application and software report: citizens' commission on lewiston and auburn cooperation

7/29/2019 Application and Software report: Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and Auburn Cooperation

1/37

Cities of Lewiston and Auburn

Citizens' Commission on Lewiston and AuburnCooperation

Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations(Analysis and Development for Common Applications in the IT Infrastructure)

October 23, 2008


2/37

Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Project Background .................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Project Assumptions ................................................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Analysis Process ....................................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Report Format.......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.0 Analysis and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 10

2.1 Revised Consolidation Priorities ............................................................................................................ 10

2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 12

2.2.1 Help Desk ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems) ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.3 Email & Calendars ......................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.4 Office Productivity ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.2.5 Permitting and Inspections ........................................................................................................... 162.2.6 ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax) ..................................... 17

2.2.7 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and Inventory ..................................... 19

2 2 8 Motor Vehicle Registration 21


3/37

Executive Summary

Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker (BDMP) was retained by the Joint Services Commission to conduct an

independent and objective review of the Cities current business applications and information

technology (IT) infrastructure and identify recommendations related to the design of a future

consolidated IT environment. We worked with City leaders and stakeholders to clearly define the scope

of this project and its primary purpose as evaluating key business applications and recommending which

of these the Cities should consolidate into a shared IT environment. This analysis was conducted based

on the assumption that the Citys of Lewiston and Auburn (the Cities) will merge some or all of their IT

functions. Therefore our analysis, and this report, does not recommend whether the Cities should merge

their IT functions, but rather identifies recommended alternatives and priorities for each business

application area and IT service should the Cities move ahead with IT function consolidation.

While it was necessary for us to consider the potential costs and benefits of each alternative, the scope

of our work did not include a formal cost-benefit analysis for each recommendation. The following table

provides a summary of the recommendations made in this report:

Table 1: Summary of Recommendations

Final

Ranking Function

BDMP

Recommendation Summary of Reason

1 HelpdeskIssue an RFP for a new

software application

Neither City is currently using a helpdesk application. This

application will be critical to enable effective collaboration and

support of a diverse group of stakeholders/customers supported by

a combined IT department.

2 GISContinue existing

collaboration activities

Both Cities currently use ESRI GIS software and are already engagedin consolidating efforts to leverage work being done by each City

Department, and minimize costs (for example, housing data for

both Cities on one centralized data server).

C lid t t A b


4/37

Table 1: Summary of Recommendations

FinalRanking Function

BDMPRecommendation Summary of Reason

and Inventory

8Motor Vehicle

Registration

Consolidate to Auburns

Application (MUNIS)

Both Cities are using applications that are built on current

technology and are supported by reputable vendors in the

marketplace today; Trio Software (Lewiston) and Tyler/MUNIS

(Auburn). Our research showed that these applications are

comparable in terms of technology viability, level of integration,

business needs (reported level of user satisfaction) and cost.

Therefore our decision has been based upon simplification of

software/hardware/services support, by continuing to leverage

modules provided by MUNIS.

9 CAMA

Consolidate to

Lewistons Application

(CLT IAS)

Both Cities are using applications that are built on current

technology and are supported by reputable vendors in the

marketplace today; CLS-IAS/Tyler (Lewiston) and AssessPro/Patriot

Properties Inc. (Auburn). Our research showed that these

applications are comparable in terms of technology viability, level of

integration, business needs (reported level of user satisfaction) and

cost. Therefore our decision has been based upon simplification of

software/hardware/services support, by continuing to leverage

modules provided by MUNIS.

10Document

Management

Issue RFP for a new


Each City has recently begun to implement new document

management systems. These efforts are focused on two different

functional areas; GIS (Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston).

Neither City is currently planning to roll out document management

at an enterprise level. We recommend that the Cities continue to

learn from these efforts and consider future consolidation

opportunities (through a structured RFP process) based on refined

document management needs.

11

Building

Environmental

Control

Issue RFP for a new


Due to the hardware and software integration complexities and the

potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of its useful

life, we recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a single

vendor who can consolidate the monitoring and control of both


5/37

detailed analysis and recommendations; and Section 3, other considerations the Joint Services

Commission and the Cities should consider should IT consolidation efforts move forward.

Finally, during the course of this project, we received a tremendous amount of support, assistance,

courtesy, and flexibility from project participants in both Lewiston and Auburn. We would like to thank

the leaders and stakeholders from the Cities that participated in the project and worked hard to gather

much of the information that was needed to conduct our analysis.


6/37

1.0IntroductionThis section of the report includes a project background, a summary of the project approach used during

the project, and a detailed summary that describes the format of this report.

1.1 Project BackgroundThe cities of Lewiston and Auburn (the Cities) are in the process of merging certain areas of theirmunicipal service delivery and operations as a result of recommendations from the Joint Services

Commission. The Commission was established to identify opportunities for the Cities to consolidate

operations to reduce costs and increase the effectiveness of local community services. The intent of this

project is to provide the Cities with an independent, objective review of the Cities current IT

infrastructure and business applications and offer specific recommendations related to the design of a

future consolidated IT environment.

In our work, we have endeavored to conduct a detailed analysis and deliver a final report that as closely

as possible adheres to the Commissions stated charter to:

develop plans for the implementation of new and enhanced cooperative,

collaborative and/or consolidated municipal operations and services to

improve the quality and effectiveness of the services provided to the

citizens of Lewiston and Auburn, while at the same time increasing the

productivity of municipal government and reducing the cost to the

taxpayers.

1 2 Project Approach


7/37

Deliverable D1: Information Request Sheet and Software Application Inventory Template(s).

2. Reviewed existing documentation, develop application inventory, and prepared an onsitemeeting schedule. We reviewed all available documentation regarding current administrative

business processes and supporting applications for both Cities that was provided. Utilizing the

templates regarding the existing applications used in both Cities, we compiled a single

Application Inventory document. After reviewing this information and as a result of working

with both City project leads, we established an onsite meeting schedule for our fact-findingwork.

Deliverable D2: Application Inventory and On-site Meeting Schedule.

3. Facilitated on-site meetings. We conducted interviews with personnel from the IT departmentsat both Cities and business areas impacted by potential consolidation efforts. These interviews

deepened BDMPs understanding of the Cities current environment and included discussion on

IT infrastructure, servers, applications; user satisfaction; security processes; budgets; projects

that are planned or are in progress; and short and long-term goals and objectives. The primary

purpose of these meetings with Cities was to fill in holes where data that was provided by the

Cities may not have been complete. In addition to meeting with IT and Business Users with each

City, we also had an initial meeting (on August 7, 2008) with the Joint Services Commission to

describe our project approach and work to date.

4. Prioritize application consolidation opportunities. A joint meeting with representatives fromeach City and BDMP was held on Wednesday, September 24th. During this meeting, participants

worked collaboratively to grade each business function from the perspectives of Need,


8/37

5. Develop Application Consolidation Recommendations Report. Once we had City approval onthe prioritized list of application consolidation opportunities, we assessed the currentapplications used by the Cities of Lewiston and Auburn and provided one of four

recommendations:

1. Consolidate to Auburns application;2. Consolidate to Lewistons application;3. Issue RFP for a new software application;4. Continue existing collaboration activities;

When providing these recommendations, we included a comparison of costs (current annual

software license maintenance, one-time estimated consolidation cost, and estimated

consolidated annual software license maintenance cost), viability of the company, ability to fit

within the Citys hardware/network architecture, and a measure of the consolidated

applications ability to improve existing business processes within the organization.

Deliverable D4: Report of Application Consolidation Recommendations

1.3 Project AssumptionsCity management directed BDMP to proceed under the following assumptions:

1. City IT Departments will merge in the future. City Management indicated that when conductingour analysis we should assume that the Cities IT Departments will be merged into one ITDepartment.

2. Organizational buy-in and consensus should be assumed. City management indicated that


9/37

best practices, and previous project experience. Additional assumptions we made that were used to

guide our recommendation process include:

- Application costs are based on new implementations and include three components: initialsoftware licensing costs (35% of total), hardware (10%), and implementation services (55%, i.e.,

data conversion, training, etc). This breakdown of costs is what we would expect based on

industry best practice and experience conducting similar projects for municipalities the size of

Lewiston and Auburn.

- Although the Cities may avoid some or all application implementation costs by conducting all, ora portion of, the implementation services internally, our estimates assume this responsibility

will be fully provisioned by the company implementing the systems.

- Ongoing annual maintenance costs typically approximate 20% of the initial software licensingcost component of the total implementation cost.

- Although the Cities may benefit from utilizing existing or shared hardware to support multipleapplications, our analysis assumes new hardware for each application and does not include

consideration for desktop computers.

- Our cost estimates do not include consideration for savings from future business process relatedefficiencies that might be gained by consolidating applications.

1.4 Analysis ProcessWe conducted our independent analysis based on four criteria including technology viability,

integration, business needs, and application costs. We worked with each IT department to collect

information for each category using focused questions (Appendix B) as a framework.


10/37

analysis be conducted to determine if existing business or technical functionality may be lost

from migrating from one system to the other.

4. Application Costs: Finally, we evaluated available cost information for each Citys applicationsincluding both initial implementation costs and ongoing maintenance costs. In addition to

reviewing reported implementation and ongoing maintenance costs for current applications, we

also developed one-time cost and ongoing maintenance costs for each of our recommendations,

demonstrated in Appendix C (Estimated Consolidation Costs), which factored into our

consideration of cost.

Recommendation Categories

We undertook our analysis with the intent to provide one of four recommendations:

1. Consolidate to Auburns application;2. Consolidate to Lewistons application;3. Issue RFP for a new software application;4. Continue existing collaboration activities;

1.5 Report FormatOur report presents our analysis and recommendation for each of the final business functions that were

selected for the Commission to consider in their recommendations to the Cities. Additionally, we have

provided additional recommendations the Commission may consider as a means to improve current and

future collaboration. Our analysis is supported by information contained in the attached appendices.


11/37

2.0Analysis and RecommendationsThis section of the report includes a summary list of the applications and the revised consolidation

priorities we considered as part of our analysis. This section of the report also details the analysis we

used to provide our recommendations within each major business function.

2.1 Revised Consolidation PrioritiesIn our analysis, we have made revisions to the opportunity priority ranking based on either new

information collected subsequent to the first ranking, or our professional experience. In general, we

ranked the opportunities based on a number of subjective criteria including current application projects,

the Citys strategic objectives, business needs, and project complexity. Table 2 below is the list of

software applications and the revised consolidation priorities we considered as part of our analysis:

Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process PrioritiesFinal

RankingBusiness Function

City of Lewiston

Current

City of Auburn

Current

1 Helpdesk None None

2 GIS ESRI ESRI

3 Email and CalendarsGroupWise

(Novell)Exchange Server

(Microsoft)

4Office Productivity (wordprocessing, spreadsheet,

etc)

Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others(Microsoft, Corel)

Office 2007(Microsoft)

Permitting and GeoTMS PermitTrack


12/37

Table 2: Current City Applications and Business Process Priorities

FinalRanking

Business Function City of LewistonCurrent

City of AuburnCurrent

9 CAMACLT IAS

(Tyler Technologies)AssessPro

(Patriot Properties, Inc.)

10 Document ManagementFortis SE

(Westbrook Technologies, inc.)GemWarehouse(Knowledge Tree)

11 Building EnvironmentalControl

Tracer Summit (Trane): Controls HVAC

at City Hall & Violations Bureau Bldg

Metasys Building Automation System(Johnson Controls): Public Works and

Police Department Buildings.

Insight(Siemens)

12 Fuel ManagementSentry

(Trak Engineering, Inc)

Fuelmaster(Syn-Tech Systems, Inc.)


13/37

2.2 Consolidation Analysis and Recommendations2.2.1 Help Desk

Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

None None RFP for new application

Definition: Help desk software applications are designed to support IT departments in the collection,

categorizing, and correction of IT technical issues. Help desk solutions may be as simple as customizedspreadsheets used to track issues in small IT Departments to more robust help desk applications that

support such things as work orders, inventory, and online support for users.

Recommendation and Decision Process: BDMP evaluated information submitted by both Cities and

determined that neither City is using a robust method for tracking IT related technical support issues.

We recommend the Cities IT Department work together to identify and implement a shared help desk

solution that could become a first step toward closer coordination and sharing of resources.

We made this decision based on the need for both Cities to have a help desk solution and the potential

benefits a shared solution may have on future collaboration efforts.

Benefits: By implementing a shared help desk application, the IT Departments may begin evaluating

how they might share technical support resources to maintain IT assets across both Cities. In particular,

as the Cities move toward standardizing around common technology environments, the common

experience and knowledge from both IT Departments may be leveraged to benefit both Cities throughprocess efficiencies and improved service. The Cities may also take advantage of capabilities offered in

robust helpdesk applications such as the ability for users to submit service requests via Internet,

t ti i t f i f l ti t i di id l bilit t t k d t


14/37

2.2.2 GIS (Geographic Information Systems)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

ESRI ESRI Continue existing collaboration

activities

Definition: A geographic information system (GIS) is an application for capturing, storing, analyzing,

managing and presenting data that is linked to a specific geographical location (spatially referenced).GIS applications can allow users to create interactive queries (user-created searches), analyze spatial

information, edit data, maps, and present the results of all these operations. Depending on their

technical sophistication and configuration, GIS applications may integrate with CAMA applications,

permitting and inspection applications, and document management systems.


determined that both are using the same application (ESRI) and are already engaged in efforts to moreclosely coordinate and consolidate their GIS applications. For example, we learned that the Cities are in

the process of consolidating their data to one server (hardware device) environment instead of having

two servers to house the City specific data. This will reduce support and maintenance costs for the

future environment. We recommend that the Cities continue to support the existing consolidation

efforts by each engineering group and to use this as an example of how other City departments might

collaborate on technology initiatives.

Benefits: Continued success in lowering overall system support costs by sharing resources (such as data

servers) and benefiting from shared experience on the system.


15/37

2.2.3 Email & CalendarsLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

GroupWise

(Novell)

Exchange Server

(Microsoft)


Application

(Microsoft Exchange Server)

Definition: Emailing and Calendar applications are the foundation for group collaboration andcommunication. Typically, these applications include a server application and an application on each

users computer.


determined that each has decided to standardize their application environment to Microsoft server

technology. Thus, our recommendation is for Lewiston to move from their current Novell solution and

implement Microsoft Exchange Server.

However, while Lewiston should (and is already committed to) migrating to the MS Exchange Server

solution, we believe this is not a critical project since the current Novell environment is meeting the

Cities business needs. Therefore, this migration could be undertaken later as part of a larger project

such as potentially merging data centers.

Benefits: By consolidating to the same technology architecture, the primary benefit will be the need to

maintain only one environment for both Cities. Thus, the Cities may more easily share helpdeskresponsibilities, training resources, and infrastructure costs. The Cities may also make use of Microsofts

built in capabilities such as being able to view other users calendars for scheduling, sharing a global


16/37

Definition: Office Productivity software is perhaps the most recognized set of software applications and

is built around word processing, spreadsheet, and presentation software. The predominant leader in thiscategory is Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), although there has been new competition in

that space with products such as OpenOffice and Google Docs.


determined that both are already deeply invested in MS Office applications. Lewiston is using an older

version of Office (2003) and has some individual users that still rely on alternative applications such as

WordPerfect. Auburn is current on the latest version of Office (2007). We recommend that the Citieswork to consolidate on the same MS Office version and eliminate the use of non-Office applications.

Benefits: By consolidating to a common office productivity software, the primary benefit will be the

need to support only one technology environment for both Cities. Thus, the Cities may more easily share

helpdesk responsibilities and training resources.

2.2.4 Office ProductivityLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Office 2003, WordPerfect, etc

(Microsoft, Corel)

Office 2007

(Microsoft)


Application

(MS Office 2007)


17/37

2.2.5

Permitting and InspectionsLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

GeoTMS

(Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)

PermitTrack

(Custom MS Access)

RFP for new application

Definition: Applications related topermitting and inspection functions are used by city engineers and

inspectors for activities related to real estate parcels such as inspections, permits, complaints, andcorrective actions. From an enterprise perspective, such a system may be closely integrated with GIS,

CAMA, and/or financial applications to present all critical information related to land parcel.


conducted user interviews to determine that the Cities should work together to identify and implement

a new Permitting and Inspection application solution.

We made this decision based on the mutual need evidenced by Auburns dissatisfaction with their

current application and Lewistons interest in alternatives. Auburn uses a non-vendor supported

application called PermitTrack that was custom developed with Microsoft Access. Additionally, it does

not contain the standard functionality that is available with other COTS (commercial off the shelf)

applications on the market today (i.e. Local Government Manager, Accela Land Management,

PermitSoft, etc). Lewiston has found the GeoTMS product difficult to use and not intuitive. While the

application is supposedly designed to integrate with the GIS system, it is not currently configured to do

so. The current users only use very basic functionality and do not have the resources and time to

leverage additional functionality.

Although our recommendation is for the Cities to consolidate through an RFP process for a new


18/37

2.2.6

ERP - (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR, Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Pentamation (Sungard):

miscellaneous accounts

receivable (non-tax), accounts

payable, budgeting, general

ledger, human resources, and

purchasing.

Keystone (Keystone Software Solutions,

Inc): billing and accounts

receivable for property tax.

MUNIS (Tyler Technologies): Water &

Sewer billing and accounts

receivable

MUNIS

(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)

Consolidate to AuburnsApplication

(MUNIS)

Definition: ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) applications are often the most expensive and complex

software systems that municipal organizations may implement. ERP systems seek to seamlessly

integrate multiple business function applications and data into a single application and database. The

intent is to avoid the technical challenges and financial costs of having to create customized interfaces

or conduct manual transfers between several, non-integrated applications. Despite their promise, ERP

systems are difficult to implement because they impact virtually every business process in an

organization. In many cases, the most significant implementation costs and challenges are related to the

organizational changes and process improvements ERP systems typically require.


19/37

Sungard Pentamation system to support miscellaneous accounts receivable (non-tax), accounts payable,

budgeting, general ledger, human resources, and purchasing. However, it uses the Keystone application

for billing and accounts receivable for property tax, and the MUNIS system for billing and accounts

receivable for water and sewer. Lewiston updated its Pentamation system three years ago for

approximately $600,000 and just implemented the MUNIS system for billing and accounts receivable

functions related to water and sewer for approximately $100,000. Lewiston City users are pleased with

their applications and have implemented processes and procedures required to support management

control and oversight.

Auburn uses Tyler Technologies MUNIS application for these same functions except water and sewer

which is not handled by the City. Auburn implemented MUNIS in 2006 for approximately $175,000 and

has spent considerable time and resources integrating it into their Citys business processes. Despite the

steep learning curve, Auburn City users have become familiar with the application and appear pleased

with its ability to meet their business needs.

Given the large, recent investments by both Cities, we believe it is unreasonable to expect that either

City will wish to consider consolidating to a common application in the near-term. However, for the longterm, we recommend that the Cities work toward consolidating to the MUNIS system since Lewiston

would be able to reduce the number of its applications from three (MUNIS, Keystone, and Pentamation)

to one and therefore reduce its IT support overhead and complexity. Lewiston already uses MUNIS for

utility billing and a Tyler Technologies product (CLT-IAS) for its CAMA system. Therefore, it makes sense

that Lewiston would eventually seek to consolidate toward a system that can also take advantage of

existing applications. Finally, Lewiston would benefit from leveraging Auburns familiarity with the

system.

Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common ERP system will be centralized data that

will enable the Cities to investigate improved performance measures based on historical data We


20/37

2.2.7

Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet Management, and InventoryLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management

(Ron Turley Associates)

eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility

Management

(E-Govlink.com)

gbaMS

(GBA Master Series, Inc.)


Application

(gbaMS)

Definition: For this engagement, we considered applications that consolidate the functions of work

orders, fleet management, inventory, and facilities management. As an example, such systems may

allow municipal citizens to submit service requests (i.e. pot holes, street lamps, road signs, etc) via

online web interface, convert the request to a work order and have it routed to the right department,

track the work accomplished, (including labor, materials, and overhead), create a bill or cross-charge,

and pass relevant accounting information to the municipal financial accounting system. Such systemswould also keep track of vehicle repairs, repair parts inventory (i.e. replacement pumps, fans, vehicle

parts, etc), bulk inventory (i.e. sand, salt, chemicals, etc), and support other functions related to

maintaining a public works department.


spoke with representatives from both IT Departments and Lewistons Public Works department to

determine that the Cities should consolidate on the gbaMS application.

We made this recommendation because Auburn has recently implemented gbaMS solution to meet the

needs of the four identified public works functions (Work Orders, Facility Maintenance, Fleet


21/37

work order management system. For example, the website may collect a request from a citizen to fix a

pothole, but a work order for this work is not automatically generated.

Benefits: For Lewiston, the primary benefit of this recommendation will be the consolidation of multiple

functions onto one application and adding functionality that does not currently exist. This system may

then be configured to more easily integrate with other City systems as needed to facilitate management

monitoring and control. Lewiston may also benefit from leveraging Auburns experience with the

system.

For both Cities, the potential benefits of this recommendation is the opportunity to work towardmerging both departments onto one database so that there can be one, shared view of the public works

departments. Once a common technology environment is in place, the Cities may begin to consider

other opportunities such as shared vehicle maintenance, more efficient plowing routes, and improved

staffing efficiencies.


22/37

2.2.8

Motor Vehicle RegistrationLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Trio Software

(Harris Computer Systems)

MUNIS

(Tyler Technologies, Inc.)


Application

(MUNIS)

Definition: Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) software is the software used by City admin personnel toreceive citizen payments for vehicle registration and pass this information on to the States computer

systems.


determined that both are pleased with their current applications which are current and meet each Cit ys

business needs. We recommend that the Cities pursue eventual consolidation of their MVR applications

as part of a larger ERP project to consolidate on MUNIS in the future. We made this decision based on

our experience that when selecting between two comparable applications, it is preferable to consolidate

on a common vendor in order to take advantage of more closely integrated applications and support

services.

Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common MVR system will be the potential to gain

improved efficiencies from decreasing the complexity of the IT support environment. This benefit will be

realized by IT support staff maintaining one server (versus two), one application from one vendor

(versus two applications from two different vendors), and through consolidated/shared training

opportunities for staff across both cities.


23/37

2.2.9

CAMA (Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal)Lewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

CLT IAS

(Tyler Technologies)

AssessPro

(Patriot Properties, Inc.)

Consolidate to Lewistons

Application (CLT-IAS)

Definition: CAMA applications are used by Cities to track and assign parcel valuations and tax rates that

are used to calculate real estate tax amounts. They typically then pass this information to a billing andaccounts receivable application to track collection.


determined that both are pleased with their current applications. The Patriot (AssessPro) and Tyler

Technologies (CLT-IAS) products are well recognized in the industry and have been integrated

successfully with other mainstream financial applications at similar sized municipalities. Lewiston and

Auburn have each implemented these applications recently (within four years) and the useful life of

these systems has not run its course.

However, we believe Auburn should consolidate on Lewistons application, the CLT-IAS product by Tyler

Technologies. We made this decision based on our experience that when selecting between two

comparable applications, it is preferable to consolidate on a common vendor in order to take advantage

of the opportunity for more closely integrated applications and support services.

Benefits: The primary benefit from consolidating to a common CAMA system jointly used by bothmunicipalities will be centralized data that will enable the Cities to more easily consider and ultimately

work toward consolidation of business functions. Also, by consolidating to a common vendor (Tyler

Technologies) the Cities may gain improved efficiencies from decreasing the complexity of the IT


24/37

2.2.10

Document ManagementLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Fortis SE

(Westbrook Technologies, inc.)

GemWarehouse

(Knowledge Tree)

Issue RFP for a new software

application

Definitions: Document management encompasses a wide range of possible uses but is primarily focused

on the digitizing of documents and making those digital files available to a larger audience. Access tothese documents may be done through a number of different methods including a web-browser or

through integration with specific applications. A significant cost element for document management is

the hardware (scanners) and labor (scanning documents) required to convert existing paper documents

into digitized files that are then imported and stored in the document management system.


spoke with representatives from both IT Departments to determine that the Cities. Each City has

recently begun to implement new document management systems. These efforts are focused on two

different functional areas; GIS (Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston). Neither City is currently

planning to roll out document management at an enterprise level. We recommend that the Cities

continue with their current plans to implement Fortis SE and GemWarehouse as these efforts are

relatively inexpensive and will provide an opportunity to learn and refine citywide document

management needs.

We also recommend that should the Cities decide to consolidate IT functions, a Document ManagementPlan should be developed that allows each City, and their respective School departments to leverage a

combined future document management investment. The decision for the future system should be


25/37

2.2.11 Building Environmental ControlLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Tracer Summit (Trane)

Metasys Building Automation System

(Johnson Controls)

Insight

(Siemens)


application

Definition: Building environmental control software allows for the centralized monitoring of

environmental sensors and monitoring / control of HVAC settings for multiple buildings. This allows an

organization to consolidate its facility environmental management in one location and implement

standard environmental control policies throughout the buildings.


determined that each City is using an environmental control application (or in Lewistons case, two

applications) that are provided by a major HVAC vendor in the market today and that are closely

integrated with environmental control equipment dispersed throughout each city. Due to the hardware

and software integration complexities and the potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of

its useful life, we recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a single vendor who can consolidate the

monitoring and control of both Cities installed HVAC equipment. Due to the complexities and

uncertainties about what hardware is supported by specific vendor software, we believe that an RFP

process will help the Cities identify the costs involved with reconfiguring software to accommodate

existing hardware. This in turn, will allow the Cities determine if hardware replacement or software

customization/configuration is the most appropriate strategic direction.

Benefits: The primary benefit of consolidating to a common building environmental control system will

b h i l i i d ffi i i f h d Ci i d d h l i d


26/37

2.2.12 Fuel ManagementLewiston Application Auburn Application BDMP Recommendation

Sentry


Fuelmaster

(Syn-Tech Systems, Inc.)


application

Definition: The Fuel Management system refers to the hardware and software at the public works fuel

pumps that keep track of how much fuel is dispensed to what vehicle. Typically, each vehicle is assigned

a unique identification number that is used to track fuel consumption. The Fuel Management system

passes this information to a more sophisticated applicationsuch as Auburns gbaMS system where it

is captured as part of a vehicles history and is billed to the appropriate departments.


determined that fuel management applications are closely integrated with specific vendor hardware

used at the various fueling stations. Thus, it is likely that a decision to consolidate will be based on the

need to update fueling station hardware, not the application. Both Cities indicated that while there is no

immediate need for new fueling systems (each system is already integrated with their fleet management

systems), neither is particularly pleased with or invested in their current system. Due to the hardware

and software integration complexities and the potential costs of replacing hardware prior to the end of

its useful life, we recommend the Cities issue a joint RFP for the replacement of their fuel management

software (and if necessary hardware) at the end of the current systems useful life. This RFP would

identify a single vendor who can consolidate the monitoring and control of hardware within both Cities.

Benefits: The primary benefit of consolidating to a common fuel management system will be the

i l i i d ffi i i f h d Ci i d d h l i d


27/37

2.3 Recommendation SummaryAs described earlier in this report, our recommendation priority has been based on an evaluation of

need, opportunity, and practicality related to project timing and other ongoing projects. Table 3 is a

summary of our recommended applications for each business function for each City and the order in

which we recommend the City consider for implementation.

Table 3: Final Application Recommendation Summary

Final

Ranking Business FunctionCombined

Cities

City of Lewiston

Only

City of Auburn

Only

1 Helpdesk New System NA NA

2 GIS ESRI NA NA

3 Email and CalendarsExchange Server

(Microsoft)NA NA

4

Office Productivity (word

processing, spreadsheet,

etc)


NA NA

5 Permitting and Inspections New System NA NA

6

ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL,

HR, Purchasing, Revenue

Collection - tax)

MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)

NA NA

7

Work Orders, Facility

Maintenance, Fleet

Management, and Inventory

gbaMS(GBA Master Series,

Inc.)NA NA

8 Motor Vehicle Registration MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)

NA NA

9 CAMACLT IAS

(Tyler Technologies)NA NA


28/37

3.0Other Considerations for ConsolidationDuring the course of this project, other considerations related to a consolidation effort came to the

attention of our project team. In this section of the report we have provided a list of other

considerations related to the Cities consolidation efforts.

Through the course of this project, we noted that the Cities have historically had very different ITDepartment organizational structures, philosophies, and technology preferences. These differences

created significant obstacles to productive cooperation between the Cities. However, it appears that

recent events have led to a new environment that may reopen the door to investigating opportunities

for the IT Departments to work together. Toward this end, we identified several potential actions the

Cities might consider as steps to take toward improving cooperation and collaboration.

1. Joint IT Coordination: We noted several current and potential projects that the Cities have incommon. However, neither City was aware of these projects and the potential opportunities to

collaborate. We recommend that each City require their respective information technology

management teams to more closely coordinate the Cities IT activities and make periodic reports to

the Councils on the results of these activities.

2. Develop a Joint IT Strategic Plan: We noted that the Cities do not have a long-term vision of howthey might collaborate and/or consolidate at some point in the future. We believe that the creation

of this future vision leads to new ideas and opportunities that may form the foundation of future

endeavors. In the absence of a strategic plan for the Cities to work toward consolidation, we

recommend that the Cities IT Departments collaborate to create a shared IT Vision that specifies


29/37

standards for both Cities. These conditions will make it easier for the Cities to collaborate on

increasingly more complex IT initiatives as it pursues business application consolidation.

4. Merge IT Data Centers: We noted that the Cities maintain multiple data centers that both supportvarious levels of overhead support including backup power, fire protection, security, etc. We

recommend the Cities work toward consolidating their data centers so that all major City

applications will reside in one location and be backed-up to a shared secondary location. There is

already a dedicated data line connecting the two Cities that is reportedly under-utilized. We believe

that consolidating on two data centers (primary and backup) will have significant benefits in

reducing overall system complexity, improving the reliability of data access and recovery, and

generally improve service and performance.

5. Procurement and Licensing: To undertake some of the recommendations in this report, the Citieswill need to undertake various procurement and contracting activities to consolidate business and IT

functions. This will require the Cities to work together on system procurement activities and address

software licensing and potentially management services agreement type issues to allow the Cities to

share resources. The Cities will need to establish a structure to facilitate resource sharing to addressnecessary procurement, contracting, and vendor product licensing requirements.

6. Alternative Application Access Models: As the Cities evolve toward an IT environment that is moreclosely integrated and connected, it may be possible to consider alternative application access

strategies that could reduce the software licensing costs and simplify application update

maintenance. For example, instead of paying to have a separate Microsoft Office license for each

computer within an organization, the Cities may select a concurrent license model that pays for a

much smaller number of licenses that reflect the actual number of times a certain application may

be used concurrently (thin client architecture for example). The application might then be accessed

and maintained from a common server This is just one of many different pricing / licensing models


30/37

but perhaps most importantly is the timeframe selected to undertake the migrations. We believe

the Cities should consider utilizing additional resources for project management and/or project

oversight activities.

During the course of this project we received a tremendous amount of support, assistance, courtesy,

and flexibility from both Lewiston and Auburn. We understand that the fact-finding components of

these types of projects can be overwhelming and daunting. We appreciate the level of effort and quality

of work provided by both project teams.


31/37

Appendix A: Data Collection Questions

Data collection process: BDMP conducted the following steps to compile information on each core

application from each Citys IT Department personnel.

We established and got agreement from the City to evaluate the applications on the four criteria

of technology viability, integration capabilities, ability to meet business needs, and total life-

cycle costs;

We developed and reviewed with IT personnel the following set of questions (below) related tohelp us evaluate application capabilities based on the four criteria;

We utilized an online data collection tool for City IT Department personnel to use when

submitting information on each of the core applications consider in our analysis;

We reviewed the data submissions and conducted follow-up interviews to address any

unanswered or new questions.

The compiled data was used to determine the findings and recommendations included in this report.

We have placed this data on a CD for each City as part of our final report.

The following questions were used to conduct our analysis:

# Questions Relative Selection Criteria

1 What is the name of the software vendor? 1. Viability of the Technology Platform

2 What is the initial installation date of the software? 1. Viability of the Technology Platform

3 What software version being used by the City today? 1 Viability of the Technology Platform


32/37


11 Is the application supported by what you would

consider to be "outdated technology"? (Yes or No, and

if Yes, please describe what you feel is outdated.)

1. Viability of the Technology Platform

12 Are there risks/concerns associated with this

application being used by both the Cities of Auburn

and Lewiston as the consolidation recommendation (if

Yes, please describe the risks)?

1. Viability of the Technology Platform

13 List the other applications this software integrates

with.

2. Ability to Integrate with Other Applications

14 Describe the satisfaction level with the existing level of

integration with other City systems.


15 Indicate other external applications that this

application does not integrate with in the current

environment, but should.


16 Does the application meet the business needs of mostsystem users? (Yes or No, if No please describe the

most significant areas of non-satisfaction.)

3. Ability to meet existing business needs

17 Are users of the application satisfied with the

application? (Yes or No, if No please describe the most

significant areas of non-satisfaction.)


18 If applicable, are users of the application satisfied with

the reports produced by the application? (Yes or No, if

No please describe the most significant areas of non-

satisfaction.)


19 Identify the key personnel who utilize this application 3 Ability to meet existing business needs


33/37


24 How many users need access to this system from your

City?


25 How many licensed application "seats" are owned by

the City? Of these how many are currently used?

4. Application Costs

26 What was the initial software purchase cost? 4. Application Costs

27 What was the initial hardware purchase cost? 4. Application Costs

28 What was the initial implementation service(s) cost? 4. Application Costs

29 What is the ongoing annual software license

maintenance cost?


30 What is the ongoing annual hardware support cost? 4. Application Costs

31 Are there additional ongoing support costs besides

software license maintenance and hardware support?

(Yes/No, and if Yes, please describe these costs)


32 How many internal support staff are required to

support this application annually? (Express in Full Time

Equivalent)


33 Is this application supported by staff outside of the IT

department? (Yes or No, if Yes, please provide name,

title and department)



34/37

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix B: Recommendation Summary 33

Appendix B: Recommendation Summary

Final


City of Lewiston

Current

City of Auburn

Current

BDMP

RecommendationSummary of Reason

1 Helpdesk None NoneIssue an RFP for a new


Neither City is currently using a helpdesk

application. This application will be critical to enable

effective collaboration and support of a diverse

group of stakeholders/customers supported by acombined IT department.

2 GIS ESRI ESRIContinue current

efforts

Both Cities currently use ESRI GIS software and are

already engaged in consolidating efforts to leverage

work being done by each City Department, and

minimize costs (for example, housing data for both

Cities on one centralized data server).

3 Email and CalendarsGroupWise

(Novell) Exchange Server

(Microsoft)

Consolidate to

Auburns Application

(MS Exchange)

The City of Lewiston is planning to migrate from

Novell GroupWise to Microsoft Exchange/Outlook.

4

Office Productivity

(word processing,

spreadsheet, etc)

Office 2003, WordPerfect, & others(Microsoft, Corel)


Consolidate to

Auburns Application

(Office 2007)

Lewiston has made a strategic decision to support

Microsoft Office Productivity Software (Excel, Word,

PowerPoint, etc.).

5Permitting and

InspectionsGeoTMS

(DesLauriers Municipal Solutions Inc.)PermitTrack

(Custom MS Access)

Issue an RFP for a new


Neither City is satisfied with its current Permitting

and Inspection application. The City of Auburn is

utilizing an unsupported custom developed

Microsoft Access database that has created support

challenges for the Auburn IT Department.

6

ERP (AR, AP,

Budgeting, GL, HR,

Purchasing, Revenue

Collection - tax)

Pentamation (Sungard): miscellaneous

accounts receivable (non-tax), accounts

payable, budgeting, general ledger,

human resources, and purchasing.

Keystone (Keystone Software Solutions,

Inc): billing and accounts receivable for

property tax.MUNIS (Tyler Technologies): Water &

Sewer billing and accounts receivable.

MUNIS(Tyler Technologies)

Consolidate to

Auburns Application

(MUNIS)

Lewiston is using multiple, non-integrated systems

and will benefit in the future from consolidating to a

fully integrated ERP application. This is a major

effort and should only be pursued at some point in

the future when Lewiston must either update or

replace its current ERP applications (Pentamationand Keystone).


35/37


Final


City of Lewiston

Current

City of Auburn

Current

BDMP


7

Work Orders, Facility

Maintenance, Fleet

Management, and

Inventory

RTA: Fleet and Inventory Management(Ron Turley Associates)

eGovLink: Work Orders and Facility

Management

(E-Govlink.com)

gbaMS(GBA Master Series,

Inc.)

Consolidate to

Auburns Application

(gbaMS)

Lewiston has multiple, non-integrated systems that

support these four functional areas and would

benefit from implementing a new integrated system.

Auburn has recently implemented gbaMS and is

satisfied with the level of integration between each

of the four applications as well as with the Cities

financial system (MUNIS).

8Motor Vehicle

Registration

Trio Software(Harris Computer Systems)

MUNIS

(Tyler

Technologies)

Consolidate to

Auburns Application

(MUNIS)

Both Cities are using applications that are built on

current technology and are supported by reputable

vendors in the marketplace today; Trio Software

(Lewiston) and Tyler/MUNIS (Auburn). Our research

showed that these applications are comparable in

terms of technology viability, level of integration,

business needs (reported level of user satisfaction)

and cost. Therefore our decision has been based

upon simplification of software/hardware/services

support, by continuing to leverage modules

provided by MUNIS.

9 CAMACLT IAS

(Tyler Technologies)AssessPro

(Patriot Properties)

Consolidate to

Lewistons Application

(CLT-IAS)

Both Cities are using applications that are built on

current technology and are supported by reputable

vendors in the marketplace today; CLS-IAS/Tyler

(Lewiston) and AssessPro/Patriot Properties Inc.

(Auburn). Our research showed that these

applications are comparable in terms of technology

viability, level of integration, business needs

(reported level of user satisfaction) and cost.

Therefore our decision has been based upon

simplification of software/hardware/services

support, by continuing to leverage modules

provided by MUNIS.

10Document

ManagementFortis SE

(Westbrook Technologies, Inc.)GemWarehouse(Knowledge Tree)

Issue RFP for a new


Each City has recently begun to implement new

document management systems. These efforts are

focused on two different functional areas; GIS

(Auburn) and Human Resources (Lewiston). Neither

City is currently planning to roll out document

management at an enterprise level. We recommend

that the Cities continue to learn from these efforts

and consider future consolidation opportunities


36/37


Final


City of Lewiston

Current

City of Auburn

Current

BDMP


(through a structured RFP process) based on refined

document management needs.

11

Building

Environmental

Control

Tracer Summit (Trane): Controls HVAC

at City Hall & Violations Bureau Bldg

Metasys Building Automation System

(Johnson Controls): Public Works andPolice Department Buildings.

Insight

(Siemens)

Issue RFP for a new


Due to the hardware and software integration

complexities and the potential costs of replacing

hardware prior to the end of its useful life, we

recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a

single vendor who can consolidate the monitoringand control of both Cities installed HVAC

equipment.

12 Fuel ManagementSentry


Fuelmaster(Syn-Tech Systems,

Inc.)

Issue RFP for a new


Due to the hardware and software integration

complexities and the potential costs of replacing

hardware prior to the end of its useful life, we

recommend the Cities issue an RFP to identify a

single vendor who can consolidate the monitoring

and control of hardware within both Cities.


37/37

Berry, Dunn, McNeil and Parker | Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs 36

Appendix C: Estimated Consolidation Costs

Final

RankingFunction BDMP Recommendation

Estimated Software

Cost

(35%)

Estimated

Hardware Cost

(10%)

Estimated Service

Cost

(55%)

Estimated One

time Consolidation

Cost

Recurring Annual

Maintenance

Cost

1 Helpdesk Issue RFP for a new software application 25,000 7,143 39,286 71,429 5,000

2 GIS Continue current efforts Not applicable

3 Email and CalendarsConsolidate to Auburns Application

(MS Exchange)45,000 12,857 70,714 128,571 9,000

4 Office ProductivityConsolidate to Auburns Application

(Office 2007)30,000 30,000

5 Permitting and Inspections Issue RFP for a new software application 90,000 25,714 141,429 257,143 18,000

6ERP (AR, AP, Budgeting, GL, HR,

Purchasing, Revenue Collection - tax)

Consolidate to Auburns Application

(MUNIS)140,000 40,000 220,000 400,000 28,000

7 Work Orders, Facility Maintenance,Fleet Management, and Inventory

Consolidate to Auburns Application(gbaMS)

55,000 15,714 86,429 157,143 11,000

8 Motor Vehicle RegistrationConsolidate to Auburns Application

(MUNIS)20,000 5,714 31,429 57,143 4,000

9 CAMAConsolidate to Lewiston's Application

(CLT-MUNIS)30,000 8,571 47,143 85,714 6,000

10 Document Management(Note 1) Issue RFP for a new software application 40,000 11,429 62,857 114,286 8,000

11 Building Environmental Control(Note 2) Issue RFP for a new software application 20,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD

12 Fuel Management (Note 2) Issue RFP for a new software application 20,000 TBD TBD TBD TBD

Notes:

1. Document management cost estimates do not include the costs associated with scanning existing paper documents into digital files for storage in the document management system.

2. Both Environmental Control and Fuel Management applications are believed to be parts of a much larger, hardware intensive service application. Therefore, our estimate does not include the

actual cost of hardware related to each function as part of a complete solution.

application and software report: citizens' commission on lewiston and auburn cooperation

Documents