date: February 3, 2005 At the end of November 2004 the City received a letter from the Ada County Commissioners offering to partner with the City in a project to replace the telephone system at the Public Safety Building. The proposed state-of-the-art system replaces a twelve-year-old PBX, and uses Voice over IP (VoIP) technology to integrate the phone system with the County s data network. At that time, the County was in the process of bidding the various pieces comprising the project, but they estimated the City s portion of the cost to be $160,000. They also offered the City an alternative of continued use of the existing PBX, for which we d pay $8,000 plus yearly telephone and maintenance fees. Beyond this information there was little additional data from which to perform an analysis. In January I commissioned a report and recommendation from our telecommunications consultant, TMC Group LLC, to evaluate the alternatives, including an estimate of what it would cost for the City to implement a similar new VoIP system on our own (for comparison). TMC delivered their report on January 18 th, soon after the County bids were finalized. I've had the opportunity to review the TMC report and recommendation. It prompted several questions, and I ve discussed them with TMC and have commented the attached document with this additional information. The report offers insight that was not previously available, primarily identifying costs that we were guessing about until now. Additionally, the County has clarified their position on several points, and the clarifications appear to me to have been in the City's favor. In light of the facts presented here, my technical recommendation is that the City should seriously consider joining the County in this endeavor. 1. It's a good deal. As the report identifies, for us to install our own Voice over IP system, the cost would likely be nearly double over a three year term ($188,187 vs. $327,200, worst case in both scenarios). 2. It is the approach that carries the least risk for the City. The Rolm PBX at PSB is by all accounts, reliable. However, it is old. I am concerned less about the reliability of the phone system than I am about our capability of finding someone in town who will commit to maintaining it in the years ahead. Further, it's important to note that the City has not yet even begun to plan for implementation of a Citywide telephone system. Any new phone system for Police would surely be a result of this planning process. While there's a chance that a proposal to begin this planning may be approved in the coming budget process, even if the planning were to begin at the end of this year, we'd still need funding for the actual implementation, which is unlikely to be approved in a second year budget process. The longer we delay on this process, the more our risk grows, not only for Page 1 of 2 C:\DOCUME~1\wburrows\LOCALS~1\Temp\Council Recommendation for PSB.doc

2 a situation like this at PSB, but also for other City locations. (City Hall's PBX is the same age as the Rolm!) We could be four years from beginning to implement a new telephony strategy. 3. The situation at PSB is unique. No other City facility calls for the degree of telephone interoperability between different agencies than does the Public Safety Building. It really is a unique situation, in which calls, often of an urgent nature, need to be dealt with quickly and effectively, sometimes between both agencies. Because this opportunity was engineered with this interoperability in mind, I believe it to be the best option available to both the City and the County. This approach would certainly eclipse any that we would be likely to implement later, since they are focused on this interoperability. There are a couple other minor considerations: 1. If the Rolm system approach is used, Police will need to dedicate some Police position to act as the Call Attendant. (The responsibility here would be to handle calls that are forwarded to Police from the main number, but for whatever reason are not answered.) It is not expected to be a big job, but it will take someone's time. 2. According to the consultant, the opportunities for integrating this VoIP implementation with the one that the City would eventually implement for all other City locations is very high. This means that eventually all Police locations will likely be able to 4 digit dial any of the other locations, for instance. Cost Summary One-Time Costs: $148,805, estimated ($160,000 worst case) Three Year Costs: $188,187 (Detailed summary is included in the TMC report.) Page 2 of 2 C:\DOCUME~1\wburrows\LOCALS~1\Temp\Council Recommendation for PSB.doc

3 CITY OF BOISE Telephone Service at the Public Safety Complex January 18, 2005 Ada County installed a Cisco Voice over IP telephony system in the new County Courthouse when it opened, as part of an overall plan to migrate all County sites over time. Now that the County is migrating their users located at the Public Safety Complex, Boise City must make some decisions regarding the telephone service for the police personnel at that site. For about twelve years, the City has shared the use of the County s ROLM PBX system at Barrister. Boise City will eventually need to replace most of the telephone systems installed at City locations. However, in absence of a comprehensive strategic plan, it is not known how this will be accomplished. It is likely the City will want to define a cohesive system solution that cost-effectively simplifies operation and support but the size of the project and its affect on all departments dictates the City establish appropriate planning, funding, and coordination. In the meantime, the City must decide what to do at the Barrister site. TMC is an independent telecommunications consulting firm the City has hired to assist with the analysis of the City s options. TMC recently worked with Boise City on two other projects and is familiar with the City s situation. TMC is also assisting the County with the telephony implementation at the Public Safety Complex, which provides added insight and value to all parties. One variable discussed is if the Boise Police Department will maintain a substantial presence at the Public Safety Complex. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the City will keep users at the site for at least three years. OPTIONS SUMMARY The City has three logical options, as follows: 1. Participate in the County s Cisco implementation. There are three subsequent possibilities with this option the City: a. Continues to share service at the PSC with the County long term b. Shares service with the County short term until the City determines a Citywide solution and installs it for the Police at Barrister c. Selects the same system (Cisco) for its City-wide operation and integrates the Barrister equipment 2. Purchase the currently installed system from the County and support the Police Department users at Barrister with the ROLM equipment until the City makes a long term telephony decision. 3. Purchase a new system based upon modern technology. TMC Group Page 1

4 SYSTEM DESIGN AND COST ELEMENTS Telephone systems are in the middle of a transformation. All major manufacturers are designing their new systems around a converged voice and data transmission protocol (Voice over IP). When the City finally moves to replace the existing systems, the new system will be similar in architecture to the County s Cisco system even if another supplier is selected. Thus, some of the elements required for the shared use of the County s system are (and required) for a potential future City installation. With each of the options reviewed, there are common sub-elements: Wiring. If the City chooses to change to an IP-based system, either now or in the future, it will be necessary to upgrade the inside wiring (to Category 6 unshielded twisted pair). If the City elects to continue using the ROLM, the existing wiring can be reused for now, delaying when the City will need to invest in new wiring. Switching electronics. A new system will require new common equipment, which includes switching electronics and base system software/server. With the County option, the City only needs to obtain a minimal amount of advanced data switch ports. With other new systems, the City would also need to purchase their own server and application software. Telephones. Even with the newest systems, almost all multi-button electronic telephones sets are proprietary to the system software. Thus, with any new system the City would need to obtain matching sets. Obviously, if the City reuses the ROLM, the users will keep their existing telephones. Voice mail messaging. The current ROLM is supported by a ROLM phone mail system; any new system will also require voice mail services. If the City shares the County s system, the only costs will be the right-to-use fees for each mailbox. With a new City system, one additional feature option is unified messaging, which allows users to manage voice messages as messages. Telephone service. The telephone company service today is shared with the County, included in the chargeback costs. If the City continues to share the telephone system with the County, the telephone service remains shared. If the City installs its own system or keeps the ROLM, the City will have to install direct telephone service. Implementation services. Each of the options requires a varying degree of installation and professional services. Even keeping the existing ROLM system will require coordination and management, although less than other solutions. The cost analysis does not include the soft-dollar impact of additional administrative tasks the City will incur if selecting an option other than participating with the County. TMC Group Page 2

5 OPTION ANALYSIS A projection of the one-time costs (installation and capital items) and the three-year costs for each of the options listed earlier is attached to this report. In most cases, the numbers are from actual quotes from vendors and include taxes. The wiring cost estimate includes a surplus for potential change orders and unknowns. Share the County s Cisco System One-Time Costs: $148,805 Three Year Costs: $188,187 The option that carries the least risk is to participate in the County s implementation of the Cisco telephony solution. The County will continue to provide call routing (including dial tone), system support, and maintenance coordination. The City would not have to purchase the telephone application software, common equipment hardware, separate lines from the telephone company, or a separate maintenance agreement. Also, since many incoming calls are answered and transferred from the County, it is advantageous to remain on the same system and share a central answering position. Other advantages to the Cisco system include the ability for the City to make some of their own basic telephone changes (via software access) and access to many advanced telephone set features. Otherwise, the County is offering a straightforward replacement for the telephone sets and standard voice mail service. The City can save additional onetime costs by electing not to provide voice mailboxes to field personnel. Now that many people carry cell phones, the $11,660 in additional right-to-use fees may not be justified. This would drop the project costs to $137,145 up front and $176,527 over three years. It is important to identify the cost elements that can be classified as City assets, since the City can potentially reuse these items in a non-county solution or recover some of the value through resale or trade-in. This includes the Cisco proprietary telephone sets and the non-proprietary data switching electronics. Although the costs for re-wiring are not a City asset, it is a cost the City would incur at whichever point it upgraded its telephone service to VoIP-based. By rewiring now, the City gains the benefit of using the high quality Category 6 cabling for the data network. This provides more reliable performance and higher throughput potential. As mentioned in the options summary, there are three subsequent developments: Comment: The wiring costs are estimates. We won t be charged more than this amount, but the wiring may come in less than projected. In that case we d pay the actual cost. Comment: however, the County has assured us that call transfers will be seamless regardless of the approach we select. The caveat in the case of using the Rolm is that once a call is transferred to Police, the call will not return to the County if unanswered. Therefore Police will need to assign a person to be the Call Attendant for such situations. Comment: $110/person, roughly, if Police decides to pick and choose which field personnel get voic . Comment: This absolutely needs to be spelled out in great detail in any contract we may have with the County. Comment: The intention here is that two cables will be pulled to each Police location one for the phone system and another for computer connections. a. The City shares telephone service at the Barrister site with the County for the long term. This may be feasible regardless of the City s eventual telecommunications plans. If the Police maintain a presence at this site, then intra-agency telephone calls will remain a part of normal business. When the City upgrades the systems at other sites, they can be inter-networked with the County s system to support interoperability with the Barrister operation. With this scenario, the value of all listed costs in the spreadsheet is fully realized. TMC Group Page 3

6 b. The City shares telephone service with the County only until the City installs a new solution City-wide. At this point, the City will have already paid for the necessary wiring and will own VoIP compatible switching electronics. The proprietary Cisco telephone sets will not be reusable, but they may have a value on the used equipment market. The City will migrate the Barrister users to the new system, and the City s system can optionally be inter-networked with the County s system. Under this scenario, approximately 40% of the one-time costs offset future costs, plus whatever trade-in or resale is obtained on the sets. c. The City selects the same system (Cisco) for its City-wide operation and integrates the Barrister equipment into a City-managed Cisco telephony solution. This would mean most of the capital items are reused and the Barrister site users would see minimal changes when the City implemented their systems. Some expense would be incurred to convert from the County to the City system. Purchase the used ROLM PBX One-Time Costs: $20,900 Three Year Costs: $79,310 The option with the lowest immediate capital cost is for the City to purchase the current ROLM PBX system from the County and continue using the existing phones. It is the option with the most risk, because the system is about 12 years old and local support is limited. The City will become responsible for the management and vendor coordination for the system, which has always been handled by County personnel. The City will also need to contract, coordinate, and manage telephone line service at Barrister. Although the majority of Police department users would notice little change, there would be some complications with the County shared incoming telephone number used at the site, since the two entities would be on different telephone systems. Comment: Assumes yearly maintenance agreement with a vendor, which, FYI, has not been City practice on other City phone systems. In this case, we must enter into a maintenance agreement, not only because the County insists upon it, but because evidently there is just one person in town who is trained in maintaining the old Rolm, and we want to ensure ourselves that we have the ability to fix something if it breaks. If the City opts to keep the ROLM PBX, it only delays the need to invest in a complete replacement system in the future. As such, the costs associated with the ROLM system should be considered short term sunk costs, with no return. The ROLM equipment is not expected to have any trade-in value by the time the City will remove it from service. One option readily dismissed was to purchase a used telephone system other than the County s ROLM PBX. The costs for purchase and installation of replacement common equipment, software, and telephones make this option much more expensive and disruptive than using the ROLM, without any offsetting advantages. Purchase New System One-Time Costs: $232,700 Three Year Costs: $327,200 The only other potential option is for the City to purchase a new system based upon modern (VoIP) technology. However, this represents the highest immediate costs, TMC Group Page 4

7 significant ongoing costs, and several drawbacks. Like the used equipment option, the City will immediately become responsible for the contracting, coordination, and management of equipment and services. Some costs, such as professional services and wiring, are more expensive due to the additional requirements of a new system. Without a City-wide telecommunications plan, there is a good chance the new system selected for the Police at the Barrister site would not be compatible with the eventual comprehensive plan. There is also not enough time to complete a system replacement project to coincide with the County s installation timeline, which means an interim plan with additional costs would be necessary. Comment: (using the Rolm system) RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY As described in the above analysis, participating with the County provides the most value to the City and the least risk. In all three subsequent scenarios, the value of the wiring and new switching electronics investment extends beyond the initial County-driven requirements. This minimizes the apparent cost differences with the used ROLM option. In addition, the City benefit from both the County s technical support and their low cost chargeback for the shared telephone company service. Ada County Cisco System One-Time Annual Operational Costs Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Wiring $47,700 $0 $0 $0 Switching Electronics $17,096 $2,438 $2,438 $2,438 Telephones $53,355 $610 $610 $610 Additional Software RTU $22,154 $0 $0 $0 Professional Services $6,000 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Items $2,500 $0 $0 $0 County Chargeback $10,080 $10,080 $10,080 (Dialtone and System Support) TOTALS $148,805 $13,128 $13,128 $13,128 Total 3 Year Costs, w/field Msg $188,187 Remove Msg for Field Officers $11,660 Alternate Config (w/o Field Msg): $137,145 Total 3 Year Costs, w/o Field Msg $176,527 TMC Group Page 5

8 ROLM System One-Time Annual Operational Costs Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Wiring $2,000 $0 $0 $0 Telephone System $14,000 $12,720 $12,720 $12,720 Comment: All cabling for the Rolm is in place. This is a contingency amount for removal of old City wiring that is found when the County rewires. Professional Services $3,200 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Items $500 $0 $0 $0 Telco Service (Dialtone) $1,200 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 TOTALS $20,900 $19,470 $19,470 $19,470 Total 3 Year Costs $79,310 New IP System One-Time Annual Operational Costs Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Wiring $50,000 $0 $0 $0 System / Server $32,000 $5,750 $5,750 $5,750 Switching Electronics $28,000 $4,800 $4,800 $4,800 Telephones $50,000 $700 $700 $700 Voice Messaging $45,000 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 Professional Services $24,000 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous Items $2,500 $0 $0 $0 Comment: This is a worst case figure for voice mail. City Hall purchased one in 2004 for half this amount, however it does not offer advanced capabilities, like integrating voice messages with . The system priced here does offer this capability. Telco Service (Dialtone) $1,200 $6,750 $6,750 $6,750 TOTALS $232,700 $31,500 $31,500 $31,500 Total 3 Year Costs $327,200 TMC Group Page 6