Okay. That's $57,000. That's very exciting to me. Finally, in the Registration Division -- sorry. Last year I asked about the status, cost and projected savings of the electronic repository project. The response was that the project analysis was due to be complete by the end of FY09 and that a copy would be provided to Council. 390 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. Is the project complete? COMMISSIONER DECKER: The project is one of the projects that's underway by DOT. I think it was suspended, did not get underway until recently. It will be started up again. So there is nothing yet implemented, but I believe the conceptual framework will be the next step to be taken.
But the project analysis we were told would be completed by the end of FY09 and that a copy would be provided to Council. Is the project analysis complete? COMMISSIONER DECKER: The project analysis is not complete. Again --
But you're already -- COMMISSIONER DECKER: Resources were not available during the year. There was a question as to whether that particular project would be resourced, and I was informed recently that it will 391 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. be resourced and it is moving forward.
But nothing is moving forward before the analysis is complete; is that correct? COMMISSIONER DECKER: That's correct.
When will the analysis be complete? COMMISSIONER DECKER: I would have to work with Allan Frank on that. I have identified some of the information that would be needed from a records management perspective. I believe I attached that to the information that we provided to you last year, and that includes particular kind of metadata that would be required so that the records could be appropriately managed, retained for as long as they need to be retained, searched as they need to be searched and disposed of even in the electronic age when they are no longer required.
Thank you. What are the potential savings 392 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. from implementing an electronic repository? COMMISSIONER DECKER: You would have to ask Allan Frank that question.
Would it include efficiency gains in direct costs like the 120,000 per year the City spends for couriers to retrieve documents from storage? COMMISSIONER DECKER: I believe the electronic repository will be a day-forward implementation. So that means that as new records are created in the electronic format -- it's really around electronic formats -- that there would be efficiencies that would be gained. So that for the many concepts that have been discussed here with other City agencies and in past years, we all know that to the extent that paper doesn't have to be moved from office to office and that once a record is created and stored electronically, it can be easily accessed multiple times by many 393 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. people through the City. That in itself will -- from that will be derived many efficiencies. But I don't believe that the project moving forward -- again, it's a day forward. It's not a backwards conversion, so there will still be some records that will be available in paper form. There does not seem to be a good business case to convert them. Some of the documents that are usually retained in the storage center, although they are still requested, they are more or less in a less active stage in their development life or the life cycle. So it would not make sense to convert them. You wouldn't derive as much bang for your buck, so to speak, if you were to work on those records. You really want to focus all of your attention and all of your resources going forward in making sure that newly created records are created in an electronic environment.
Great. When did the records reform team start 394 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. reviewing the review of agency records' retention schedules? COMMISSIONER DECKER: That initiative was started in the fall. We have been working with the Law Department and the various lawyers that are assigned to agency records. It is still ongoing. I meet with the person who was coordinating from the Law Department on pretty much a biweekly basis. Some of the retention schedules are quite lengthy for City agencies and they do require a lot of research. They also require, as we're reviewing them, a lot of interaction with the agencies themselves. The retentions are driven not only by legal requirements, but they also are driven by operational needs. So we have to coordinate the efforts among multiple interested parties in this whole initiative, but it has been underway since approximately the fall.
Have any findings been made? 395 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Yes. We have had recommendations and suggestions on about six of the schedules, and we're still doing a final review on those schedules.
What are the expected dollar savings, including those from efficiency gains, of the retention schedule reform project? COMMISSIONER DECKER: Well, I think the objective was to make sure, number one, that the records were being kept for the required timeframe, were there any possibilities to reduce the retention timeframe. I don't have an exact answer for you. It's a mixed bag. In some cases it was determined that some of the records could be retained for a less lengthy period of time. However, in other cases it was determined that we needed to retain the records for as long as had been stated. So it's really a mixed bag on that. One of the objectives of a 396 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. related objective to that particular initiative was not only to determine the required retention, but also to make sure that we had the current view of what the departments and agencies were actually creating and holding. So there were multiple purposes, not only to streamline but also to confirm that the schedules are up to date.
Great. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank you.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER DECKER: Thank you.
This Committee will stand in recess until tomorrow, Wednesday, March the 24th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you very much. (Committee of the Whole 397 3/23/10 - WHOLE - BILL 100117, etc. recessed at 5:20 p.m.) - - - 398 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 23, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)