Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMPUTER H.W. PURC 10-06-80 inter_Corn DATE: October 2, 1980 TO: HONORABLE ~L~YOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RONALD B. HOESTEREY, PADS DELEGATE SUBJECT: COMPUTER HARDWARE PURCHASE Attached please find a report from the City Administrator recommending the purchase of a Hewlett Packard (Model 33) computer. '~his purchase will be one of the final steps necessary for the decen- tralization of PADS as directed by the City Council in its approval of the PADS Budget on March 3, 1980. Originally, ~stin was going to acquire the used existing PADS computer (an HI' series III). l{~.~%~;ever, an opportunity has arisen which creates addition- al benefits to Tu~Lin ~t ~ lower total cost. Some of these benefits are del~ ne a te~J as 1. The pro~<~se~! system is a newer generation which requires far less space titan the computer originally proposed. Therefore, it can be ccntrally ]©ca~ed in the reproduction room. This eliminates the need for the building modification of the basement area estimated at $15,000. Under the previous plan, Tustin would be sharing processing time with PADS since PADS has recently signed some contracts to pro- vide parking citation service. As PADS services are expanded, ~stin would be continually competing for after-hours processing time. 'Iherefore, Tustin would have purchased a system it would not have total control over. Under ~e proposed method, Tustin will be sole user thereby allowing greater flexibility of scheduling and lessening the possi- bility of system crashes and line problems from an outside source. 3. Other advantages as stated in attached letter. The best justification for this approval however, is that it affords us the opportunity to make PADS a completely autonomous cost center totally responsible for its operation. The purpose for the formation of PADS was to amortize the cost of developing software to the member cities thereby reducing the investment of each member. Now that various programs are developed, PADS now has the opportunity to s~ll the services of these "canned" programs to further defray the development investment of each City. CO~UTER HARDWARE PURCHASE Page 2 of 2 In the past four months, great strides have been taken by the PADS Board of Directors to operate the agency in a business-like manner, thereby increasing the possibility of higher returns on each City's investments of the past few years. By approval of the purchase of this system, the Tustin City Council will be: 1) providing computer services to City Hall at an ultimate cost less than originally proposed; and 2) affording the PADS Board as well as the respective meter's City Councils a greater flexibility to direct, ~nage and hold accountable the PADS organization as a separate entity responsible for the attainment of established goals. I recommend the approval of this proposal by th e T~stin City coUncil at the October 6th meeting for the reasons stated s3oove. RBH: dr~ t DATE: TO: FROH: SUBJECT: Septen~er 12, 1980 Ronald B. Hoesterey, Tustin's PADS D~.legate Dan Blankenship, city Administrator City of Tustin Position on Computer Hardware This memorandum confirms my previous conversations on the subject of a City computer. These comments represent a change from my prior recommendation that we accept the Series III PADS central computer under certain conditions, to a position that we attempt to get a Series 30 or 33 of our own. The prior reco~endation for the Series III was based on the following: 1. Advantages a. It is more powerful and faster due a memory upgrade. We might be able to use it in cooperation with the Tustin unified Schoold District or others. c. It is ~orth mf~re. d. It has more parts included. e. PADS could] not afford to keep it for its staff alone. T~stin '~;.~: ~he best location for a machine which tb.e PADS staff must be t.]~.~d i~to~ 2. Disadvantages a. Older technology. b. Larger heat generation 12,000 Btu/hr. as opposed to 5,300 Btu/hr. for Model 33. c. Slightly more cumbersome to operate. d. Tustin would have to take data back ups on tape for PADS as well as City. e. Tustin would have to assist PADS staff in checking out terminal and line problems as.they would be attached to Tustin's "computer". f. Increased C.P.U.. Maintenanc~ Cost ($445-$261x12 = $2,208 annually would need to be covered by PADS. g. 50 MB Disc Drive Maintenance Cost (four each) 4x$81x12 months = $3,888 would need to be covered by PADS. The maintenance cost of one ~20 MB Disc is $89/month compared with $81/month for a 50 ~ Disc Drive. Now things are somewhat different in that: 1. PADS is obviously planning to have more users on the Series III which will require more operator time by Tustin. 2. PADS will probably not be able to get rid of the less "space efficient" and less "maintenance cost efficient" 50 ~.~ Disc Drives which will compound our space problems. 3. There appears to be a revenue source to fund [~st of the Series III to keep it at PADS. Ron Hoesterey Page 2, 9-12-80 On this basis I would recommend that ~he City attempt to secure a Model 33 or Model 30 rather than take the Series III. The Series III should only be taken with some careful protective guarantees by PADS, including PADS reimbursement for higher operator aud operating costs of the Series III. A price increase is scl]eduled for October 31st of this year of about $5,000. I would therefore recommend that we go before Council with a recommendation for a Model 33 at the October 6th meeting if that cau be coordinated with the PADS de- cision on the Series III. The West Covina problem represents both a dilemma and opportunity. If West Covina decides to terminate (or delay) its computer purchase, it will cost PADS a re- stocking fee of 5% or about $6,500. The City of Tustin could probably secure the major elements of the West Covina order at the price we would otherwise pay but receive some enhancements as well. PADS migh5 be able to prevail in Court with West Covina and recover the restocking fee, but it might make the diseugagement go muc}~ better if PADS could avoid levying all or most of that restocking fee. The logical place in City Hall for the computer and related equipment, at least on an interim basis, is the duplication room (13' x 23") just north of Mary Wynn's office. It could be quickly prepared or available in the event we had to accept an early delivery (such as in the case of the West Covina machine.) One alternative which has been suggested to Tustin purchasing a computer is for PADS nc move close to Tustin where line drivers would give Tustin about the same speed on terminals and printers as an in house machine. I do not consider this acceptable as we have no control over our own work, we have the trouble and expense of teieph~ne lines, we have the expense of cor. puter time, and we do not have the accessiblli~y to restart the system if it goes down outside of working hours (such as if a police system is being use.) As t~> f]:~a~c[ng the purchase of a computer, the principal amount is $80,790, in- cluding taxes. As~uming $3,210 additional for electrical work and other expenses, that r~%s to $84,000. The department has budgeted $22,000 in this year's budget for ccz~uter payments. I would propose that a down payment of $24,000 be made which will not require a budget adjustment. The remainder of $60,000 I recommend we borrow from the self-insured workers compensation reserve fund and pay appro- priate interest. This loan could be set up for three years with an option to pay more at any time and pay off without penalty. I would like to see the loan paid off in two years. This internal loan does not affect the integrity of our reserve funds which we invest anyway. This is much simpler and quicker than negotiating a bank loan and trying to get the bank and Hewlett-Packard to agree on the paper work details. I would prefer to pay cash but we are fully budgeted this year and may very well have to adjust some capital improvements due to the Gann Initiative when the details of implementation are determined. By purchasing a computer we will have better control of our work, we will be more independent from PADS, and we will reduce our annual costs (after it is paid for) which will give us some margi~ in future years under the Gann Initiative. The City Council approved this decentralized approach on March 3, 1980 as a part of the City's commitment to the PADS 1980-81 budget. Time is short on both the part of PADS and the City of Tustin to make the necessary decisions and the implementation planning. Hewlett-Packard w~nts to know by next week if the delivery address is to be changed on the West Covina machine. That would rep- resent a decision by PADS to accept delivery on its own in order to avoid the restock- ing fee and would not necessarily obligate the City of Tustin to accept the machine. Ron Hoesterey Page 3, 9-12-80 I am available at your~ convenience to discuss the above recommendation and to secure additional information as you may require. ResDect fully submitted, Dan Blankenship City Administrator Enc. CO~.~PARISON OF MODEL 30 VERSUS MODEL 33 - HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPUTER A. COST COMPARISON Series 30 Series 33 Cash difference PRICE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE $28,525 $226 $37,275 $261 $ 8,75O $ 35 B. FEATURES OF THE MODEL 33 OVER THE MODEL 30 1. Includes desk into which the CPU is built. The Model 30 needs a short table 30x45 ($425). 2. Includes an isolation transformer which may or may not be needed with Model 30 depending upon power source consistency. 3. Includes 4 extra ports (represents a $1,600 value) 4. Includes an additional General 1/0 Channel which will improve perfotm~nce if the machine is used to the maximum - otherwise it will haw~ little effect. C. THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE MODEL 33 1. Model 33 ~,n 230 V rather than 120 V. 2. C.P.U. g~nerates 5,300 Btu/hr as compared with 1,640 Btu/hr.