HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2013 c11 fox pro application replacement projectl'counctL
âqenòâ RepoRt
Mcctiq Datc
Item Number
6-17-13
c11
FROM:
Prepared by:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Wayne Padilla, Interim Finance and Technology Director
Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Steve Schmidt, Information Technology Manager
SUBJECT: FOXPROAPPLICATIONREPLACEMENTPROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
1. Award a "Not-to-Exceed" contract in the amount of $100,000 to Woolpert to perform
professional software development, implementation and proj ect management services.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Woolpert.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City has utilized a locally developed software program, Microsoft Visual FoxPro, for the
past 25 years, which was developed and maintained at avery low cost by contracting with a local
programmer to provide a variety of purposes. These applications are the user interface software
for a wide range of mission-critical functions throughout the organization, including land use
inventory, permits, inspections and work orders. The applications automate City business
processes and are accessed by all departments.
However, it was necessary and continues to be necessary that these applications be replaced, as
Microsoft stopped supporting the platform for the locally developed software in 2008.
Replacement is necessary to deliver mission-critical, day-to-day services to the City's
community in an effrcient, reliable and cost effective manner.
On February 23,2010, Council approved the request for proposals (RFP) for the replacement of
the existing customized FoxPro applications with a project budget of $1,150,000. Council also
directed staff to return with recommendations for contract awards.
On September 21,2010 Council authorized the award of a contract to EnerGov in the amount of
$815,000 for a new Land Management Software Suite. This suite of applications was to replace
the City's existing customized land use and permitting applications.
Since September of 2010, City staff has worked with EnerGov application developers and
project managers in an attempt to successfully implement the new Land Management System
that will replace existing FoxPro software applications. Some success has been achieved over
this period, but there is still missing critical system functionality that must be achieved before the
City can "go-live" with the new system.
c11-1
FoxPro Application Replacement Project Page 2
System functionality has not been fully achieved and subsequent conespondence and
communication with EnerGov have made this point very clear. Unfortunately, EnerGov
continues to be unable or unwilling to provide the needed functionality and the City's substantial
investment in time, payment, and effort makes it unfeasible to change to a different system.
Staff from Finance and Information Technology and Community Development has been meeting
on a weekly basis to review the progress of the project, and to explore and evaluate alternative
means for completing the hnal development and programming required to meet the City's
application requirements. Staff has concluded that the use of an outside vendor with experience
as a software integrator represents the most practical and effective way to complete this software
implementation successfully.
The City is currently in the process of successfully implementing Cityworks, which is a
Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) for the Public Works and Utilities
Departments. For this project, the City contracted with Woolpert for the system design and
implementation of the Cityworks product and has been pleased with the results that Woolpert
achieved. Based on this recent experience, staff believes that Woolpert has the technical skills
needed to program and develop software applications that will perform the business functions
that EnerGov has not been able to develop. Therefore, staff is recommending that Woolpert be
awarded a contract to complete the final implementation of the EnerGov project and ensure that
it provides the functionality required by the contract and also oversee the deployment of the
software throughout the City.
Staff recommends sole source purchasing for this contract based on 'Woolpert's extensive
knowledge of City's systems and success of the Cityworks project. Woolpert also has
experienced technical staff that can assist the City in fully testing the EnerGov system upon
completion of the project and help with the training of City staff and the rollout of the
application. V/oolpert is an industry leader in system development, database programming,
project management and successful project rollouts.
FISCAL IMPACT
In anticipation of the EnerGov system going live in 2012-13, the IT division budgeted $104,000
for licensing and maintenance fees in this fiscal year. However, since the system has not yet been
implemented, this funding is still available. Additionally, the FoxPro replacement project has a
balance of $24,125, bringing the total funding available for the'Woolpert contract to $128,125.
The fee from Woolpert ($100,000) is for both custom programming and integration, the two
work components that staff requires assistance with to ensure that a fully functional program is
placed into operation as soon as possible.
The Information Technology Steering Committee is recommending that the funds budgeted for
annual licensing fees in 2012-13 be used to fund the contract with 'Woolpert to complete the
project since this action would result in no additional costs to the City.
c11-2
FoxPro Application Replacement Proj ect Page 3
EnerGov Maintenance & Support funds 2012-13
FoxPro project fund balance
104,000
24,725
Total
Woolpert Contract
128,125
(100,000)
Balance $28,125
(-os1llem
Additionally, the IT division has budgeted $95,000 for licensing and maintenance fees in20l3-I4
The amount due to EnerGov will be prorated based on the date of system implementation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter to EnerGov
2. Woolpert Revised Prooosal - 6-4-13.docx
T:\Council Agenda Repofs\2O13U013-06-17\FoxPro Application Replacement Project @adilla-Johnson-Schmidt)
c11-3
a
Attachment 1Gryo[sånluls
Community Development Department. glg Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 99401-g218
May 15,2013
Brett Cate
Plesident, Local Govemnlent Division
Iyler Technologies Inc.
5949 Sherry Lane Suite .1400
Dallas, Texas75225
Re: City of San Luis Obispo-Crilical Issues Thal Delay Implementation of EnerGov Software
Dear Mr. Cate:
The purpose of this letter is to bring to Tyler Technologies'atte¡rtion that, after two years, tlrcrc are
elevcn significant outstanding irnplenrentation items that are preventing the City from deploying
EnerGov' s Land Management Suite. These critical issues re¡nain despite thc inter¡se effort the
City lras applied to resolve thenr during this tí¡ne. EnerGov representatives have stated that there
are cunently no plans to address some of these issues, while the renredy for others lras been
sígnificantly delaycd. Throughout this project, the City has repeatedly relied on commit¡nents
from the EnerGov team abou¡ when to expect fixes and improvements, More often than not, thc
result rve waited for did not conrprehensively address the issue, cornpromised the functionality of
other fèatures, or never materialized at all.
The City is concerned that continued decisions to delay irnplementing required functionality will
lead to other challenges and further delays, Eleven crjtical issues are described on the aûached
matrix; including the options the City is considering to resolve fhem if a solution fi'om EnerGov is
not forthcorning in a tirnely mauner.
The City selected EnerGov to provide expertise and apply a sophisticated approach described in
EnerGov's proposal and, ultimately, defined in the contract and the sfatenìent of work to deliver a
ft¡nctional land management system.
The project faced nvo fundamental challenges from the start. A third ernerged about a year later.
l, EnerGov's confìguration plan for tlte City continues to fail to address the fact that City
Land Management Pol¡cy is intended to be followed explicitly, but also intended to be
defined with the flexibility necessary to achieve the agency's objectives. lt has now takell
EnerGov two years into the impìementation of the project to recognize this basic fact and
identify the tools nceded to achieve the City's objectives.
2. l'he rveb based version of EnerGov tlrat was delivered for configuration was very
inltnature, still under development, and not ready for testing and evaluation by users,
3. EnelGov has not maintained the quality or quantity of staffirrg originally committed to
thc project. Key personnel left the project teanì at EnerGov or were no longer actively
involved in the project-including the Project Manager and Solution Alchitect. One
highly comntitted project consultant rernainso but lacks the support to meaningfully
[, f I tn" City ol San Luis Obispo is comm¡tted to ¡nclude tho disablect in ail ol its services, programs and activities.LLI\j rel.*mmunicar¡ons Devicb lor the Deaf (soã) 781-7410.c11-4
,
resolve lenraining structurâl issucs that are identifiecl in the attached nratrix. Most ncw
¡leo¡:le on the EnerGov project tearn have little experience lvith the sof'lu,ale, the Clib,'s
necd.s, arrd dre ban'iers that prevent the inrplementaf.ion of thc softrvale.
'l'lre systen EnerGov delivered and continr¡es to configure ancl modify is not thrrt for rvlrich (he
City contrttcted, lt fails to satisfy the essenlial and basic: r'cc¡uirenrents ar-ticulntetJ jn the cont¡'âçt
specilÌcations. Significant leatures arc either missing or fail to funclion çorectly or effìciently,'lb
compensate, custorn conf,tguration by EnerGov has occun'ed which has become highly cornplex
and easily broken -overly complicated to conf,rgure and support, and challenging to use
efïìciently. City stalï has speul hrmdreds of hours test¡ng various configurations oflcrecl by
IinerGov and in e¿ch instance the system has failed to provide the full firnctionality that was
specifìcd or tbe soflware simp,ly stopped functioning and a specifìed task could nor be completed.
Jb errsure that the City was givirtg the software every oppoilunity to finction as specifìed, the City
hired an outside consultant to rilanage testing ar:d lr'aining procedures over several w€eks to ensure
City staff were not contributing to the challenges they we re experiencing. 'l'hese costs wôrç bonìe
solely by the Cily with the expectatiou that this effort would address the ¡rerception by EnerGov
that fhe City was conil'ibrrting to problems, 'l'he result is that tlre Ci¡, was absolved fì'orn clainrs by
EnelCov that the City was contributing to the lack of functionality. 'this consultant was able ro
identily, clearly describe and nrore accuratelyreport the more significant issues that exist with this
itnplctncntation that becatne the basis for ilre attachecl rnatrix, This report is enclosed for
relèrencc.
The City's project tearn participatcs in the Ener0ov user comlnunity and ovcr the last two years
has been active at the User Conference in Atlanta and in trvo West Coast user groups, ll is
ttoublíng to learn other EnerGov Çustorners struggle with many ofl the saule issues, both with the
system and the EnerGov orgartization, Furtlrer, it is obvious that these same custonters have littìe
conficlence that ËnerGov rvill resolve tlìe íssues once their systell is deployed and Custonrer
Sup¡rort begins handling their accounl.
'l'he Cìty is unwilling to launch a system that is clearly not ready to be used per tlìß corìtractu¿ìl
specifications and which provídes neither the efliciency nor the flexibility thar wâs specified ín the
ctlntract. The cost of failing to deploy tlris project has already becolne considerable, and each
delay sr"rbstantially interferes tvith the Clty's ability to accomplish other essential projects and
opcraf ional elÏìcipnc ies.
For example, GeoRules improvenents which are essenfial for Ciry operations have bcen delèt.recl
to a latet'version of the EnerGov Land Managenrent System. Thc RFPclearlydescribes this L:asic
requilement for successful implementation by the City-the ability to matìage l,and tJse and Land
Use infonnation by address, withour regard to other chal'acteristics or whether the address
desclibcd a parcel, a building, or a suite. GeoRules was proposed as the mechanisn for providing
the h¡nctionality in ErrerGov's response and this feature is incorporated into the signed contruct. ln
addition, othsr cities that we have spoken with as a result of our participation ín EnerGov user's
group have indicated the necd for this functionality froln the EnerGov system.
lf EnerGov delays the solution again (as cumently planned). does not provide a solution, or tlre
EnerGov solution does not provide capabilities that were specified and refsrenced in {he scr:pe ol'
work, the Cify will be forced to acquire the necessary functionality using outside systenìs ol-
consultan(s. Should Enr¡rGov fail to perfonn ils obligations uucter the contract, the City is rrot
obligated to pay rentaining nronies due uttder the contract, absent delivery of a completed producr
as specifìecl, Moreover, the City rvould intend to pursue any and all tegal relredies availablc to it
Attachment 1
c11-5
to recover costs incurred in obtaiuing the lequìred functionality, irrcluding but not limited to
deducting from EnerGov intplementation or EnerGov mairrtenance fees that are orved.
Nevertheless, the City's considerable investment in this project and paynrent to Enerçov denrand
that we remain conlnlitted to pursuing a successfr¡l deployrnent of EnerGov. We are committed to
a positive, solutions-based approach as long as tlrere is a clear cornrnilnlent by EnelGov to
address all of the outstanding critìcal issues identifiecl in the Matrix cither ttr.ough custorn
cotrfigutation, inrprovements included in Version 9,7, and/or by crediting the City tbr the costs
incurred to develop ahe¡native solutions.
l'he following six points provide a general overvierv of our commitnre¡rt moving forrvard,
1. The City rvill colrsider deploying the EnerGov system once each of the contractual
obligations on the aftached cllan of outstanding issues is acld¡essed to the City's
satislhction.
2. The City is committed to identifying and ernbracing opportunities to clariff work
processes-ând dìe policies that dcftne then and making adjustnrents to processös tô
accotlmodate EnerGov's inability to provide the functiqnality within specified work
flow.s.
3. The City intends to continue working wíth EnerGov to resolve arry issues that renrai¡ as
fhe Cily continues to reconsider the work processes in place when the çu¡¡ent
configuration was defìned, rvhile E,nerGov considers featules to include in the v9.Z
release the City plans fo go live with.
4, The City intends to continue the fortll'ight dialog with EnerGov about features plarured
lbr the next release and those deferued to a later one. The City expects that EnerGov will
contfurue to inform the City about changes to the release schedule and the actual
functionality each release will include in writing-starting with v9.6 and v9.7.
5' The Cìty httends to bcgirr training in January 2014 on a fully-functional Êner6ov syste¡r.
6' The City stifl needs to evaluate dozens of additional outstanding issues not shown i¡l the
attâGhed matrix that are nöt critical but have been well docunrelrted and previously
repoÍed to EnerGov over the past two years. Urrtil a confonning software procluct is
delivered undel the s¡:ecifications ol'the contract, it is not a productive use of city staff o¡
EnerGov's time to evaluate how to address these other issues, As stated earlier, the City
has made a nunrber of changes to ils business processes in an effort to make thern
confornr to the abilities of the EnerCov prograln. The City's success in actually
accontplishing the desired outco¡lre as the result of these process changes cannot bç
deterrnined until the City has a chance to operate the properly configured software,
The Ciry considers it cssential flor ËnerGov to fìrmly commit to the City when defining the
straxegy and timeline for updates 1o the EnerGov Land Management System, The City has already
begun gearing up in anticipation based on assurances fi'on EnerGov that a fail2Aß release (vg.7
Gold) will incorpot'ate fixes and changes into the core platfonn that fully address all outstancling
íssues. The City expects EnerGov will promptly notifo the City in writing if changes to rhe
schedule or scope offuture updates could delay or preclude the resolution of an issues and hence
funher delay implernentatÍon, If EnerGov is unable to make that com¡rrihrrenl, then the City would
requçst that Bner0ov resolvç the issues through ncw pl'ogrâmnring that levcrages the core
¡rlatforut as nruch as possible at the sole cost of finerGov. If core soh¡tions are unavailable to
add¡css all of the ou(sranding issues, then the City expects a credit or a refund sLlfììcient to cover
tbe cost of achieving similar fìrnctionalify tlrrough orher means.
Attachment 1
c1 1-6
Wc expcct EnerGov to recognize that reconliguring the system to accommodate the process
changes thc City has had to make in order to overcome functional shortcomings of the System is
parl of fulfilling the existing contractual obligation to the Cify. The custom development identified
as necessary by EnerGov in January 20ll al the conclusion of the Assess and Define phasc,
included issues that may be largely addressed by new modules such as the Impact Management
Module, the Object module, and the Decision Engine. At the time, the City was told that the
required functionality would eventually become part of tlìe soflwrire, but we could pay to have it
sooner. In the interim, another EnerGov'customer has facilitated the creation of this functionalÍty
and the City expects EnerGov to honor its commitment to deliver that functionality by including
them in the iicense the City purchased and confìguring them to dcliver the functionality the City
identified in the RFP and incorporated into the signed conhact.
The City looks forward to deploying a functional and efücient system by continuing to work
together with EnerGov and noq Tyler Technologies. We hope Tyler Technology will consider the
potential benefit of providing the EnerGov development team and our EnerGov project team w¡th
the support they need to deliver the programs that were outlined in EnerGov's proposal and the
conlractual agreement.
The City values the benefits that come from planning ahead. The City's EnerGov Project Manager
is developing a deployment plan based on a strategy and timeline from EnerGov for addressing the
outstanding issues in the attached matrix, Please ensure that the Ciry is notified by May 31,2013
of how EnerGov intends to address all of the issues identifìed in the attached matrix.
The City's Project Manager-lT Manager Steve Schmidt-ând Executive Sponsors-Community
Development Director Derek Johnson, Finance and IT Director Wayne Padilla, and Assistant City
Manager Michael Codron-are availabìe to discuss these issues. We look forward to hearing from
you.
CC:Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Wayne Padilla, Interim Finance and IT Director
Michael Codron, Assistant Ciry Manager
Steve Schmidt [T Manager
Mark Beverly, VPof EnerGov Operations
Jonathan Fife, VP of EnerGov Development
Chuck Newberry, Enercov VP and Regional Manager
Nathan Borror, EnerGov Di¡ector of Support
Jason Dafoe, EnerGov Training Manager
ENC: Critical Issues Matrix
Software Solutíons EnerGov Report
Attachment 1
c11-7
FUNCTIONALITY DEFICIENCIES REQUIRE...
Credits may not apply towards multiple fees. Staff
must manually edit credits and fees in order to ol¡tain
an acculat€ balance due.
EXPECTED OUTCOME
EnerGov reconfigures the System to accorumodate process
changes the City has determined are suffiiient to calculate
_ fees'and credits properly while providing the benefits of
automation and pleserving case iategrity..
EnerGov reconfigures the System to allow estimates to be
maintaineil as separate Permits and Plan cases attached
to a common Applieatiqn record.
EnerGov provldes functionality in vg,7 to support different
characteristics based on locationfor each address in a
projecl with the ability tp resolve mulbiple values.
' EnerGov modffÏes the System so that mailing lists can be
generated to notify all addresses within the requirod
distance from tþe projecb parcels, as specified in the
agreement and required under the law.
EnerGov reconfigures the System üo accommodate the
City's process changes designed to etreamli¡e the reporting
of fees, credits, and the inpuùs that trigger Lhem.
EnerGov provides â f¡x in v9.5.
EnerGov provldes the functionality to maintain and
re trieve . docu¡nents and atbach mente dynamically in
,Sha¡ePoint, and archive.them in Laserûche.
EnerGov modifies the user.interface throughout the
Syotem to make iLeasier to select and manipulaLe more
than one address, or record at a timo.
EnerGov.provldes a corrections.llbrary in v9.5.
EnerGov modlfies the System to displiry each.list of
, Activities'-by name"in chronological,orde¡.
Estimates may not be converted into applications
when the customer decides to proceed with different
specifrcations. EnerGov has indicatecl that it has no
¡rlans to addless the abserrce of functionality in this
at'ea,
Administrative boundaries that affect fees and
leg¡rlatory activities will only be conslde¡ed for one
parcel at a time. Indiviclual addresses rvill l¡e assumc¡d
to have identical characteristics.
Mailing llsts for legal notification will notalways
lnclude res¡dents on anr, parcels within 300 feet of a
project, and pror"ide no ability to ver.if¡' appropriate
notifications have occurred. EnerGov confit'ms the
S.ystem functions as designed.
The System provides no way to display or report all
fees and credits. and the inputs that coDtribure to
thenr. EnelGov conñrms the Systenr is unable to
srrppolc cornprehensive leporting fot cases strbject to
robust fee schedules.
Payments may not be consistently accepted from rhe
lv{anage Payments scleen rvithout locking up the
Svstem.
The System submits docuruent-s anrl attachments to be
archived, but does not actually integrate w¡th
Laserfìche. Documents are not dynamicall¡' stoled,
retrieved, ot updaFd. Ener'Gov confrrrns the Systern
functions as desiglred.
Buildings, su¡tes, or other GIS features may not be
assoc¡ated wlth Projects in the System unless all edges
plecisel¡' align u,ith Palcel bot¡ndaries. EnerGor.
confir¡ns the System functions as designed.
Selecting multiple suites or buildings can be difficult
and t¡me-consuming in rnost a¡'eas of the
software-ryhelc it is possible at all. DnerGov confirms
the System functions as designed. though sonre lists ar,e
expected to include checkboxes for selecting multiple
items.
Plan Corrections may not be organlzed into a library
(searchable. categorizecl). The value ofthe corræctions
list is dlanatically reduced. Attaching individual Wor,d
docuruents ou notes rvot¡lcl be a more efficient option.
The list of Actlvlties associated with a
case-p articularly a Code Enforcement Ca se-a re
nelther ordered chronologlcally nor descrlptive about
what occurred. EnerGov confrrms the Systenr functions
as desigrred,
c1 1-8
L,
-
-
¿
b
e
r
75
,
2
0
1
2
As
of
70
f
i
5
/
1
2
Ma
i
o
r
En
e
r
G
o
v
Is
s
u
e
s
A
Re
p
o
r
t
on
Mo
j
o
r
En
e
r
G
o
v
ls
s
u
e
s
for the C¡ty of San Lws Obispo oo=3ol
o J.-\
I(o
1
Po
t
e
n
t
¡
a
l
SLO-Grown Work-arounds Possible Options
t t
Remove allfee and credit management responsibÍlities from EnerGov system-Change the way we manage and track credits
¡
As this is tied to the Fee &Credit issue above,removing the 'math'responsibilities from EnerGov may be an option,
I I
Eric solved the buffer search for parcel owners and residents.Access database in place for
ln
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
Parties.Eric believes we have a work-around for supplemental recipients and visual verification
St
a
t
u
s
En
e
r
G
o
v
ac
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s
th
i
s
is
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
nc
t
i
o
n
a
li
t
y
En
e
r
G
o
v
co
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
by
em
a
i
l
on
]:
o
/
5
/
1
.
2
th
a
t
th
i
s
is
th
e
un
f
o
r
t
u
n
a
t
e
re
a
l
i
t
y
.
St
a
f
f
wo
u
l
d
ne
e
d
to
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
re
-
en
t
e
r
al
l
pe
r
m
i
t
at
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
in
th
e
ne
w
pe
r
m
i
t
.
En
e
r
G
o
v
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ca
n
on
l
y
ac
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
on
e
of
th
e
th
r
e
e
li
s
t
s
;
Bu
f
f
e
r
se
a
r
c
h
fo
r
pa
r
c
e
l
ow
n
e
r
s
&
re
s
í
d
e
n
t
s
.
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
no
t
wo
r
k
i
n
g
(R
&
D
)
.
Ca
n
n
o
t
do
ln
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
Pa
r
t
i
e
s
.
Sy
s
t
e
m
wi
l
l
on
l
y
tr
a
c
k
#
of
re
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
s
fo
r
th
e
bu
f
f
e
r
s
e
a
r
c
h
.
No
vi
s
u
a
l
ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
ca
pa
bi
l
i
t
y
.
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
En
e
r
G
o
v
ca
n
n
o
t
ma
n
a
g
e
ho
w
cr
e
d
i
t
s
ca
n
of
f
s
e
t
re
l
a
t
e
d
fe
e
s
,
as
su
c
h
st
a
f
f
wi
l
l
ne
e
d
to
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ed
i
t
th
e
cr
e
d
í
t
s
an
d
fe
e
s
so
th
a
t
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
ba
l
a
n
c
e
du
e
to
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
is
co
r
r
e
c
t
an
d
pa
y
m
e
n
t
ca
n
be
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
.
Se
e
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
En
e
r
G
o
v
wi
l
l
no
t
be
ab
l
e
to
ha
v
e
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
es
t
i
r
n
a
t
e
cr
e
a
t
e
d
,
gi
v
i
n
g
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
th
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
fe
e
s
th
e
y
wo
u
l
d
ow
e
,
an
d
th
e
n
be
ab
l
e
to
ha
v
e
th
a
t
es
t
¡
m
a
t
e
co
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
to
an
ac
t
u
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
wh
e
n
th
e
y
de
c
i
d
e
to
pr
g
c
e
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ne
e
d
to
be
ab
l
e
to
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
an
d
tr
a
c
k
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
po
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
fo
r
th
r
e
e
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
gr
o
u
p
s
of
re
c
i
p
i
e
n
t
s
:
L.
Bu
f
f
e
r
se
a
r
c
h
fo
r
pa
r
c
e
l
ow
n
e
r
s
&
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
2,
Su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ow
n
e
r
s
&
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
3.
ln
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
Pa
r
t
i
e
s
Al
s
o
ne
e
d
si
m
p
f
e
vi
s
u
a
l
ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
on
a
ma
p
of
wh
o
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
ls
s
u
e
1.
Fe
e
s
&
Cr
e
d
i
t
s
2.
Pe
r
m
i
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
(A
d
d
e
d
10
/
s
/
1
2
)
3.
le
g
a
l
No
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(p
o
s
t
c
a
r
d
s
)
Software Solutions Team
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
15
,
2
0
7
2
A
Re
p
o
r
t
on
lv
l
a
j
o
r
En
e
r
G
a
v
ls
s
u
e
s
for the City of San Luis Obispo 0)of 3of
o -\
IJ,O
2
Ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
looking at each
pa
r
c
e
l
in a multi-parcel
pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tu
r
n
off GeoRules to
m¡
t
i
g
a
t
e
possible C¡ty
fi
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Us
e
GeoRules for specific
ty
p
e
s
of permits
a I t
We
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
an
y
va
l
u
e
se
t
by
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
s
to
ta
k
e
in
t
o
ac
c
o
u
n
t
al
l
pa
r
c
e
l
s
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
th
e
ca
s
e
,
no
t
ju
s
t
th
e
ma
í
n
pa
r
c
e
l
.
Th
e
ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
th
e
y
ga
v
e
to
ex
p
l
a
i
n
we
r
e
co
m
p
e
l
l
i
n
g
,
gi
v
e
n
th
e
im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
A.
On
e
pa
r
c
e
l
mi
g
h
t
be
in
an
ar
e
a
th
a
t
in
c
u
r
s
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
fe
e
s
,
wh
i
l
e
th
e
ot
h
e
r
pa
r
c
e
l
in
th
e
ca
s
e
ls
no
t
;
B.
On
e
pa
r
c
e
l
mi
g
h
t
be
zo
n
e
d
re
s
l
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
wh
l
l
e
th
e
ot
h
e
r
mi
g
h
t
be
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
;
an
d
C.
On
e
pa
r
c
e
l
mi
g
h
t
be
in
th
e
Re
c
y
c
l
e
d
Wa
t
e
r
Zo
n
e
wh
i
l
e
th
e
ot
h
e
r
m¡
g
h
t
no
t
.
On
c
e
a
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
ha
s
ru
n
,
bo
t
h
th
e
us
e
r
an
d
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
ex
p
e
c
t
an
y
se
t
t
i
n
g
s
th
e
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
mi
g
h
t
af
f
e
c
t
to
be
as
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
as
th
e
GI
S
da
t
a
it
us
e
s
.
a
so
l
u
t
í
o
n
to
th
i
s
be
f
o
r
e
we
go
li
v
e
,
ot
h
e
n
r
y
i
s
e
we
ru
n
th
e
ri
s
k
of
di
s
a
s
t
r
o
u
s
er
r
o
r
s
st
a
r
t
i
n
g
on
da
y
on
e
wh
e
n
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
co
n
f
þ
u
r
e
d
fe
e
s
wi
l
l
be
ap
p
l
i
e
d
ex
a
c
t
l
y
wh
e
n
th
e
y
ar
e
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
ba
s
e
d
on
th
e
va
l
u
e
s
in
th
e
ri
g
h
t
in
p
u
t
s
,
bu
t
wi
l
l
st
i
l
l
be
wr
o
n
g
.
No
n
e
of
th
e
va
l
u
e
s
se
t
by
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
s
ac
c
o
u
n
t
fo
r
al
l
of
th
e
pa
r
c
e
l
s
as
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
a
ca
s
e
,
ca
u
s
i
n
g
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
to
ap
p
l
y
in
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
lo
g
i
c
wh
e
n
ca
l
c
u
f
a
t
i
n
g
fe
e
s
.
No
t
to
me
n
t
i
o
n
,
us
e
r
s
wo
n
'
t
be
ab
l
e
to
tr
u
s
t
an
y
of
th
e
va
l
u
e
s
th
a
t
ma
y
Pe
r
Er
i
c
a
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
.
be
se
t
Cr
i
t
i
c
a
l
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
s
ca
n
on
l
y
ru
n
on
on
e
pa
r
c
e
l
at
t
a
c
h
e
d
to
ca
s
e
-
as
su
c
h
an
y
mu
¡
t
¡
-
pa
r
c
e
f
ca
s
e
ma
y
no
t
ha
v
e
co
r
r
e
c
t
fe
e
s
,
zo
n
i
n
g
,
or
ot
h
e
r
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
di
s
p
l
a
y
e
d
.
4.
Ge
o
R
u
l
e
s
Software Solutions Team
Oc
r
o
b
e
r
75
,
20
7
2
A
Re
p
o
r
t
on
Mo
j
o
r
En
e
r
G
o
v
Is
s
u
e
s
for the City of Son Luis'Ohispo 0)of 3of
o -\
J I
3
I
Maintain a separate Excel spreadsheet and perform redundant data entry to show fee and credit calculations.
I
ln
EnerGov's court
I
Continue to use existing
fo
l
d
e
r
s
,
archive in Laserfiche Stop using folders and scan into EnerGov Archive in Laserfiche
¡¡I
lm
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
G15 solution
I
Select each address search result individually
to
see specific suite or unit number.Manually copy/paste
¡
None
En
e
r
G
o
v
st
i
l
l
wo
r
k
i
n
g
on
th
e
s
e
re
p
o
r
t
s
En
e
r
G
o
v
be
l
i
e
v
e
d
th
e
y
fi
x
e
d
th
i
s
,
bu
t
we
we
r
e
ab
l
e
to
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
it
st
i
l
l
lo
c
k
s
up
.
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
nc
t
i
o
n
a
li
t
y
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
nc
t
i
o
n
a
li
t
y
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
fu
nc
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
Hi
g
h
Hi
g
h
Hi
g
h
Hi
g
h
Hi
g
h
Me
d
i
u
m
Me
d
i
u
m
Ne
i
t
h
e
r
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
'
s
fe
e
/
c
r
e
d
i
t
se
c
t
i
o
n
,
no
r
th
e
cu
s
t
o
m
Fe
e
&
Cr
e
d
i
t
re
p
o
r
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
by
En
e
r
G
o
v
co
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
an
d
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
re
f
l
e
c
t
co
r
r
e
c
t
5
am
o
u
n
t
s
fo
r
fe
e
s
an
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
Ca
nn
o
t
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
l
y
ac
c
e
p
t
pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
fr
o
m
Ma
n
a
g
e
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
sc
r
e
e
n
wi
t
h
o
u
t
sy
s
t
e
m
lo
c
k
i
n
g
up
Ca
n
n
o
t
dy
n
a
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
st
o
r
e
,
re
t
r
i
e
v
e
or
up
d
a
t
e
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
fo
r
a
gi
v
e
n
ca
s
e
us
i
r
i
g
La
s
e
d
i
c
h
e
Ca
n
n
o
t
re
l
a
t
e
GI
S
sh
a
p
e
s
to
a
En
e
r
G
o
v
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ca
n
n
o
t
se
e
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
su
i
t
e
s
di
s
p
l
a
y
e
d
af
t
e
r
se
a
r
c
h
i
n
g
fo
r
an
ad
d
r
e
s
s
in
Gl
S
.
Th
e
y
ha
v
e
a
li
b
r
a
r
y
fo
r
pl
a
n
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
bu
t
no
t
co
r
r
e
c
t
í
o
n
s
Ne
e
d
to
be
ab
l
e
to
ba
c
k
da
t
e
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
cu
s
t
o
m
fi
e
l
d
ha
s
be
e
n
ad
d
e
d
,
an
d
a
cu
s
t
o
m
re
p
o
r
t
ca
n
be
us
e
d
to
sh
o
w
th
e
s
e
in
a
ch
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
or
d
e
r
,
bu
t
yo
u
ca
n
n
o
t
se
e
th
e
s
e
ac
t
i
v
'
i
t
i
e
s
ín
ch
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
or
d
e
r
in
th
e
En
e
r
G
o
v
pr
o
g
r
a
m
(s
c
r
e
e
n
)
.
.
.
o
n
l
y
on
pa
p
e
r
.
5.
Fe
e
an
d
Cr
e
d
i
t
Re
p
o
r
t
6.
Ca
s
h
i
e
r
i
n
g
-
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
s
7.
La
s
e
r
f
i
c
h
e
ln
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
8.
Sp
a
t
i
a
l
!
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
fo
r
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
9.
Ca
n
n
o
t
se
e
ad
d
r
e
s
s
su
i
t
e
s
/
u
n
i
t
s
fr
o
m
61
5
se
a
r
c
h
10
.
No Co
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Li
b
r
a
r
y
11
.
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
5oftware Solutions Team
o -\
J.I J N)
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
i5
,
2
0
1
2
Ho
w
En
e
r
G
o
v
Ma
n
a
g
e
s
Fe
e
s
an
d
Cr
e
d
i
t
s
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
:
En
e
r
G
o
r
/
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
te
a
m
an
n
o
u
n
c
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
i
r
in
i
t
i
a
l
pl
a
n
n
e
d
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
fo
r
rn
a
n
a
g
Ì
n
g
ou
r
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
im
p
a
c
t
fe
e
s
an
d
th
e
i
r
re
l
a
t
e
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
wa
s
no
t
go
i
n
g
to
wo
r
k
,
as
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
is
no
t
de
s
í
g
n
e
d
to
wo
r
k
wi
t
h
th
e
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
th
e
cr
e
d
i
t
s
.
Th
e
y
su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
y
re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
th
e
cr
e
d
i
t
s
to
an
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
th
a
t
wa
s
mo
r
e
th
e
i
r
no
r
m
wi
t
h
ot
h
e
r
cl
i
e
n
t
s
;
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
th
a
t
cr
e
d
i
t
s
wo
u
l
d
be
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
as
a
di
s
c
o
u
n
t
of
a
fe
e
.
As
su
c
h
,
we
we
r
e
to
l
d
th
a
t
íf
th
e
cr
e
d
i
t
s
ev
e
r
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
th
e
fe
e
s
,
Ci
t
y
St
a
f
f
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ed
i
t
th
e
cr
e
d
i
t
am
o
u
n
t
to
be
S0
,
an
d
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
an
d
re
d
u
c
e
an
y
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
fe
e
s
-
ma
k
i
n
g
no
t
e
of
wh
a
t
cr
e
d
i
t
s
we
r
e
us
e
d
to
of
f
s
e
t
th
a
t
fe
å
,
Th
i
s
ma
n
u
a
l
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
wa
s
th
e
on
l
y
wa
y
in
wh
i
c
h
th
e
pa
y
m
e
n
t
sc
r
e
e
n
wo
u
l
d
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
re
f
l
e
c
t
th
e
am
o
u
n
t
ow
e
d
by
th
e
cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
.
Wh
i
l
e
ar
d
u
o
u
s
an
d
re
l
y
i
n
g
up
o
n
ma
n
u
a
l
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
ou
t
s
i
d
e
of
th
e
En
e
r
G
o
v
sy
s
t
e
m
,
we
be
l
i
e
v
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
s
e
si
t
u
a
t
í
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
no
t
oc
c
u
r
fr
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
an
d
sh
o
u
l
d
no
t
dr
a
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
St
a
f
f
ti
r
n
e
.
Si
n
c
e
th
a
t
tî
m
e
,
we
ha
v
e
be
e
n
un
a
b
l
e
to
se
e
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
ho
w
th
e
s
e
fe
e
s
an
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
wo
u
l
d
ap
p
e
a
r
on
th
e
fe
e
ta
b
,
in
re
p
o
Ê
s
,
an
d
on
th
e
pa
y
m
e
n
t
sc
r
e
e
n
du
e
to
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
no
t
be
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
by
En
e
r
G
o
v
.
Si
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
To
d
a
y
:
As
Ti
n
a
Sl
u
s
h
e
r
an
d
I
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
ou
r
te
s
t
i
n
g
of
pe
r
m
i
t
fe
e
s
an
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
we
be
g
a
n
no
t
i
c
i
n
g
in
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
be
h
a
v
i
o
r
on
ho
w
cr
e
d
i
t
s
ap
p
e
a
r
e
d
on
th
e
fe
e
ta
b
,
on
th
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
'
s
fe
e
ar
e
a
,
an
d
th
e
Fe
e
&
Cr
e
d
i
t
re
p
o
r
t
th
a
t
En
e
r
G
o
v
wa
s
de
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
fo
r
us
.
We
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
a
co
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
ca
l
l
wi
t
h
Ja
s
o
n
A
Re
p
o
r
t
on
Ma
j
o
r
En
e
r
G
o
v
ls
s
u
e
s
for the City of Son Luis Obispo
De
f
o
e
on
We
d
n
e
s
d
a
y
,
9
l
l
g
/
t
Z
so
th
a
t
he
could explain these
in
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
i
e
s
.
Ou
r
cu
r
r
e
n
t
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
al
l
o
w
s
an
y
wa
t
e
r
fees to be offset by
an
y
wa
t
e
r
cr
e
d
i
t
s
,
an
y
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
fe
e
s
tÐ
be offset by any
wa
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
cr
e
d
i
t
,
an
d
an
y
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
impact fees be
of
f
s
e
t
by
an
y
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
a
c
t
cr
e
d
i
t
s
.
Jason informed us
th
a
t
wi
t
h
En
e
r
G
o
v
th
e
on
l
y
fe
e
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
automatically be
of
f
s
e
t
by
a
cr
e
d
i
t
wo
u
l
d
be
th
o
s
e
th
a
t
ha
d
the exact same title
(e
.
g
-
a
2"
wa
t
e
r
me
t
e
r
fe
e
co
u
'
t
d
on
l
y
be
of
f
s
e
t
by a 2" water
im
p
a
c
t
cr
e
d
i
t
)
.
An
y
ot
h
e
r
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wa
t
e
r
,
wastewater, or
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
s
an
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
th
a
t
di
d
no
t
exactly match by
na
m
e
wo
u
l
d
ha
v
e
to
be
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
so the credit ended
up
as
$0
,
an
d
fe
e
s
we
r
e
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
and adjusted
do
w
n
ba
s
e
d
up
o
n
th
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
cr
e
d
i
t
.
Ja
s
o
n
mentioned that
th
i
s
wa
s
th
e
on
l
y
wa
y
cr
e
d
i
t
s
wo
u
l
d
wo
r
k
,
and any other
so
l
u
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
cu
s
t
o
m
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
at our expense-
Ti
n
a
me
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
no
t
be
a
wo
r
k
a
b
l
e
solution as
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
85
-
9
0
%
of
al
l
no
n
-
t
r
a
d
e
pe
r
m
i
t
s
have fees and
cr
e
d
i
t
s
th
a
t
do
no
t
ma
t
c
h
'L
-
f
o
r
-
L
'
by
ti
t
l
e
.
tf a single family
ho
m
e
is
to
r
n
do
w
n
to
bu
i
l
d
a
mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
dwelling, credits
wo
u
l
d
ne
v
e
r
ma
t
c
t
r
fe
e
s
by
ti
t
l
e
.
5o
th
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
for needing
to
ma
n
u
a
l
l
y
ad
j
u
s
t
an
d
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
fe
e
s
an
d
credits on a permit
wo
u
l
d
no
lo
n
g
e
r
be
th
e
ex
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
,
bu
t
ra
t
h
e
r
the rule.
Th
e
im
p
a
c
t
of
th
i
s
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
a
tr
e
m
e
n
d
o
u
s
amount of
ti
m
e
an
d
ef
f
o
r
t
fo
r
Ti
n
a
to
pr
e
p
a
r
e
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
and permits for
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
,
as
we
l
l
as
be
i
n
g
ab
l
e
to
ac
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y
determine
am
o
u
n
t
s
ow
e
d
fo
r
pa
y
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
for human error ín
th
e
s
e
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
wo
u
l
d
ri
s
e
dr
a
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
on projects big and
sm
a
l
l
.
0)offol
4
Software Solution< Team
0c
.
.
-
o
e
r
75
,
2
0
7
2
A
Re
p
o
r
t
on
Mo
j
o
r
Ë.
n
e
r
G
o
v
ls
s
u
e
s
for the City of Søn Lws AbÌspo
Ex
a
m
p
l
e
s
of
no
n
'
m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
fe
e
s
an
d
cr
e
d
i
t
s
th
ø
t
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
ma
n
u
a
l
ød
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
in
order to produce
an
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
or
ac
c
e
p
t
pa
y
m
e
n
t
:
r¡
.
i
$
t
Ë
_
j
ì
;
#
;
ü
ì
I 1i
{:
:r
.
:
:1
¡
(0
{
4
(w
l
lñ
b
s.
È
ñ
lP
$
l
I
i5
W
¿
o -\I
.L (¡
)
0)oJ 3o =
5
2'
me
t
e
r
fe
e
s
1.
5
"
wa
t
e
r
cr
e
d
i
t
s
75
,
0
0
0
SF
ln
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
us
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
fe
e
50
,
0
0
0
Sv
c
Co
m
m
l
us
e
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
l
o
n
cr
e
d
i
t
.f
f
i
¡
l
h
þ
¡
a
t
u
¡
e
.
.
wm
,.
i
;
*
.
t
i
s.
f
f
i
¡
q
,
'
I
:.
.
.
uJ
L,
-
l
r*
i
j
wß
È
pw
E
f'1S T !_
l"
¡
r'
"
qÎ
r
,
ff
i
|"
'
i.
,
-
*
"
.
i
It,
.
,
,
.
,
.
l
..
I
L.
i
1,
i:
"
r
I
{"
:
.
.,
".
::
¡
r-
r
.
r
i
,
n
a
i
l
:
úl
l
j
¡
'
;
.
.
.
3
r.
i
;
û
¡
'
,
t
t
i
l
Nt
$
¡
tì
r
E
!
¡w
r
f
*
¡
*
v
;
Software Solutions Team
Attachment 2
lat
\^/OOLPEFIT
DESIGN I GEOSPATIAL ] INFNASTRUCTUÞE
June 04, 2013
Steve Schmidt
I nformation Technotogy Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Patm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Steve,
Ptease find Woolpert's letter to support the Energov project. As such, Woolpert will
provide both technical and program management services support.
The program management services are as fotlows:
1. Devetop project schedute.
7. Develop work breakdown structure.
3. Work with a[[ team members to determine the level of effort required for
all gaps.
4. Hold regular status meetings.
5. Manage project issues using issue log.
6. Support coordination of project work.
7. Develop training and test ptans, as required.
8. Support Go-Live.
Specific areas of focus as requested by SLO:
1. Fees and Credits.
2. Estimates.
3. Reporting.
Steve Schmidt
I nformation Technotogy Manager
June 04, 2013
Page 2
Attachment 2
The technical services included as requested by SLO:
1. GeoRutes. Populate fietds in the Energov database based on the spatial
relationship of parcets or addresses attached to a case and about a dozen
administrative areas (i.e. zoning, districts, special fee zones, ftood zones,
etc. ).2. Legat Notifications. ldentify atl addresses on any parcets within a specified
distance from one or more selected parcels retated to an EnerGov case;
Coltect addresses from EnerGov contacts based on interested party ftags;
add to an existing list of addresses for notification stored in the EnerGov
database. Create a Crystal Report showing a map with the source parcels
and the addresses to be notified.
3. Laserfiche lntegration. Configure a SharePoint site to store documents and
records retated to cases in EnerGov, and expose these documents through
a WebDAV interface, or similar, and poputate the EnerGov database with
metadata to corretate each document record in SharePoint with one or
more EnerGov cases. Configure SharePoint to archive documents in
Laserfiche at specific times atong the case or document lifecycles.
Woolpert's approach to this project is as fottows:
1. Hotd onsite meetings to determine list of gaps.
2. Prioritize gaps with entire team.
3. Determine which gaps need to be part of project.
4. Document approach to address each gap.
5. Get approval from SLO on documentation.
6. Assign a[[ tasks to resources.
7. Ensure all tasks are compteted on time and ca[[ resources understand
available budget by identified resources.
Assumptions
. Al[ parties understand that this scope of services will not necessarily address
atl identified gaps. At[ parties witl work together to prioritize gaps.. Project witt be completed on a time and material basis directed by SLO staff.. Woolpert witl provide hours used on a weekly basis. At any time either party
may cancel this scope of services. lf either party cancets this scope of
services, SLO agreed to pay Wootpert for all hours completed up to the date
of canceItation.
116 INVERNESS DRTVE EAST, SU|TE 105 | ENGLEWOOD, CO 80112-5125
303.e25.1400 I wooLPEU.lït s
Steve Schmidt
I nformation Technology Manager
June 04, 201 3
Page 3
Fee
This project wilt be compteted on a time and material basis using the fotlowing rates:
Position Hourly Rate
Project Director 5200
Project Manaqer 51 75
Senior Developer s175
Developer s1 so
Project fee witl be a not-to-exceed fee of S100,000.00
My signature confirms Wootpert's agreement to provide these services. Your signature
witl provide authorization for us to proceed.
Sincerety,
Woolpert, lnc
/ln-Þav*¿ Fen¿r
Kirk McClurkin, GlSP
ITMC Practice
Senior Associate
Steve Schmidt
I nformation Technology Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
Attachment 2
David Feuer, PMP
Leader Project Manager
Associate
Date
116 TNVERNESS DRTVE EAST, SUrrE 105 | ENGLEWoOD, CO 80112-s125
303.e2s.1400 I wooLPEU.lït o