HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAP 2012-08-13 Item 2A - Permit - Tracking System Replacement RecommendationsCity of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT
ISSUE
Mayor Haggerton
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Jack Pace, DCD Director
Nora Gierloff, Deputy DCD Director
Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator
August 7, 2012
Permit Tracking System Replacement Recommendations
The interdepartmental committee formed to research issues and options for replacement of the
software program used to track City permits has recommended the CRW product Trakit. The
change will require a significant investment of financial and personnel resources.
BACKGROUND
The City's current permit tracking system is Permits Plus by Accela. We have used this system
since 1992 (when it started as a DOS -based system). It is used by Building, Planning, Public
Works, Code Enforcement and Rental Housing. Fire enters their reviews of development and
land use permits in Permits Plus but uses a separate system for issuing their own permits.
Some enhancements that we have made since then include an automated inspection request
line and automated check of permit status, inspection results, and fees via email.
Accela has developed a web based permit tracking system called Accela Automation and is
focusing its efforts on enhancements to that program rather than on Permits Plus. We expect
that support for Permits Plus will be phased out over the next few years. Another issue is that
annual maintenance fees for Permits Plus have been steadily increasing by 10% a year for a
current annual fee of $45,000 and yet we receive poor technical support. There is no discount
for existing customers to upgrade to Accela Automation and they are one of the most expensive
systems so we decided to explore other alternatives.
Tukwila formed an interdepartmental committee in March of 2011 to identify City -wide permitting
needs, hear vendor presentations, find out more about why other jurisdictions have chosen their
vendors and reach consensus on a recommendation to Council. A core group of representatives
from DCD, IT, Public Works, Fire, Finance, and the City Clerk have regularly attended.
ANALYSIS
Needs Analvsis
The Committee started by identifying the permitting needs and existing systems being used by
different departments of the city. DCD demonstrated how Permits Plus is currently used. The
Finance Department demonstrated Tyler (Eden) and how it is being used for business licenses.
ZADCD n Clerk 's \NoraWendorChoiceMemo.docx 108/08/2012
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Fire department gave a demonstration of Fire RMS system. There is some data that is being
input into the system that may be useful for a permitting system such as occupancy type. Also, it
will be helpful to have a common address database as fire department has done GIS geocoding
of the addresses. However the Fire RMS system did not appear to have a GIS component or
integration with Eden. Also, it was not clear if the system was capable of calculating complex
permit fees. There was only one city (San Mateo) that is currently using this system for
permitting other than event reporting.
Request for Pr000sals
Next the Committee decided to learn what we could from the experiences of other cities as they
made their permit system choices. Lynnwood issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
permitting software in April 2008 and selected the EnerGov program.
A group of six cities (Bothell, Issaquah, Kirkland, Redmond, Renton and Sammamish) joined
together under the eCityGov Alliance framework to issue a joint RFP for permit software
systems in November 2009. David Lemenager from Renton explained the very thorough
selection process and how they had conducted in -depth demonstrations and due diligence
research with seven vendors. The Committee concluded that the RFP had required all of the
information Tukwila would need to make our decision.
The Alliance designed the RFP to allow other cities to join it later and receive the same terms as
they had negotiated with the vendors. Pricing, including the negotiated group discount, is
guaranteed for three years from the first executed contract in 2010. The Committee decided that
joining the existing RFP would be faster, more efficient and less costly than issuing our own
RFP.
Relative Costs
Of the cities who participated in the eCityGov process Tukwila is most similar to Sammamish
with 20 simultaneous system users and Bothell with 30. While Tukwila will choose different
options than the ones specified in the vendor price estimates the bids are useful for determining
relative costs between vendors. The bids in order of decreasing cost were:
Infor Hansen
Automation Accela
EnerGov
GovPartner
Trakit CRW Systems
Tyler Eden
The Committee eliminated Hansen and Accela from consideration because their bids were over
three times the cost of each of the three lowest priced vendors. They also have high ongoing
maintenance costs.
EnerGov was the mid priced quote and five of the Alliance cities chose this vendor as the best
match for their needs. However after watching the earlier adopting cities struggle with
implementation issues Sammamish recently signed a contract with CRW that was 15% less
expensive than the contract they had negotiated with EnerGov. After a three year migration
process Lynnwood went live with EnerGov in 2011 but they are still having significant issues.
The consensus of the eCityGov group was that GovPartner did not have the full functionality
they needed.
Software Demonstrations
2 ZADCD n Clerk's \Nora \VendorChoiceMemo.docx 2 08/08/2012
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
The Tukwila Committee then met with Issaquah to learn why they chose CRW instead of
EnerGov. Their Building Official said that it meets their needs well for half the cost of EnerGov.
The Committee members then visited Mercer Island who has used CRW for a number of years
and also offers online permitting. The committee also met with Sammamish and SeaTac.
SeaTac went live with CRW in April 2012 and was generally pleased with the speed of the
process and CRW's technical support. In addition Marysville, Mill Creek, Auburn, Maple Valley
and Everett also use CRW's Trakit.
A CRW business representative came to Tukwila last August and again this July to give a
detailed presentation about the program's capabilities to the Committee.
Staff made a site visit to Puyallup to see Tyler and spoke with staff from Bonney Lake who also
use that system. While they were satisfied with the program it seemed to require a lot of work-
arounds to meet their needs. At first it appeared that choosing Tyler would make for an easier
integration with our Eden financial system but after talking with other cities any of the permit
systems can interface with the Eden database. CRW has developed an Eden integration -batch
script that exports the needed financial information on a nightly basis. Issaquah is a recent
example of integration between CRW permitting and Eden financial programs.
Vendor Choice
Based on the material in the eCityGov Alliance RFP and the additional research performed by
the Tukwila Committee the staff recommendation is to pursue a contract with CRW for the Trakit
product.
Costs
Unlike our current system Trakit is comprised of a series of linked modules. Cities may
purchase only those required for their business needs.
Core Modules:
$40,000 Licensing for 20 concurrent users
7,500 PermitTrak Development Permit Processing
7,500 ProjectTrak Land Use Permit Processing
$10,000 Standard GIS integration
$10,000 IVR Phone access to system to allow the public to schedule inspections and
check status
No Fee LandTrak Property Data and GIS interface
Electronic Permitting:
$15,000 eTrakit Online portal for the public to submit permits, check status and
schedule inspections
$30,000 eMarkup Electronic plan review program, allows for commenting on plans and
comparison between submittals
Other:
$10,000 Laptop Sync Wireless access to Trakit for inspectors in the field on their iPads
7,500 Code Trak Code enforcement module
5,000 Laserfiche integration
ZADCD n Clerk 's \NoraWendorChoiceMemo.docx 3 08/08/2012 3
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
The current quote from CRW, valid through October 5, 2012, gives the following total cost
including all of the above modules:
Investment Cost Summary
A. Software Licensing
B. Implementation Project Management
C. Data Conversion
D. Training
E. Travel Expenses
F. Customizations
G. Discounts
Purchase Cost Yearly Maintenance
$142,500
83,250
15,500
31,500
19,500
13,000
(15,000)
Proposed System and Implementation Cost
$290,250 $33,000
In addition to these direct costs the full system would also require the following software and
hardware upgrades:
Increased Data Storage Capacity, future need
14,710 $2,500
ArcGIS Server to support GIS functionality
17,372 $5,000
Larger Monitors for ePlan review
1,500
Credit Card Swiper /Auto Populate (optional)
5,000
Routine to pull contractor info from Eden (optional)$
2,500
Total Capital Cost including sales tax: $365,500
In order to begin work in 2012 the Council made a budget amendment of $175,000. We have an
additional $50,000 in savings from forgoing Permits Plus maintenance this year as we move to
the new system. DCD's budget request for 2013 includes $150,000 in remaining costs for data
migration, training, hardware and maintenance for a total of $375,000.
Other Modules
CRW offers the following modules which we have not included in our recommended package:
Citizen response module. This could be helpful in tracking Council follow up items and
complaints to PW regarding potholes and damaged signs. However it is a significant cost
at $10,000 with $2,000 annual maintenance that we cannot recoup through user fees. We
have existing systems in place to track these items.
Business licensing. Over the past few years the Finance Department has worked to
implement business licensing on their Eden financial program. They do not want to switch
to the CRW product at this time. The module costs $7,500 with an annual maintenance fee
of $1,500.
Cost Reduction Options
Options for reducing the total implementation costs include eliminating or postponing purchase
of some modules. The most significant savings would be to eliminate eMarkup and limit
electronic permitting to only include over the counter permits such as electrical permits and
residential mechanical and plumbing. As these do not require plan review we would not need
the eMarkup module, larger monitors or additional storage capacity. On average these permit
types make up 65% of our permit volumes. This would lower purchase costs by approximately
$59,000 and annual maintenance by $6,000. However electronic plan submittal is the feature
4 ZADCD n Clerk's \Nora \VendorChoiceMemo.docx 4 08108/2012
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
that would have the greatest impact on our customer service and will become a customer
expectation in the future.
Process Improvement
At the beginning of the year staff from different departments began meeting to discuss ways to
streamline our current processes and data collection before locking them in with a new permit
system. Updating to a new permit system provided an opportunity to look at our processes and
make improvements as necessary. They have made the following improvements:
A representative from the building, planning, fire, and public works departments
reviewed the building department permit handouts and made adjustments as
necessary. They then reviewed the land use application and submittal requirements
and again made the necessary adjustments. The Public Works and Fire department
handouts will also be reviewed, with the necessary adjustments being made.
We are in the process of evaluating what processes work; and what processes are
inefficient and redundant and how we can improve them. For example one of items
that will be helpful is to have one master address list for city wide use.
As we conclude this process we intend to have a list of things that are working and
items that need to be addressed to make the city's permit process more efficient for
the customers and staff.
Several cities who have recently moved to new permit systems recommended the use of a
consultant to negotiate the contract with the software vendor. Making sure that the City's needs
for customization in permit processes, reports and permit documents are documented in the
contract and included in the price can prevent costly overruns during implementation. Staff
recommends using Soft Resources to assist with our contract negotiations with CRW.
Financina Ootions
Given the significant investment required to upgrade to a new permit system many cities are
imposing technology user fees. Fees are assessed as either a flat fee, fee per sheet or
percentage that ranges from 1.3% to 5 see Attachment A. The Master Builders have written a
letter in support of city technology fees if they are used to provide better service and in our
informal discussions with applicants many think the efficiencies of electronic permit review
would be worth a modest fee increase.
The intent of a proposed technology fee would be cost recovery for this and future upgrades. It
would be applied to all permits that are processed through our tracking systems (except fire
department licenses, and rental housing). However, it would apply to the "Permit" fee only,
excluding the plan review fee, mailing fees, state building code fee, impact fees, Cascade Water
Alliance Fee and any other water or sewer assessments. For hourly land use permits it would
be assessed once on the retainer and not added to any additional hours that may accrue during
permit review.
A chart of the amount Tukwila would have collected from different fee structures is included as
Attachment B. It appears that over time we could recover the capital expenses associated with a
permit tracking system that allowed for limited or full online permit submittal with a fee in line
with that charged by other jurisdictions in our area. The payback period would depend on future
permit volumes and the fee level. It would be most equitable to only charge the fee once the
upgrade was in place.
Prior to go live with the new system staff will return to Council with a technology fee proposal
based on the final implementation costs. The technology fee level that we choose will determine
ZADCD n Clerk's \Nora \VendorChoiceMemo.docx 5 08/08/2012 cJ
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 6
the payback period. One issue is that greater use of credit cards due to online permit submittal
will erode the revenues from the technology fee. The policy decision of whether the City should
absorb or pass on the additional costs associated with accepting credit cards should be made
city -wide.
Timinq
Staff suggests the following time frame for replacing our permit system:
2011 Started reviewing our permit processes to increase efficiency and prepare for electronic
permitting
Began researching vendors and gathering information
2012 Select a permit software vendor
Adopt an interlocal agreement to join the eCityGov Alliance RFP
Select and contract with a consultant to assist with negotiating the software contract
Negotiate a contract for the permit software
Start migration and customization which will extend into 2013.
2013 Go live with permit system and electronic permitting
Adopt a financing mechanism
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Committee forward this to the August 27 Committee of the Whole
and September 4th Regular meeting for the following actions:
1. Approve or modify the recommended Trakit system configuration.
2. Adopt the interlocal purchasing agreement with the eCityGov Alliance (Attachment C) to
allow us to take advantage of the group pricing that they negotiated.
3. Provide for the remainder of the project financing in the 2013 -2014 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Technology Fee Survey
B. Potential Technology Fee Revenue
C. Interlocal Purchasing Agreement with eCityGov Alliance
6 ZADCD n Clerk's \Nora \VendorChoiceMemo.docx 6 08/08/2012
Attachment A
Jurisdiction
f Fee
lRenartments
IPermit Svstetn
[Status I
City of Auburn
CRW Traklt
City of Bellingham
Accela
City of Black Diamond
Bitco
City of Bonney Lake
4.00
Eden /Tyler Technology
Live since 2002
building, planning,
City of Bothell
5% public works, fire
EnerGov
Live in 2011
City of Burien
CityView
Live appox 10 yrs
building, planning, fire,
City of Covington
38.00 licenses
Accela
City of Des Moines
25.00 building
Bitco
building, planning,
City of Federal Way
6.00 public works, fire
Amanda
building, planning,
City of Issaquah
1.3% public works, fire
CRW Traklt
Live in 2011
building, planning,
City of Kent
3% public works, fire
Accela
building, planning,
City of Kirkland
1.3% public works, fire
EnerGov
Live in 2012
City of Lynnwood
EnerGov
Live in 2012
City of Maple Valley
CRW Traklt
building, planning,
City of Mercer Island
$2 per sheel public works, fire
CRW Traklt
Live since 1999
City of Puyallup
Eden /Tyler Technologies
Live since 2009
building, planning,
Migrating from Accela to
City of Redmond
3% public works, fire
EnerGov
building, planning,
Migrating from Accela to
City of Renton
3% public works, fire
EnerGov
Migrating from Accela to
City of Sammamish
CRW Traklt
City of SeaTac
CRW Traklt
Live in 2012
building, planning,
City of Tacoma
5% public works
ZAPermitSys'emCornnttee'Surveys of other cities \Technology Fee Survey.x!sx
Updated 08/07/2012
7
Rl
Attachment B
1
ui O r Lt) O O
O O O O
m
r ri M 00 O
i )m) i 9 t it �u V� a O c-I M W to
5 N rn o0 M i.n
f' N lfl r-I Ln
6� L/l O O
r
O
O w O O N 4
N M 00 0 CF) CD
M r -1 00
1 r, 0 M 0 0
�.o O m O O
O m 000 N
N Ln al .-i d'
N
ry
t/}
I
C
O
C
O
U
Q
O.
O
O
N
U
O
O
U
m
w
a�
c
co
N
U
O
O
U
O
N
C
O
E
O
Cn O
O
(n
Co
(6
U
N
O
O
C
O
O)
E
ui
O
Co
O
U
O_
a
C
U
C
O
C
N
O
C-
0
L)
U
Co
U
O
W
O
t
H
W
H
O
Z
E
J
E
O O
O
O
O
O
O
j
O O
O
O
O
O
O
w
v v
v
a
O O
O
O
O
O
O
U
O
U U
CL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v N
-O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
Q)
O
d N
O
00
lD
'T
N
0
O O
O
vi
OJ
01 41
Ol
aJ
Q-
0
O O
O
O
o
p
0
M
O O
�.o
N
c-i
M Ln
V}
V}
C
O
C
O
U
Q
O.
O
O
N
U
O
O
U
m
w
a�
c
co
N
U
O
O
U
O
N
C
O
E
O
Cn O
O
(n
Co
(6
U
N
O
O
C
O
O)
E
ui
O
Co
O
U
O_
a
C
U
C
O
C
N
O
C-
0
L)
U
Co
U
O
W
O
t
H
W
H
O
Z
E
10
Attachment C
INTERLOCAL JOINT PURCHASING AGREEMENT
This agreement is made this 7! 4 day of A "tki! 4 2012, between eCityGov Alliance (the
"Alliance an interlocal government agency, and the City of Tukwila (the "City a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.
WHEREAS, the Alliance issued a Request for Proposal #09 -003 (the "RFP to assist Alliance
members and subscribers in identifying qualified vendors that can offer permitting software
solution for the City of Tukwila; and
WHEREAS, the Alliance coordinated the Regional Permit System RFP to improve service to
constituents by making services and information available online, to reduce member cost for
providing these services, and to enhance service delivery; and
WHEREAS, the RFP requires the vendors to guarantee discounts to future subscribers who enter
into interlocal joint purchasing agreements with the Alliance per sections 4.2 and 23.1; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to take advantage of the proposals submitted under the RFP as a
future subscriber; and
WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Agreement pursuant to Chapter 3 9.3 4 RCW;
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. Purrnose. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the City to share in the price
proposals submitted to the Alliance per RFP #09 -003 and incorporated by this reference.
Such proposals guaranteed extension to future subscribers.
2. Financing. No special budget or funds are anticipated or created. Additionally, there
shall be no acquisition, holding, or disposal of real or personal property other than as
specifically provided within the terms of this Agreement.
3. Administration. No separate legal entity is created to administer this Agreement. This
Agreement shall be administered by the Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator for the City of
Tukwila.
4. The City's Responsibilities. The City of Tukwila shall evaluate on its own (and
based on its own needs) proposals received in response to the Alliance's RFP and
shall, if, in its sole judgment, it deems a proposal acceptable, enter into its own
contract with the vendor(s).
5. The Alliance's Responsibilities. The Alliance shall extend the proposals received
pursuant to the RFP to the City. The Alliance accepts no responsibility or liability for
the performance of any vendor used by the City of Tukwila as a result of this
Agreement. The Alliance and the other participating cities do not accent any
11
responsibility for agreements, contracts or purchase orders issued by the City of
Tukwila to a Vendor. Each party accepts responsibility for compliance with any
additional or varying laws and regulations governing purchase by or on behalf of the
party. The Alliance and the participating vendors accept no responsibility for the
performance of the Vendor in providing goods and /or services to the City, nor any
responsibility for the payment price to the Vendor for City purchases.
6. Duration. This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of signature by both
parties and shall remain in effect unless terminated as provided. This Agreement may
be terminated by either party on ten (10) days advance written notice.
7. Filing. Executed copies of this Agreement shall be filed as required by Section
39.34.040 of the Revised Code of Washington prior to this Agreement becoming
effective.
8. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City of Tukwila
Attn: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Notice to the Alliance shall be sent to the following address:
eCityGov Alliance
Attn: John Backman, Executive Director
PO Box 90012
Bellevue, WA 98009 -9012
9. Indemnification. Each party agrees to hold harmless the other party from all claims,
suits, actions, judgments and /or liens arising from each party's respective negligent
acts or omissions. Each party shall be responsible for claims and/or damages to
persons and/or property resulting from the negligence on the part of itself and its
officers, employees and agents.
If the City purchases items from a vendor pursuant to a proposal received from the
RFP, the City shall have the duty and responsibility to enforce and defend its own
rights and responsibilities against the vendor.
10. Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement contains the entire agreement
between the parties hereto and no other agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the
subject matter of this Agreement, shall be deemed to exist or bind any of the parties
hereto. Either party may request changes in the Agreement. Proposed changes that
are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this
Agreement.
12
11. Choice of Law: Venue. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit,
arbitration or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this agreement, the
parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King
County, Washington.
12. Severabilitv. The provisions of this agreement are separate and severable. The
invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion or the
invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the
validity of the remainder of this agreement, or the validity of its application to other
persons or circumstances.
Accepted for the City of Tukwila
By
Jim Haggerton
Mayor
Date
Accepted for the eCityGov Alliance
B
y�
John Backman
Executive Director
Date Z-
13