OpenCdA happened to look at the online packet of information for the March 7, 2016, Coeur d’Alene General Services Committee meeting. This staff report associated with the meeting agenda item captioned “Change Order for the Public Safety IP Camera Surveillance System — Brandon Russell, Database Administrator” really got our attention.
Since this item was discussed by the City’s General Services Committee at the meeting, it will likely go before the entire City Council at an upcoming meeting.
The City sometimes buries items like this in the Consent Calendar to limit discussion. OpenCdA thinks this item in particular needs a great deal of discussion about possible wasteful expenditures based on inadequate information.
Our concern is the staff report contains compelling evidence causing us to question if an adequate imagery survey had been done to determine the actual needs and costs of the Public Safety IP Camera Surveillance System.
Put aside the report preparer’s sloppiness in the first sentence of the History heading. “This change order will add seven (9) [sic] additional cameras to the project.” To paraphrase mathematician-turned-musical humorist Tom Lehrer in his work New Math, seven is just like (9) — if you’re missing two fingers.
The evidence of poor planning was in the last sentence of the History heading. “During the installation of the cameras, it became apparent that the required coverage would not be possible without adding additional cameras.” [emphasis ours]
If the required coverage area for each camera had been properly surveyed and documented, deficiencies would have been apparent long before the specifications were written and the purchase orders cut. A properly done imagery survey would have defined each camera’s coverage area and would have provided the data necessary to ensure the proper imagery equipment (camera, lens, housing, position control equipment, video signal link) was selected, ordered, and installed to achieve the required coverage.
The second paragraph in the History heading asserts that “signal boosters” need to be added to the cameras on the McEuen parking garage light poles. The reason? “Due to exceeding long conduct [sic] runs …” What is a “conduct run?” Did the writer mean “conduit run” or possibly “conductor run?” Regardless, a properly performed and documented imagery survey would have determined at the outset what the video signal path loss would have been. The best acceptable way of correcting that signal loss should have been designed in when the video specifications were written.
We wonder, did General Services Committee members Councilmen Evans, Miller, and Edinger bother to review the detailed written imagery survey that surely must have been done before budgeting $315,000 of the public’s money for a Public Safety IP Camera Surveillance System? With the glaring admission of City Staff that “… the required coverage would not be possible without adding additional cameras,” did they bother to ask basic questions about why this change order is even necessary if the system was properly surveyed, designed, and specified in the first place?
The evidence we’ve seen in the General Services Staff Report for March 3, 2016, raises serious doubts that anything even close to an adequate imagery survey was done before the park and boondoggle garage was built. We strongly suspect that video was always intended to be an add-on, a retrofit, rather than be designed in as it should and could have been.
[Note: Sample Imagery System Survey form)
I seem to remember questions regarding public safety and cameras for same being dismissed by someone on Team McEuen. Could it be that the electrical plans were incomplete or that the cost of providing adequate security would have added too much to the estimated cost of the project?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — March 9, 2016 @ 8:55 am
Susie,
I suspect that a formal, complete, properly documented physical security and threat assessment survey was likely not done on the park or the garage by the City. More likely there were bits and pieces inputs from different City departments, but not a cohesive and comprehensive assessment.
We know a “video” assessment was not done, because the staff report acknowledges it. If one had been done, the blind spots (the required coverage) would have been recognized and corrected long before the installation began.
Comment by Bill — March 9, 2016 @ 9:17 am
don’t ya just love it when a plan comes together, yes I know what plan?
Comment by Mike Teague — March 9, 2016 @ 11:52 am
Mike,
I hope the City was not foolish enough to just go to a video installation company and say, “Tell us what we need.” I wonder if the City bothered to write a bid solicitation (assuming it was bid and not sole-sourced) that precisely defined the City’s expectations and requirements for delivery and performance.
Comment by Bill — March 10, 2016 @ 5:50 am