Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Information Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IT director seeks lifecycle funding; committee approves IT personnel, fixed costs and CIP recommendations
Summary
The committee recommended the IT department’s personnel and fixed‑cost budgets and reviewed a five‑year capital plan that includes phone upgrades and digitization funding; the IT director highlighted end‑of‑service phones and lifecycle costs.
The Committee on Administration and Finance reviewed the Information Technology (IT) department’s fiscal 2026 operating request and five‑year capital plan and recommended the department’s personnel and fixed‑cost lines to the full council.
John Ankewitz, director of technology and innovation, said the department’s priorities include replacing old network infrastructure, completing E‑Rate upgrades in schools, and updating the city website. Ankewitz told the committee that “our phones are end of service so meaning if there is an issue with them they can't be serviced. So that $200,000 would include the upgrade so we can get in line with our current thing and get support again.”
Ankewitz described staffing needs: nine current staff and two open positions (network manager and business system analyst/GIS responsibilities). He said the department is working with Finance to increase market competitiveness for certain positions and has identified $22,000 in license savings by eliminating unused software.
The committee moved to recommend approval of the IT general administration personnel budget of $806,993 and an expenditure budget of $12,500 for a departmental total of $819,493, and recommended approval of the IT fixed costs expenditure budget of $926,500. The committee also discussed the IT CIP, which includes lifecycle management allocations to replace aging equipment and an annual digitization fund to scan records ($25,000 noted as an annual target for department requests to centralize digitization work).
Committee members asked about why lifecycle management appears in the CIP rather than as an operating expense; staff explained large equipment costs and pay‑as‑you‑go capital funding make the CIP treatment more feasible. The recommendations will go to the full City Council for final action.
