I think earlier I13 said that was a transfer between classes,14 and if I correct my answer, the $1.215 million reflects an increased cost in the16 run rate because of the additional17 services that we've added. But we can18 try to give you a breakdown of what that19 $1.2 million reflects.20
We have a21 system, a Verizon system right now.22 Let's just talk about telephones. It's23 called Centrex, right?24
It was -- the4 version of Centrex that we have was5 installed in 1994.6
I think we'd7 all agree that there are a lot of new8 technologies, a lot of features that9 would be added features that come with10 telephone switches today. I understand11 that this is still a good buy, if I could12 say. It's a good buy. But it's13 certainly far from current.14 Are we ever planning -- and I15 understand that there was a political16 decision at one time when we purchased17 the Centrex system when Verizon was -- or18 Bell Telephone was thinking about leaving19 Philadelphia. Is Centrex still a good20 investment for this city or are you21 thinking about maybe starting to grow and22 put some switches around the town?23
Councilman, the24 product that we currently have, the25 66 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Centrex 610, is a very good,2 cost-effective product at the price that3 we're paying and is a reliable and stable4 service. As far as the future -- and you5 talk about the changes of technologies6 and different advancements -- I think7 that's part of what we're putting8 together in the new RFP that we're going9 to put out on the street for the new10 Verizon contract, or may not even be11 Verizon. It's going to be whoever the12 service provider is. But we are looking13 at many of the things that have been14 talked about and some of the features and15 benefits that have come up from time16 since 1994.17
We all know18 that police radio system is and hopefully19 won't be as dependent on an outside20 vendor, T1's and things like that,21 hopefully that we will put ourselves in a22 situation with our infrastructure that23 it's not so dependent on outside24 resources, and I think that is one of25 67 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 your goals?2
Next4 question, under Professional Services,5 there is for 2012 allocated $800,0006 identified, Unisys and other providers to7 be determined. The scope of services is8 described as Surveillance Camera Project.9 Could you tell us a little bit about10 that?11
Yes, Councilman.12 That used to be a line item in our budget13 where we were paying Unisys directly for14 providing all the services related to the15 police video surveillance project. Since16 that time, we have reshaped that project17 and we actually are closing out our18 contract with Unisys and taking much of19 the work in-house, but we still need a20 contract for services like the21 installation of camera equipment and22 other services, which we can't currently23 do internally.24
And the last25 68 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 question is, let's talk about the item2 under Maintenance in Support of Computer3 Hardware and Software, specifically the4 Verizon 9-1-1 Vista system. There's a5 $443,000 increase in that item. What6 about the relationship between the 9-1-17 fund and General Fund money?8
Four hundred11 and forty-three thousand, Verizon 9-1-112 Vista --13
.16 I'm sorry. Section 21, ,17 Maintenance in Support of Computer18 Hardware and Software. That's double the19 Fiscal Year '11 allocation.20
Councilman, the 45121 that was in the previous year was a half22 a year allocation. The 895 reflects the23 full year funding for the maintenance in24 support of the 9-1-1 server equipment.25 69 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
When we did the7 original contract for the 9-1-1 services,8 it provided a certain amount of services9 were prepaid up to a period of time and10 then when it expired, we had to fund the11 remaining balance, which was a half a12 year worth of maintenance, which was the13 451, and now we projected the full14 funding into the next year's budget.15
The21 Chair recognizes Councilman Green for a22 point of information.23
Thank you,24 Madam Chair.25 70 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 In response to Councilman2 Rizzo's questions, you just mentioned a3 maintenance contract or that you had4 prepaid services with respect to a 9-1-15 server. Did you issue an RFP for6 maintenance of that server prior to7 simply extending the services, and what8 contract specifically had extensions in9 it that allowed you to extend it without10 issuing an RFP?11
This was a 200512 contract that was done with Verizon as13 part of their 9-1-1 services, and at the14 time, they were -- many of these services15 were identified as services they were16 providing under their 9-1-1 tariff. So17 it wasn't done as an RFP.18 Since that time, we've taken19 the decision that these services need to20 be bid out and will not be part of the21 way we had normally paid it through their22 9-1-1 tariff, and that's why we have the23 funding in here for this line item for a24 full year.25 71 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Not yet. It's part4 of the bid we're all putting together,5 along with all of the services that6 Verizon currently provides.7
Was it bid8 out for the extension for the half a year9 last year?10
We believe we got14 the legal department to approve that15 because of the criticality of it, that we16 were able to put this in place so that we17 can maintain 9-1-1 services.18
Do we have a19 listing of when contracts expire so that20 we can, especially prepaid services or21 other things, so that we don't get stuck22 having to use the same vendor at whatever23 price they put forward instead of doing24 an RFP in a timely way so that we can25 72 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have open competition and, as Councilman2 Goode points out, potentially allow3 minority vendors and others to have an4 opportunity to win these contracts?5
Yes, Councilman.6 We've been going through a process of7 tracking all of our contracts to make8 sure that, one, they don't expire without9 us knowing about them, and, two, when10 they're planning to be expired, if we can11 put out an RFP or a different procurement12 vehicle to buy those services, that's13 what we're trying to do.14
This is at15 least the second time and I think there16 may be three times that I've been here on17 Council in three years -- or I guess this18 will be my fourth budget process where19 Verizon contracts, whether they were20 prepaid services or some other service,21 expired without our knowing about it or22 without our having prepared in advance23 for that, causing us to have no choice24 but to extend those contracts, and I got25 73 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 to tell you, it's simply not acceptable2 for us to be looking at this yet again.3 With respect to the Unisys --4 the installation you mentioned, the5 Unisys contract, is expiring. We're6 taking those services in-house. Who is7 going to perform the installation8 services?9
You're going12 to bid that work out. So does the Unisys13 contract expire today?14
No. The contract15 has expired -- will expire the end of, I16 believe, the fiscal year.17
Right now we're not20 doing any new installations right now.21 We're maintaining the existing cameras22 that we have, and we have bid out the23 work for additional equipment and24 services to help us with that.25 74 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
There were,2 I think, a number of or at least one3 minority contractor who did all the4 installations for the EarthLink wireless5 network, who are certainly perfectly6 capable of this. So I hope that you're7 going to reach out broadly in this camera8 installation contract.9
Councilman Green,12 one other point to make. On some of the13 stuff with cameras, our own staff is14 doing some of this work as well, pulling15 the wires, but it's the actual camera16 itself that we don't have the training17 out yet.18
And just to21 finish -- thank you, Councilman.22 Just to finish, my final23 question is -- and it's about the24 surveillance cameras -- how many cameras25 75 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 are physically -- the hardware is in2 place on poles with the blue light3 flashing that don't work? Because I ride4 around and I see plastic bags over the5 cameras. That's really a deterrent to a6 criminal, a plastic bag over a7 surveillance camera. So I'm just8 curious, how many do we have that are9 physically installed that don't work and10 have plastic bags over them? I would11 suggest that even if they're not working,12 take the plastic bag off. They don't13 know it doesn't work.14
There's15 approximately 48 cameras that need repair16 right now and there's probably, I'd say,17 less than a handful of cameras that are18 still out there with bags on them that19 also need infrastructure in them for them20 to operate. It's a small number, but the21 48 is the ones that really need repair22 right now.23
I would hope24 you'd agree that maybe the plastic bag,25 76 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 unless you're protecting it from the2 rain, is not the wisest direction when it3 comes to surveillance cameras. So maybe4 the strategy until you get them to work5 would at least take the plastic bag off6 of it. The blue light is flashing, but7 the plastic bag is covering it.8
Councilman, we'll9 consult with the Public Safety Division10 and take that under advisement.11
Great.12 Thank you.13 Thank you, Madam Chair.14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 You're welcome.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilwoman Blackwell.18
Thank19 you, Madam President.20 I was going to ask the question21 that has been asked with regard to when22 City Council would not have our staff23 come to us all day about being locked up24 and about us having our own Internet25 77 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 capacity, but I believe Councilman2 Greenlee asked the question and it was3 answered. You're hopeful in about 604 days we'll be there?5
Thank8 you. I'll wait for that.9 Thank you, Madam President.10 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:11 You're welcome.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 Green.14
Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 You mentioned a potential RFP17 for phone services. It's long been my18 contention that much of the network19 infrastructure problem could be paid for20 by a VoIP provider without us having to21 do it ourselves, allowing us to just pay22 a monthly fee for that rather than23 spending a lot of dollars up front.24 Could you talk about the RFP25 78 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 for new phone service? I think the2 comment was made in discussion of the3 Centrex system that it is a good system4 and it costs about the same as -- it's a5 fairly priced system, yet for the last6 three years -- and I don't know if it's7 in this year's budget. I don't think8 it's in there. If it is, it's9 consolidated somehow. There was 2 and a10 half million dollars in scheduled savings11 for payments to Verizon as a result of12 going to a VoIP system, which is a pretty13 big annualized savings, and I'm just14 wondering why we haven't issued an RFP15 that was first promised to this Council16 in 2008 for VoIP and how much you think17 it would save us.18
Councilman Green, I19 can't answer why we haven't issued one.20 I know we've been looking at this issue.21 We actually agree with you. Even in my22 testimony I said we've been looking at23 some managed services to do this. We24 don't have the perfect answer yet, but25 79 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 one of the things that we -- a strategy2 for this RFP that we're doing, we've3 hired a telecommunication expert, just a4 small amount, to help us sort of5 strategize on how to put it together. We6 want to request as part of the potential7 option is to have it as a managed8 service. It doesn't have to be internal.9 So as part of our whole looking at10 managed services, cloud computing type11 things, we are including this in there.12 So our goal is to have that as an option13 that someone could propose to us.14
Managed service.16 We're also building the e-mail system so17 that it will support unified messaging so18 that we could actually achieve once we19 get all the switches in place and the20 e-mail, that we could actually start to21 do VoIP as part of the integrated unit22 messaging system.23 So we really have three24 strategies. We're trying to see which25 80 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 one works out. You and I have had this2 discussion. We agree with you that it's3 a very valid thing to consider, and we4 are.5
So when will6 an RFP be issued that will include people7 to bid on managed services or VoIP?8
Anticipated9 schedule right now is the beginning of10 the summer, beginning of the fiscal year.11
Then I would22 say early summer is a bit unrealistic,23 wouldn't you?24
Well, we have the25 81 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 same concern, and part of -- that's why2 it's such a high priority for us. We've3 been talking to Law about what we expect4 to do. They've asked us for the first5 cut. I'm not yet satisfied that it's yet6 ready to even go. Law Department is7 swamped like the rest of us and I want to8 make sure that we give them something9 they can actually read versus more of an10 outline. That's why we actually enlisted11 the help of some outside help, to12 finalize sort of that strategy. But,13 yes, it's an aggressive schedule, without14 question.15
There's been16 talk of the WiFi network. Can someone17 estimate the value of the assets to the18 City of Philadelphia that we picked up in19 the acquisition of the WiFi network? In20 other words, how much is the equipment on21 the towers that we're leasing worth? How22 much...23
Councilman, I24 believe in the testimony last year when25 82 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we did the acquisition that the estimated2 value, if you compared it to what it3 would cost to build that network, similar4 network, was in the $30 million range.5 That's why it seemed like a no-brainer as6 a benefit for us to acquire it at the7 price that we were being offered.8
That's9 right. And in terms of our ability to,10 as a public safety and otherwise City11 services closed-loop network, provide12 relatively fast Internet access and other13 things at remote sites, whether they be14 sanitation facilities or police districts15 or firehouses or things like that,16 without having to run a wired network,17 have we done an estimate of how much that18 can save us on an annualized basis?19
We have not20 compared it to the wired line cost of the21 point-to-point bandwidth. What we've22 compared it to is what we're paying for23 our wireless data services. I believe24 that the spend rate about that is in the25 83 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 $900,000 on an annual basis. The2 proposal at the time when we did the3 acquisition is that as we make the4 investments, we'll be able to reduce that5 number down dramatically and hopefully6 eliminate it because we'll be able to7 bring all that internally on our own8 network. And I believe as I testified in9 the previous Capital Budget is that we10 look at it as a converged network of both11 wireless and wire line so that we'll have12 that seamless integration between the13 user's ability to use the wireless14 network and the wire line network as one15 complete network.16
So when we17 talk about building out the City services18 network, the previous two CIOs had19 discussed using E-911 money to basically20 build out a WiMAX system that would be21 for City use citywide. Is that still the22 plan?23
I think the current24 plan, because most of the wireless25 84 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 network is not 9-1-1 eligible, PEMA has2 not determined that yet as an element --3
It is if4 it's a backup to police radio and part --5 it can be installed as such and it also6 can be installed as an interoperability7 platform with federal and state agencies8 operating in the City of Philadelphia9 because it's on a common standard, 5.2.10
So you're answering11 where I was going to go to, is that we do12 see that as you just explained, is that13 it is a replacement service for what14 we're currently using 9-1-1 dollars for,15 delivery of wireless services to police16 and emergency vehicles. So in that case,17 yes, there is a portion of it that we can18 use 9-1-1 dollars for.19 As far as going to a WiMAX20 network, I think the current network21 today on the existing platform is that22 vehicle. However, I think the advances23 in the future about where we're going24 with and where the nation is going with25 85 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 interoperability and the 700 megahertz2 spectrum more toward an LTE network is3 probably where we need to look it.4
I would5 completely disagree with that premise.6 LTE lines, we -- I don't know what that7 refers to. I assume you're not talking8 to the wired lines that come from --9
No. No, sir. What10 I'm referring to is both the FCC, the11 NTIA, the -- all I'm saying, they're12 talking about long-term evolution, which13 is comparable to the commercial where you14 hear today 4G, LTE network, wireless.15
And that's a big17 part of our strategy. We are absolutely18 looking at this as primarily for public19 safety. And what we also don't want is20 to go and build out everything today on a21 standard that looks like they're moving22 to something that's denser and higher23 speed.24
I'm25 86 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 completely technology agnostic, as long2 as we have high bandwidth, not the 8003 megahertz.4
As long as7 we have high bandwidth out into the field8 so that we can actually talk to people or9 send a lot of bandwidth to a fire control10 officer who wants to see what the11 infrastructure of a building looks like.12
Right. The 70013 megahertz -- the LTE, which is the14 standard that's being pushed by the15 federal government, is so you can do16 voice video and data high speed mobility17 out to the field.18
As well as density.20 And I think you're already familiar with21 the fact that we have been working with22 the feds to try to make sure that we are23 staying in sync with them.24
I know I've25 87 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 I mentioned this many times, but we can2 increase police presence on the street by3 20 to 24 percent. Every city that has4 implemented their own closed-loop network5 like this has had huge increase in6 productivity, because police persons7 don't have to go back to the stationhouse8 to file reports, to deal with paper at9 all. They can be in neighborhoods, file10 their reports from their cars, unless11 there's someone in the back that has to12 be taken in.13 So in terms of increasing14 police presence on the street, that's the15 equivalent of an additional thousand16 officers. So in terms of getting E-91117 approval and spend, I really think that18 we need to focus on trying to move that19 forward, and I want to do whatever I can20 to help you.21
You talked24 about prioritizing IT projects in the25 88 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 coming months and you noted -- you talked2 about cross departmental solutions, like3 an arrest-to-probation system, linking4 criminal justice system partners, et5 cetera. I serve on the Criminal Justice6 Advisory Board whose collaborative7 efforts really with the Administration,8 with the Courts and Prisons, et cetera,9 have reduced the City's prison population10 by close to 2,000 inmates, saving tens of11 millions of dollars, and technology is12 essential to achieving additional savings13 for the criminal justice system even.14 Too often we're relying on paper-based15 processes or siloed, non-integrated16 computer systems. When you are looking17 at prioritizing, are you looking at those18 two items also?19
So who is22 looking at the paper-based systems? Is23 it somebody in DOT or somebody else, or24 is that what we need the new person for?25 89 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
What we're doing2 right now is, like I said, we're working3 with the Managing Director and the Deputy4 Mayors to decide what the priorities are.5 They haven't been set, but I'm very6 comfortable that within the top five will7 be the network, within the top ten will8 be the cross application, things like the9 arrest to probation. We have systems in10 Prisons you know today that need to be11 replaced. We have the MDOs -- not the12 MDOs; the MDTs in the police systems that13 need to be replaced. So the Deputy Mayor14 for Public Safety had made this his15 number one initiative that he's striving16 for. So we're looking at how do we put17 together this team to actually put18 something in place that start to reduce19 the paperwork, as well as start to20 replace these old systems.21 We have systems in place today22 that do these functions, but they don't23 talk to each other. We met a month ago24 with the District Attorney's Office. So25 90 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 we are working right this minute to build2 this coalition to deliver this type of3 solution.4
But really5 we're not -- we're at the planning6 stages, not the studying stages.7
Okay. Could10 you tell me what the Gartner Group does11 for us? Last year they were $50,500.12 This year they're $202,000.13
Gartner Group is a14 research and advisory service. They have15 been providing us with research on16 staffing, on positions. They've looked17 at contracts that we had. Just recently18 we were looking at telephone equipment19 and we reached out to them, and they tell20 us whether or not prices that vendors are21 proposing are in the realm of national22 averages. They review contracts for us.23 So they're an internationally24 known research firm that has provided a25 91 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 great deal of advisement and review for2 us. They're indispensable.3
Okay. On4 Section 21, of the detail, it5 lists IT professional service contracts6 for the Water Department. There are six7 separate basis2 consultants -- I don't8 know what that means; you can hopefully9 tell me -- with contracts ranging from10 145,000 to over million, for a total of11 2.63 million. This looks like an area12 for potential consolidation of contracts.13 Can you discuss the services provided14 under each of these eight contracts and15 whether the City has analyzed contract16 consolidation.17
Sure. There are18 multiple contracts here. Sometimes it's19 for one individual, sometimes it's for20 multiple and sometimes it's for the21 company that actually owns the software.22 So when you see Prophecy of America, that23 is the actual software vendor for the24 basis2 software. They provide ongoing25 92 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 maintenance and support, patch releases,2 security releases, those types of things.3
In addition, when5 the system was put in several years6 back -- I don't know the exact date --7 there was a team of vendors that really8 drove the implementation of this system9 and has continued to provide the ongoing10 support. That's where you see11 Information Consultant Services of12 Delaware, Information Service Partners.13 It's sort of ironic that you14 ask that question, because literally last15 night we were going through scenarios16 where we could save money in the long17 term by bringing internal staff on. We18 have to provide them -- because basis2 is19 built on a platform that there are zero20 skills in the City for, we were laying21 out with Finance and Budget the training22 that we would need to send some of our23 folks to, the number of people we24 would -- we'd need to collapse a couple25 93 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 positions.2 So we're on the same page,3 Councilman Green. We believe that we are4 doing, and we believe that that's an area5 that we could save money. Maybe not next6 year, because there's an investment that7 has to be made, but certainly the year8 after.9
Well, the10 issue is, though, that this is the11 system -- is this the Water Revenue12 system essentially?13
Which is a15 system that costs a ton of money, but16 then ultimately the final solution was17 implemented for like 5 million bucks. I18 can't remember. Is that about right?19
So what21 you're telling me is for a $5 million22 implementation, we're spending 2.6323 million every year on maintenance. That24 seems --25 94 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
No. You're not5 spending that much money on maintenance.6 The original implementation stood up just7 the core functionality. That system has8 continued to evolve. I cannot tell you9 exact percentage. But the original10 implementation was just basic -- I don't11 want to confuse the word "basis" and12 "basic" -- was for to meet the basic13 requirements. That team has continued to14 add major new functionality to the15 system. That's what the 1 --16
Could you17 provide a list of the major new18 functionality that they've increased for19 the last year to the Chair --20
-- because I22 don't want to waste people's time on it,23 but I'm a little bit skeptical.24 I guess the other issue with25 95 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 respect to this basis2 system is how well2 will it integrate with a financial3 package and ERP that we put in place4 versus really taking an Oracle payment5 system, if that's what we're going to go6 with, or whoever we go with, and like7 sort of doing a re-implementation?8 Because this seems very expensive to9 maintain.10
So when the final11 analysis is done, I cannot tell you12 whether they decide to replace it with a13 different system or not. As to the14 question of how well it will interface,15 this actually happens to be Oracle E-biz16 suite based.17
Would you18 agree that this is extraordinarily19 expensive to maintain?20
I would agree that21 that was a lot of money that we're22 spending. However, because we are adding23 all this new functionality, I can't agree24 that it's excessive.25 96 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Well, one2 person's functionality is another3 person's wasteful spending. So we'll4 take a look at the list rather than go5 back and forth about it.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Councilman?8
I12 know it's your birthday, but at the rate13 you're going, it will be your next year's14 birthday and you will be sitting there15 asking questions.16
I have a24 point of information.25 97 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
And it's a2 ten-point question.3 Councilman Rizzo had a point of4 information.5
Okay.8 So cloud computing, in my9 office we use cloud computing for a range10 of applications, including calendaring,11 document preparation. My entire campaign12 is run in the cloud. And I know you have13 experience with cloud computing from your14 time in DC. Some worked well, some15 didn't, although technology has changed.16
I'm18 wondering why we are considering buying19 our own hardware and having our own data20 center rather than simply leasing space21 in a data center even if we control the22 computers ourselves and the maintenance23 of them, if that's what we choose to do.24 In other words, there are plenty of data25 98 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 centers here in the City of Philadelphia,2 one at the Navy Yard. I think there's3 one 400 Spring Garden, something like4 that. Why we are building out our own5 data center rather than just great6 connectivity to existing data centers so7 that we don't have to heat and cool and8 do all the stuff, spend a lot of money on9 space when --10
Great question,11 Councilmember Green. We are actually12 looking at all three of those. The last13 part of what you described was a managed14 service, and I tell you we were looking15 at managed service from Amazon, from -- I16 forget the name of the company at the17 Navy Yard. We've been down and visited18 them. We've talked to them about what19 their pricings are. They got a great20 facility down there.21 Right at the moment we are22 trying to get control of -- you cannot23 put something out in the cloud that you24 don't even know what you have, and we25 99 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 have a lot of things, a lot of data2 centers, a lot of closets, a lot of under3 desks. So as we go through to get the4 economies of scale, we've built this5 server for them to address this6 particular question, and it makes sense7 for us to be virtualizing them as we get8 control of them. That does not mean that9 we won't use a managed service in the10 future to do them. One of the things11 we've looked at is, we're not going to12 build a data center 85 miles away from13 here. That is absolutely going to be a14 managed service, or a cloud. I mean,15 managed means we manage it. Cloud means16 they do everything.17 So we're looking at both of18 those. That's why we talk to people like19 NaviSite and Amazon and some of these20 others. We've even been looking at21 desktop applications.22 Yes, you're right, I've had23 experience with cloud computing for word24 processing, spreadsheets. We've actually25 100 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 been talking to not only the vendor that2 you're referring to, but our current3 vendor we're talking to about what their4 service offerings are for cloud, because5 we've been trying to assess whether or6 not every worker needs an installed7 version of a word processing system.8 So there's a lot going on9 behind the scenes. We can talk a lot10 more about it, but we agree with you. We11 think it's a fantastic idea, and we will12 probably end up with a mix and we are13 looking at that.14
Thank you.15 If you have plans for what you think the16 biggest bang for the buck is in terms of17 moving to managed services or cloud that18 we can do expeditiously rather than over19 time, if you could -- I won't take any20 more time. If you could provide that to21 the Chair. Thank you.22
Madam23 President, I just have a quick followup,24 point of information.25 101 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
Thank you.4 I do understand that especially5 with technology, continuity of services,6 purchased services is sometimes required.7 How do we -- and I guess I can eventually8 ask Procurement. For telephone service9 we talked about, how do we -- do we ever10 have a competitive bid when -- we've had11 30 years maybe of telephone service with12 one company. How do we adhere to the law13 and not going out for competitive bids14 for other providers?15
To your question,20 Councilman, what we did is, we put out a21 request for information prior to putting22 out the actual RFP, and we did get23 responses from people who had suggested24 they were interested in responding to the25 102 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 RFP, but there was no way that we could2 do that as a sole source. So we put the3 RFP out on the bid. There was companies4 like AT&T was around that could have bid5 on that, Cavalier, Axel. There was a6 number of different companies that could,7 but chose not to.8
Was the bid9 so written that they couldn't compete10 because they don't have that product?11
No, Councilman. We12 had put out a request for proposal13 explaining what we currently have. We14 also said that we were looking for a15 provider that can provide equal to, if16 not better. So if they had a better17 solution than the Centrex service that we18 were offering, we were open to that,19 assuming that the level of service that20 we currently have we had to maintain,21 because we had to maintain at least the22 status quo, and similar to any other kind23 of bid, we put services -- we put things24 in there so that if they chose to replace25 103 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it, we were looking for a transition2 plan, a way that we would move from the3 current platform to whatever that they4 wanted to offer us, assuming that they5 could maintain the level of service for6 the amount of lines and customers -- I7 mean internal departments that we8 support.9
And, Councilman12 Rizzo, just to follow up on that, we have13 the same concern you have. We have this14 conversation probably every month about15 why aren't we getting enough people,16 enough vendors to respond to the17 different RFPs. So we've been actually18 working with Law, Procurement,19 Contracting and the Ethics Board to try20 to "up" the number of people who respond21 to our RFPs across the board, because if22 we talk to someone and eight people said23 they're interested but only one person24 responds, our hands are somewhat tied.25 104 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371
I think I2 understand.3 Madam President, I know it's4 only a point of information. I'll wait5 and come back to this issue, or I only6 have about two more minutes, if you want7 me to finish now or just wait my turn.8 It's up to you.9
Thank you.12 I'll be back at you.13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Councilwoman Miller has been waiting an15 awfully long time.16
Thank18 you.19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Miller.21
Thank22 you. Thank you, Madam President.23 I just have a couple questions24 as a followup to this video surveillance25 105 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 camera. Can we get an update on where we2 still need cameras? I never quite know3 whether my district has been completed,4 and mainly because of the wiring issues5 that was in the Northwest that prevented6 cameras from being placed, the optic7 wiring. I'm not real technical, so I'm8 just trying to figure out what these9 things are.10
Councilwoman, we11 can provide you the list. The list of12 the locations, as you recall, were13 determined by the Police Department. So14 we still have that same original list,15 but I can give you the list that are16 specific to those districts in your area,17 and I can give you the list of cameras18 that have already been placed in your19 area.20
And then24 we also had some with plastic bags. So25 106 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Councilman Rizzo's point is very well2 taken, particularly on Wayne Avenue. We3 don't need a camera there with a plastic4 bag. We need a camera there that works.5
And, Councilwoman,6 all the Wayne Avenues are done. There's7 no bag on any of the cameras on Wayne8 Avenue, any of the 14th or the 35th and9 39th.10
All11 right. Very good. So I'll look forward12 to getting that information. And I'd13 like to have an update on the placement14 of the 800 computers in the 73 sites15 across the City. Have you started that16 and where are they and what -- just give17 us an update, the status.18
Right. We know23 where they're going to go. The stage24 we're at now, we have just, I think,25 107 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 completed almost or all of the partners2 that are working with us to run the3 centers, and we're scheduled to start the4 first one -- when is the first center?5
Andrew, tell them8 who you are.9 And I'll let my Program10 Director for that program answer.11
I'm Andrew Buss.12 I'm the Director of Public Programs.13 I think we'll start14 implementing within about a month, and15 probably over the next three months16 there'll be a lot of lab implementations.17 As far as where they are, I'd be happy to18 provide the list to you.19
Well, I20 had a list that was specific to my21 district of where they were going to be22 placed, but in addition to that list of23 the community agencies, are they also24 going to be -- I believe that they're25 108 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 going to be placed in most rec centers,2 or am I wrong?3
Nineteen?6 Okay. So I would look forward to that7 information. If you're going to do it in8 a month, that's good, because we've been9 talking about this now, what, since10 September?11
Yes. We've been12 tied up mostly with contracting. So13 we're through that now. We should be14 good to go.15
Okay.16 All right. Thank you.17 One other question, Council18 President.19 I need to ask a question about20 City Council's website, and I don't know21 whether anyone else asked this or not,22 but why is it that we cannot put23 information on our website about what our24 specific offices are doing, you know,25 109 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 maybe today's hearing or a bill that2 we've sponsored that's going to be heard?3 Why are we so limited? We can't do4 anything. That's why we have to have5 Facebook or Twitter or some of those6 other social networking places, just to7 get information out to our constituents.8 Most of the other web -- if I9 go on the computer and look up an elected10 official, state or federal, things that11 they're doing, things they've done,12 upcoming events, bills, just all kinds of13 information are on those sites, and our14 site is so limited. We can't do15 anything.16
Councilmember,17 we've worked with your Chief18 Administrative Officer about requests19 that you all want to do on your website,20 and all we've asked is that you21 coordinate them through them. She will22 provide those types of things to us.23 There's the Council website on phila.gov24 and then you have some individual ones,25 110 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 but if you work with your Chief2 Administrative Officer, we're happy to3 try to address any of these issues.4
So you're5 saying that we can put information that I6 described on our website through our7 Chief Administrative Officer?8
Yes. I mean, I13 don't know everything you want, but, yes,14 you can update the content on those15 websites and stuff like that.16
All17 right. I'm going to go on there, because18 the last thing -- for example, if I just19 want a website -- if I want to add20 anything to Councilwoman Donna Reed21 Miller's website, you're saying I can do22 that?23
I'm saying, yes,24 you can add information to your website.25 111 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 We just need you to coordinate it through2 your Chief Accounting Officer.3
Yeah. I6 know exactly who you're talking about.7 All right.8
I'm happy to meet9 with you afterwards to talk about this in10 detail.11
Yeah,12 because I thought our website was kind of13 useless, and I just want to be able to14 put information on there. Now, I don't15 go on it all the time, but the last time16 I went on it, it had a picture of all17 Councilmembers and the phone number and18 the e-mail address and that was it.19 Maybe I'm missing something.20
The content itself,21 we do not -- DOT does not control the22 content. We make it happen, make it come23 up. But if you want additional content,24 I think the best thing to do is us to sit25 112 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 down and I'll try to make it happen this2 week. It's just understanding what it is3 you want, but, I mean, content is yours4 to control.5
Okay.6 All right. Good. So we can talk7 afterwards. Thank you.8 Thank you, Madam President.9
Thank10 you.11 The Chair recognizes Councilman12 Clarke.13
Real quick.18 First, can you get me a list of the sites19 that were selected for the20 stimulus-related activity for21 neighborhood sites? I don't have my list22 for my Council District, No. 5.23
Getting to25 113 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 the cameras, correct me if I'm wrong,2 right now we have three types of systems.3 One was the original square box with the4 blinking light that were essentially5 recording. Then we have a hardwired6 site, which was the second phase, and now7 we have hybrid cameras. Am I correct?8
In terms of11 the older models that were essentially12 recording the discs -- and I don't13 know -- who is responsible for pulling14 the disc and reviewing the content?15
The original16 models, the pods as we called them, the17 hard drives are pulled by the Police18 Department based upon activity in the19 area. And for evidentiary purposes, the20 police have to go up and actually take it21 out, and then they take it and they take22 it back to their audiovisual group and23 they look at the video.24
The Police25 114 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 Department is not here, I'm assuming.2 When you say "activity," does that3 mean -- do they determine the level of4 activity? So does that mean if there's a5 the shooting, they pull the disc, or do6 they periodically pull the disc to see7 what actually is going on at that corner?8 Because we actually have a couple of9 locations where the drugs are sold under10 the camera, because there's a belief that11 nobody is, first of all, watching; second12 of all, they're never pulling the disc.13
The Police14 Department determines when they retrieve15 the disc, whether it's incident based or16 they just periodically do it as part of17 their policing of the area. But they18 determine that.19
So in terms20 of questionings relating to the21 functionality of the unit, that's you,22 but --23
-- use as25 115 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 it relates to public safety issues,2 there's probably no need for me to3 continue this line of questioning,4 because the Police Department pretty much5 handles that part of it?6
Yeah. One of the8 things we try to keep emphasizing, we're9 responsible for the technology, but the10 use of that information is -- it's a11 business user issue. So Police makes12 that call about why they want to pull the13 unit or not.14
Okay. I'll15 have to wait until that department comes16 up.17 And I know you spoke of this18 earlier. What's the timeline again on19 the EarthLink purchase and the ability to20 utilize the EarthLink purchase,21 infrastructure, for expanding the network22 on public safety, both camera and23 interaction between departments?24
So the acquisition25 116 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 has been completed. We are still in the2 phase of optimizing the network. We have3 to do a lot of things internally to make4 it a City internal network and make it a5 private network. Probably going to take6 us into the summer to get a lot of that7 stuff done. So that we have planned8 towards the summer to be able to have9 full control over the network so it's10 totally private and also to do a couple11 demonstration -- we have about four12 departments, Police being one of them,13 where we're going to actually do14 demonstration pilots to test out the15 network and test out some of the16 functionality. And then from there,17 we're going to continue our build-out,18 how we're going to actually change the19 network to make it work for the users.20
And the21 build-out will include purchase of22 additional cameras?23
Well, we're going24 to be kind of syncing those projects25 117 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371 together, because we have a video2 surveillance project is running on a3 parallel track and then we're going to be4 working along with that to use the5 wireless network to deploy cameras as6 well.7
But they are two8 separate -- to be clear, they are two9 separate projects.10
I15 understand. But my question is relating16 to the video cameras, because we do not17 have them deployed across the City. Will18 this capability that we have purchased19 allow us to better utilize the cameras20 that we have by enhancing the hybrid or21 the wireless versions; therefore, not22 requiring as many cameras as we23 originally proposed, or are we going to24 get new cameras?25 118 3/29/11 - WHOLE - BILL 1101371