COUNCIL WORKSHOP ITEM

ITEM: Public Safety System Upgrade DATE: July 7, 2002 PREPARED BY: The Technology Commission The Public Safety System Project Team PURPOSE: To seek the Village Council’s approval of the agreement with H.T.E. BID AMOUNT: $1,425,539 (Option One) Recommended $1,168,598 (Option Two)

DISCUSSION

The task of updating the Village’s public safety system has been on village staff’s desks for several years. In the last year, village staff has evaluated public safety systems from five vendors through an RFP process. Each vendor’s system was evaluated based on a demonstration provided by the vendor. Village staff also contacted other towns that use that vendor’s system, and in some cases, visited other towns to see how the system performed in a live environment. Earlier this year, the staff and the Technology Commission rejected all RFP responses and requested of council that we be allowed to evaluate the possibility of upgrading our current public safety system (H.T.E.). For details, please refer to the report presented to the Village Council on February 12, 2002 (www.vil.downers-grove.il.us/govt/mmemo/02-12- 02/readindex.PDF).

As indicated in that report, the project team would now look at upgrading the current public safety system manufactured by H.T.E. Following the same process followed in the RFP portion of the project, the team reviewed H.T.E’s products. Again site visits to other government agencies where H.T.E.’s system is used were conducted. In addition, the Technology Commission helped conduct a financial background analysis on H.T.E. Both the site visits and the financial analysis produced positive results for H.T.E’s products. The project team therefore recommends that the Village upgrade our current public safety system. Please note, it is not considered a sole source purchase because H.T.E is the manufacturer of our current system. This upgrade will allow us to utilize other features offered by H.T.E. In addition, the decision to purchase the H.T.E upgrade is actually the result of a competitive RFP process where various products were reviewed and considered.

1. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE CONTRACT

In this section, we will discuss the technical components of the upgrades. In order to explain the complicated contract with a large variety of technical components, we have summarized system components into a summary sheet titled “Public Safety System Proposal Summary Sheet.” As shown in the summary sheet, the contract is divided into 6 major components each of which addresses one aspect of the public safety system upgrade.

1

Software

The majority of the software relates to field reporting and mobile messaging for police officers and records management software for the fire department. These additions will allow officers to create and file police reports from their squad car as well as send and receive messages via the to the dispatch center and each other. The fire records software will allow the fire department to more efficiently maintain and access, reports and information on fire and ambulance calls. The biggest advantage here is that the fire department will for the first time be using a records system that is completely integrated with the dispatch system. Any information entered by dispatchers during a call will automatically be carried over to populate the correct fields in the fire records system.

There are a variety of smaller software pieces that will be purchased also. For example, there is software required to allow the dispatchers to monitor the locations of the fire equipment that will be outfitted with automatic vehicle locators. There is also software that will automatically allow dispatchers to pull caller information that is sent when a person dials 911 into the dispatch system, and thereby into the police and fire records systems. There is also a software component that will allow the dispatchers to page appropriate police and fire personnel depending on the type of call directly from the dispatch system.

Training/Install

This section encompasses all costs associated with the initial training of personnel in using and maintaining the system, installation costs, and any of H.T.E.'s travel expenses associated with the project. Most training will be done in a “train the trainer” manner. The vendor will train key police and fire department personnel who will then be responsible for training the remainder of the police and fire department users. This type of training will not only reduce training costs but also allow us more flexibility in training times and dates to accommodate police and fire scheduling difficulties.

Maintenance

This section covers all costs of on going software maintenance. These fees not only entitle us to technical support provided by the vendor but also periodic software updates to resolve issues with the software and provide additional functionality.

Hardware

AS/400 - This is a midrange computer that runs the entire dispatch and police/fire records systems. Although we do already utilize an AS/400 for our dispatch system and police records systems the addition of fire records and the new mobile functionality necessitates a more powerful machine. Our current AS/400 will remain and function as a hot-standby backup to the new system. This will all but eliminate any downtime for the dispatch center; in the event of a hardware failure in the main system the dispatchers can switch over to this standby system and continue to work without interruption. This ability will also allow Information Services

2 personnel to switch the dispatchers to the backup system when there is a need to perform routine maintenance on the main system.

Mobile Hardware – The core of the mobile hardware that will be installed in each public safety vehicle is a ruggedized computer. These are a step above the normal laptop computer that the Village would purchase, and it comes with a commensurate step up in price. This step up is not so much in the computing power of the actual machine; it is in the durability and ability to be used in conditions that a standard laptop computer would not normally function in. These machines can stand more extreme temperature variations, stand up to physical shock better, and handle exposure to moisture better than an standard laptop computer would. Along with a laptop computer each vehicle will be equipped with data communications equipment and a mounting system specifically designed for that make of vehicle that will help ensure that the laptop computer can be used safely in that vehicle.

Message Switch – This subsystem consists of both hardware and software that acts as a communications hub interconnecting the vehicles in the field with each other, with the dispatch system, the police and fire records systems, and the state police’s data systems.

Field Reporting – This subsystem controls the process of police officers entering incident reports remotely from their vehicles. An officer can enter a report, submit it to his supervisor for review, make any changes to the report that may be required, and finally file the report electronically with the Police Records department all without coming in to the police station.

Dial-In Access Server – This subsystem will allow Fire Department personnel to connect remotely to the Fire Records System in situations and locations when they cannot use the standard wireless system that they would normally use. The wireless data connection that the vehicles use is based on the same technology that cellular phones are based on. This limits the use of the system in certain areas, e.g., inside the hospital.

Third Party

These are costs that will be paid to companies other than HTE. For example, the cellular data service that is used to communicate with mobile units is provided by Verizon wireless and we will be paying them directly. Also there are a variety of smaller hardware items that will be purchased directly from vendors other than HTE.

Miscellaneous

All costs that really didn’t fit well into another category are here. Any furniture or equipment racks that may be necessary to house the new equipment are covered here and also costs for miscellaneous cables, connectors and such are covered here.

2. MAJOR ISSUES

Like any other project conducted by the Village, this system upgrade was faced with a number of major issues and challenges. Fortunately, the members of the Technology Commission provided excellent input on many of these issues. In fact, since the establishment of the Technology

3 Commission by the Village Council, village staff has been working closely with the commission, and the decisions made jointly by village staff and the commission members have led us to the point we are now at in this project. Please note that the decisions made to solve those issues presented below are fully supported by the Technology Commission. This project has benefited enormously from the expertise of the members of the commission.

2.1 H.T.E’s Financial Background Since this project involves a huge amount of financial commitment from the Village, the stability of the vendor is a major issue for the team. Mr. Will Hutchinson, a member of the Technology Commission, conducted a financial background analysis on H.T.E., making sure that the company is stable financially and is able to support its products in the years to come. As we are currently a client of H.T.E, the Village enjoyed excellent support from H.T.E in past years. The team expects H.T.E. to provide the same technical support in the years to come.

2.2 Fire Records System As introduced earlier, this project is to upgrade the current public safety system. However, one exception among these major components to the notion of “upgrading” is the Fire Records system. The Fire Department has been using an independent fire records system called Fire House since 1996, and there has not been any data communication between Fire House and our current CAD system. During the RFP process, and also in the process of reviewing H.T.E.'s product, the Fire Department decided to replace their current records system to better realize the benefits provided by a unified and comprehensive public safety system for VOC, Police, and Fire Department personnel by utilizing the features of the new CAD system.

However, as the Downers Grove Community will enjoy better public safety services supported by a unified system, the portion of the project for the Fire Department will cost $363,640. Although this spending is necessary as the Village continues to improve it's services provided to the Downers Grove residents and business community, it makes the total Project cost more than the first estimates.

2.3 The Number of Mobile Laptop Computers Under the old system, one of the benefits provided today’s technology that our PD personnel has not been able to enjoy is the capability of data communication between the vehicles and CAD and Police and fire record systems. In today’s technical environment, the benefits of data communication between CAD and the records system and mobile units are obvious and necessary. However, the issue at hand is the number of , and eventually, it becomes an issue of funding.

As shown in the summary sheet, the team faces two options: “one laptop per officer” and “one laptop per vehicle.” With the option of one laptop per officer, each police officer is assigned her/his own laptop computer. The officer will be using “her/his own” laptop computer in the vehicle while patrolling on the street or filing her/his report after shift is over. With the option of “one laptop per vehicle,” the officer will need to leave the laptop computer in the vehicle, sharing the laptop computer with other officers. As it heavily depends on the capability in improving its services, the Police Department provides detailed explanations of the

4 differences between the two options (see attached file titled “Laptop Purchase Recommendation- Police Department).

In discussing the use of laptop computers, the Technology Commission and staff did look at various alternatives, such as purchasing 39 laptop computers now, and completing the purchase at a later time; or purchase some lower end laptop computers to save the cost, etc. After reviewing various factors that have significant impacts on the quality of police services, the Technology Commission casts its vote in favor of the option of “one laptop per officer,” and is recommending this option to the Village Council.

Nevertheless, a more difficult task the project team faces now is how to fund the “one laptop per officer” option. As indicated in the summary sheet, the dollar difference between the two options is $256,941, after factoring in a federal grant ($235,142) obtained to finance the purchase of laptop computers.

Being fully aware of the financial situation the Village experiences, the team looked at a number of funding alternatives. During the June 13, 2000, Technology Commission meeting, some commission members suggested that leasing be a good option. Finance Director Marty Lyons, also at the meeting, pointed out that if we execute the contract in phases, it may help pay for the option selected. With the help of the Finance Department, the team has located necessary funds for the one laptop per officer option (please refer to the Cost/Financing Issues portion of the report below).

2.4 Purchasing of Third Party Equipment

In order to reduce the cost of the project, based on the suggestions made by the Technology Commission, we will purchase most of the hardware equipment from other sources rather than from H.T.E. The following is a list of hardware to be purchased from various sources.

· AS/400 (Data Exchange) · Message switch server (Dell) · Field reporting server (Dell) · Dial up access server (Dell) · Laptops (CDS) · CD-Rom's for FD laptops · FD Status monitors (4) (Dell) · FD Rip/run printers (4) · FD (4) (Dell) · Router to connect to Verizon for mobile data (Cisco router from CDW)

2.5 Contract Negotiations

During the project, the Finance Department provided excellent services in locating necessary funds and leading the contract negotiations. With a 10% discount already built into the contract, however, H.T.E. offered only the standard pricing structure that it offers to all of its municipal

5 clients. A number of phone calls were made by the project team to other municipal agencies (Skokie, etc.) where H.T.E.’s products have been purchased to ensure that the pricing we are receiving is in line with what others have paid. These findings indicated that H.T.E. is consistent with its pricing structure.

3. COST/FINANCING ISSUES

As has been noted in other sections of this report, the size of the system and the phasing of its installation will have critical impacts to the operational efficiencies obtained. However, size and phasing may not necessarily have a detrimental impact on the FY 2002-03 budget, depending on our method of payment. The table below shows the budget by department for the coming year, including grant funds, an estimate of the project expense depending on the size of the system, and the budget shortfall in each scenario.

Department FY 2002-03 Estimated Project Difference Budget Expense Police $317,760 Fire $165,000 VOC $375,000 TOTAL BUDGET $857,760 System with 68 mo biles PD* $1,425,539 ($567,779) System with 39 mobiles PD $1,168,598 ($310,838)

Considering the Village’s revenue picture, we do not currently have excess funds in the current budget as adopted to cover either shortfall listed above. Our choices then are to phase either the payment for the system or the installation of the system, or both. As noted elsewhere in this report, phasing the system will operational impacts. However, these impacts should be weighed against the costs associated with immediate installation.

Phasing Installation Only:

We presently have $857,760 in the FY 2002-03 budget. This leaves $567,779 in project costs that would need to be pushed into the next year if we choose. On the surface this would seem to be the simplest approach, depending on the operational concerns. It would certainly avoid any issues of interest costs associated with financing. Unfortunately, the actual installation process does not lend itself to phasing for the following reasons:

· This is because several of the major components must be either purchased upfront (software) or because we have deadlines related to grant funding (the laptops). Approximately $700,000 either mobile scenario can be attributed to software, hardware or laptops, and would need to be purchased in total or at least at the live date for a given system (for the software). We would also experience a substantial portion of the training costs in FY 2002-03. While the actual project schedule may vary slightly, we can easily anticipate between $800,000 and $900,000 being paid out before April 30, 2003. · Further complicating the phasing issue is the integrated nature of the products themselves. Because different modules in the system depend on each other to make the system effective, it is impractical to phase based on individual modules, without delaying the live date until the last (critical) module is in place.

6 · It might be possible to phase the project by doing CAD/VOC (basically the central software and hardware) first, and then do the mobiles for one department then the other. This would create some issues with equity between the departments, but it would be a method for phasing the project and the costs thereof. · Project expenses might actually go up due to logistical issues. In most system installations, the vendor can be working on several parts of the system at one time. When the project is phased, their time may become less efficient, raising the total number of hours needed to complete the installation.

Despite the above, we feel we could phase the project to make the installation work within budget if this was absolutely necessary. Such phasing may not however, be the most efficient process and may have operational impacts as noted elsewhere in this report.

Phasing Payment of the Project:

As is the case in any capital purchase we have the choice of purchasing a product, system or asset outright from Village reserves, or by issuing some form of debt and paying for the system over time. For technology related projects lease-purchasing or even straight debt financing is usually restricted to a much shorter time frame than for infrastructure, buildings or other major equipment such as firetrucks because of the shorter lifecycle of technology related products. We have reviewed our options for outright purchase vs. a three year financing of the purchase. Please note that the grant portion of this project ($235,142) must be purchased outright, according to the Department of Justice, the granting agency. In order to provide a straightforward review of our options, we decided to look at the costs associated with financing only $1.0 million of the project, vs. payment from Village funds on hand.

Naturally, all borrowing has a cost to it, and based on a three preliminary proposals we can anticipate interest costs between 2.75% and 5% depending on the terms and amount of the borrowing. Using a rate of 3.05% (the best proposal) on a $1.0 million amount, our cost for financing would be about $54,000. Given that the Village earns a rate of 2.75% on our short term investments our net interest rate would be .30%, and depending on the duration of the project, this would probably equate to a net interest cost of less than $10,000. Please note that the faster the project is completed the higher our net interest cost would be, because of the quicker payout timeframe and shorter time we would actually have funds in the bank earning interest. This is offset by having better services on-line at an earlier date. Separately, the terms of the loan/bond are set at three years, and so the interest costs are not dependent on the time it takes to do the project. Given a rate of 3.05%, our semi-annual payments on the bonds would be approximately $175,675, making our annual commitment $351,350

Phasing Both The Installation and Payment of The CAD Project:

As noted previously, the Village has $857,000 budgeted for this project in FY 2002-03. As has been discussed with the Council, we are expecting revenue shortfalls for this year due to changes in state legislation and due to delays in economic development, which will impact sales tax projections. To help with this situation we could look at phasing the installation as noted above, and then phasing the payment of these phases as well. Unfortunately, as noted above, the

7 phasing of the actual installation is complicated at best. Moreover, we do not feel that the incremental savings in interest costs will offset the potential for cost increases in labor to install the system or offset potential operating efficiencies to the line staff using the system.

Recommendation on Financing

We recommend that the system be installed immediately, without phasing the installation process. We further recommend that the system be financed over a three-year time frame as noted above.

4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

To replace or to upgrade the current public safety system has been a long process since the beginning of the project. The team still faces a number of factors concerning timing.

Grant. The federal grant secured for the laptop purchase will expire on August 31, 2002. As a standard procedure, we will apply for a one-year extension.

Vendor time frame. According to the contract, H.T.E. will commit necessary sources to install the upgrade and enable the upgrade to fully function by January of 2003. It is a very aggressive schedule. The project team is determined to complete the project as a top priority.

5. CONCLUSION

With the Village Council’s commitment to public safety, excellent technical advice provided by the Technology Commission and the hard work by staff, this project is finally brought to the final phase. However, the completion of the upgrade is just the beginning of a new phase where better public safety protection services are expected. In the years to come, more financial resources and staff time will be required to maintain and further upgrade the system. What we have learned from this project will benefit many Village operations in the future.

Finally, the team wishes to thank everyone who has contributed her/his time and knowledge to the process.

ATTACHMENT: Public Safety System Proposal (a cost summary) Laptop Purchase Recommendation prepared by the Police Department H.T.E Agreement

RECOMMENDATION:

The Village Council approves, by resolution, the agreement with H.T.E. and third party equipment vendors with the option of “one laptop per officer” option at a total amount not to exceed $1,425,539.

The project team will come back to the Village Council for the final contract approval.

8 PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM PROPOSAL 07/03/02 PRODUCT PD (68 Mobiles) PD (39 Mobiles) FD (23 Mobiles) IS HTE Software CAD 192,645.00 157,410.00 Records 86,310.00 66,735.00 68,625.00 Addtl-GUI/QREP 24,625.00 24,625.00 11,125.00 Training/Install CAD 19,600.00 19,600.00 Records 9,600.00 9,600.00 39,500.00 Addtl-GUI/QREP 3,000.00 5,000.00 1,000.00 HTE Travel - Estimate 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 Maintenance CAD 44,350.00 35,650.00 Records 18,810.00 14,460.00 14,350.00 Addtl-GUI/QREP 7,250.00 7,250.00 4,250.00 Project Management 28,000.00 Hardware AS400/Transition - Used 51,225.00 Maintenance 94.00 AVL Hardware 17,687.00 Message Switch Server 4,501.52 Field Reporting Server 4,501.52 Dial Up Access-Hospitals 4,002.17 Server Software 4,925.78 Laptops 417,748.00 254,130.00 159,919.00 Installation-55 Vehicles 12,115.00 12,115.00 9,563.59 THIRD PARTY CDPD Service - Annual 39,984.00 22,932.00 12,348.00 ProQA 18,600.00 18,600.00 NetClock 9,790.00 9,790.00 FD Status Monitors - 4 6,428.00 FD Rip/Run Printers - 4 6,119.80 FD Workstations - 4 5,225.00 T1/Frame Relay 3,620.00 Router - Estimate 3,500.00 Wireless Lan Install 6,190.00 MS Office-Standard-PD 24,412.00 14,001.00 MISCELLANEOUS Furniture 5,000.00 General-cables,connectors, 10,000.00 and unexpected

TOTALS $936,339.00 $679,398.00 363,640.39 125,559.99

System With PD(68) $1,425,539.38 Budget Deficit -567,779.38

System With PD(39) $1,168,598.38 Budget Deficit -310,838.38 Memorandum

To: Rick Ginex, Village Manager CC: Robert Porter, Chief of Police From: Tracy Adams, Andy Blaylock, Jim Maly, Jim Edwards Date: 5/31/2002 Re: Laptop Purchase Recommendation – Police Department

The Police Department has been pursuing the purchase of a laptop solution to replace our current ALERTS “dumb” terminal solution for several years now. During this ongoing process, we have had the opportunity to evaluate numerous systems and gain extensive knowledge from departments who have already brought laptop and field reporting systems live. One aspect that was highlighted by every department we have talked to about their systems was the issue of purchasing a laptop per vehicle versus a laptop per officer.

Initially we gave no thought to this issue as we assumed we would be replacing ALERTS and our install would be matched to what we have now which is per vehicle. However, there were several issues that laptop capability brings to the table that we had not considered. Every department we have talked to raised these issues and all have either bought laptops up front for each officer, changed over to a per officer install from a per vehicle install or are attempting to change over to a per officer install. The issues raised that were pertinent to our department are as follows:

1.) Those of us with our own desktops or laptops take for granted our ability to set up our computers with the many user defined areas PCs offer. Background colors, mouse settings, spell check settings, desktop icons, help prompts, etc. We enjoy the knowledge that how our computer looks and works today will be the same tomorrow as we are the only user of the computer. We can customize it for what works best for us. Officers have different system preferences as well. In addition, background colors and other system settings can be different for an officer who works days in the sunlight as opposed to an officer who works midnights in the dark. For a computer savvy officer, changing settings may be no problem, however, for officers with more limited computer skills, signing on to a computer that works differently from day to day, even if only slightly, can be frustrating and confusing.

2.) We continue to encourage officers to use computers for an ever increasing number of tasks. Officers have responded to using computers at a faster rate than we can sometimes keep up with. We have a young department that is becoming used to or have asked us for everything they can think

1 May 31, 2002 of to be computerized. They routinely use computers for memos, research reports, spreadsheets, etc. The Downers Grove Officer of today is very different than years past. He or she is far more involved in department and community problem solving, regularly participates in solution justification, providing written responses to superiors on issues and corresponds in writing more frequently with the citizens. We have asked our officers to function at a higher level of professionalism and they have responded. The frustration point has frequently faced them in trying to find an available computer in the officer shared environment to complete what has been asked of them. Their willingness has regularly exceeded our department’s ability to provide them with the technology tools and availability to do these things easily. While the rest of us enjoy access to our computers uninterrupted, our patrol, COP and traffic officers contend for time on 3 general use computers. These computers are shared for all email access, internet access, computerized police report forms, general department computerized forms, computerized booking & complaint software, LEADS access, CAD and Records access and all MS application access. Providing an officer with his own laptop would reduce the burden and wait time on the 3 in-house computers as many of these applications could be made available on the laptop. More importantly, an officer who has a document that is a work in progress wouldn’t have to leave it when he leaves the squad for the day and hope that it’s still there the next time he is on duty. Documents created in a shared laptop environment would be saved to the hard drive and therefore be accessible to anyone using the squad. In addition, the officer would then need to track down that particular laptop when he/she comes back on duty in order to again have access to complete his/her document. Based on those issues, it could be assumed that officers would continue to lean towards using in-house computers. Officers in the station on computers are not a visible prescence on the road and take longer to respond to calls in their zones.

3.) Officers attend an increasing number of training that includes officers from other departments who bring laptops to the training in order to capture important notations and information so they can easily be forwarded to other department personnel. A per officer install would allow our officers to the same. In addition, as the laptops will be CDPD based, officers would also be able to obtain and respond to department messages, etc. from remote sites during time away at training.

4.) An increasing amount of software we purchase for specialty functions or deparment units is sold per license, per computer. In example; we are purchasing a computerized Field Training Officer (FTO) evaluation system to better track a trainee’s progress and to ensure tracking that all areas of training have been covered. Each FTO would need a license for their laptop, however, other officers would not. In a shared environment, licenses would need to be bought for all laptops as when officers change shifts, squads go down, laptops get shuffled, it would be difficult for an FTO to find a laptop that has his/her specific software on it. The alternative is to load the software on in-house desktops, however, using station computers takes an FTO and his/her trainee off of the road an hour early every day, every shift in order to have time to complete the evaluation forms. We continue to provide a whole host of custom software, both purchased and and written by PD staff for use by specialty units including COP, FTOs, Elderly Service, etc. Individual officers have even requested software for specific things they do to help expedite their workload. Being able to customize a computer to meet an individual officer’s needs based on the shift he/she works, what specialty assignments he/she is involved with, etc. would keep officers on the road and out of the station and

2 May 31, 2002 eliminate the time an officer would spend tracking down a laptop that has what he/she needs on it. It would also reduce the costs of specialty unit per license purchases we make now and in the future.

5.) The most consistent issue raised by every department we talked to and from our own experience is the issue of support. System problems, changes and time involved with problem determination were all significantly reduced when each officer had his/her own computer. Departments who are per officer or in a mixed per officer/per vehicle environment all agreed they had far fewer problems with computers owned by an individual officer. In a shared environment problems are many and the ability to backtrack who had used the computer, when the problem first occurred, what had been done to the computer over the course of several shifts coming and going, was difficult, if not impossible to determine. We know from our own 3 computer shared environment that many problems continue to occur because we have no idea who was on the computer or what exactly they did when the problem started occurring. The majority of support provided to the PD is on the 3 shared of our 55 total computers. Our officers use our computers responsibly and the problems that occur appear to be related to shared profile conflicts or an officer who is trying to use applications that he/she may not fully understand. However, as we can rarely pin down the who or the what, we are limited in our ability to correct the problem or provide the additional training or guidance that would prevent the problem from occurring in the future. The per vehicle laptops pose a similar problematic environment. Providing each officer with his/her own laptop would allow for direct one on one troubleshooting and ongoing prevention of recurring problems.

We are asking our officers to rely extrememly heavily on computers to do their jobs. Their dispatches, access to safety information on the location they are being dispatched to, LEADS access, emails and police report completion will now all be contingent on them having computers that function reliably with minimal or no ongoing problems. As we learned years ago from our radios and I’m sure many other equipment areas in the Village, that people take far better care of equipment when it is their own. The laptops we firmly believe are no exception. Project Manager Bill Herman concurs that IS’ ability to support the 24/7 mobile environment would be greatly enhanced by a per officer installation. IS has no staff on duty for 2 of our 3 shifts, on weekends, holidays, etc. Any move we can make to reduce support demands would make them more able to provide adequate support without having to hire additional staff to meet the need.

The additional up front costs for hardware, software, training, installation, CDPD service and first year maintenance is $256,941.00. Ongoing additional costs for maintenance and CDPD service would be $25,752.00. We understand that this is a significant additional investment for the Village and would not be requesting it if we did not feel the importance of what it brings to the overall project was also very significant. If we were required to add 2 IS staff members to support the shared environment 24/7, the costs of that staff would offset the additional costs within 2 ½ - 3 years. This doesn’t even consider the reduction in costs from reduced custom licensings needing to be purchased and reduced hardware replacement costs as laptops would be better taken care of and would not need to be in operation 24/7.

3 May 31, 2002

When we were evaluating new systems through the RFP process, the overall system costs were totalling 2 – 2 ½ million dollars without data conversion costs ever being quoted and included. Even with the additional costs of a per officer installation, the costs for this overall project with our grant will be slightly less than half of that. Our solution will still save the Village in excess of 1 million dollars to meet the needs of dispatch, fire and police.

In conclusion, we believe that the additional costs incurred for the per officer installation would greatly impact the success of this overall system implementation. It would create a “true” virtual office for each officer in or out of his/her squad, increase their ability to function at a high level of professionalism in today’s police environment, be better able to meet and exceed the community’s expectation of police service and greatly reduce the support burden on our IS staff. Our officers will respond to the mobile environment additions if they are easy, straighforward and reliable. The per officer environment increases our ability to meet their expectations and give them a true quality solution.

CONFIDENTIAL 4