Travis County Commissioners Court
July 29, 2008
Item 24
24. Receive briefing on the county auditor's office new financial system.
>> one of the items which we had a fairly significant work session with y'all was the replacement of the 18-year-old hte financial system. And I know that y'all know it, but for people that are watching, this is the basic financial system for Travis County. It is the one that -- that we collect the revenue in. We report the revenue in. We disbursed the -- the -- put your appropriations in there. We control the money according to state law. And we prepare reports, the annual report, reports the state wants, reports that -- that taxpayers would like and granting agencies. It is the infrastructure for the financial activities of the county. It is very important part. Two years ago, as you recall, we came and said that we really need to be looking at replacing hte. You gave us the auditor's office two people to start the needs assessment process and we did that. This career what we have done is we issued an rfi, a request for information. That was to go out and find out what systems were out there, what kind of resources other people needed, what were their experiences, basically to get information in the planning process and in our budget requests. So we did that. And we have had some sort of mini demos on systems, not to choose a system, but to kind of see what they are like, the kind of analysis it's going to take us. We have done that. Then the other thing that we did was we sent a group of people from the auditor's office, the purchasing office, p.b.o., hrmd and i.t.s. To visit tarrant county because they brought up a new system not too long ago.
>> you say tarrant county.
>> tarrant. That was a system. It's a county kind of our size, just to see what their experiences were like. Again what that was is a fact finding mission. So to speak. What we have done is we prepared based on all of those things a budget for the new financial system and of course the pressure is to keep expenditures as low as possible and we have done that. By the same token, the other goal is to bring up a successful financial system and to have the people that you need in order to do that. Because these new systems are so work flow and business process oriented, functional people have to be involved in that. It's not just a -- just systems where you take what you are doing just get a new computer now do it that way. For the county to get the efficiency and the information that we will need to get to justify the cost of a new financial system really need to be doing analysis of work flow business process and that type of a thing. Because of that, we will need a functional -- functional people who could work full-time on this project. One of the things that we found out is where these projects fail is where governments have not anticipated putting their functional people up front and working on it. They have viewed it as merely a systems project instead of a business work flow project supported by technology. So in the entire planning process what we have done is we have worked with purchasing office because their transactions flow into accounts payable, that's where that work flow goes. Hrmd because that flows into the payroll and the decisions that you make. The planning aged -- planning and budget office, the county treasurer because she's the one that handles the cash for the county and that flows into the financial system and i.t.s., of course, because they are the ones that back up the bottom part of any new system here, the networks and operating systems and that type of thing. So why where we have gotten is with the information that we have now where we will need to proceed working on that system next year. What I'm going to do we're looking at it as a project as a whole, not just the auditor's office, it isn't just an auditor's office project although we are the 10,000-pound gorilla. In the auditor's office we are, these are functional people, we are requesting -- in order -- let me just while he's doing that, in order for us to succeed, the people that are working full time, the functional people on this project needs to understand the process. They need to know it. They need to understand the county's laws. They need to understand what is acceptable sort of in the division as a whole. So we need people who have these abilities and can deal with the departments and the policy issues that will result. In order to do that, and maintain current operations, those people have to be replaced. You can't take your two strong people for instance out of payroll and think that you are going to get a payroll out. We are not going to do that. What we're doing, all of the departments here, I will lay that out for you in just a moment. These people will be backfill. We will be hiring, they have to be trained first, they will come into the operating departments and they will maintain current operations while we pull people out once they are trained
>> [indiscernible]
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference] they will work on a project team. The auditor's office got two people two years ago. They will work on this team. We are redirecting five positions from our office to put on this team. Those people are systems business analysts types. And one of those people, which we are now replacing, this is important, is our manager of systems. That is christina dare, she's the project manager of reports to mike, it's his division that will bring this up from our office and that's important because christina is the one that does all of the programming for payroll. And compensation. So I need to talk about that a little bit. We are not requesting money to replace her because it's too expensive. We are going to have to do some compromising. She can't keep doing all of the programming she's doing now and be the project manager here. Borneol that we kind of intend to -- but other than that, we kind of plan to maintain operations the way they are. What we are requesting is proper positions for accounts payable in accounting, two positions for payroll in the auditor's office, two positions for financial reporting and grants, one each, one systems position in the county auditor's office. That's for fy '09. Then in the purchasing office we are requesting two positions plus some consulting moneys for the purchasing office. Two positions for hrmd, one in compensation, one in benefits. For i.t.s. One systems position. Now, i.t. Will require more systems positions after this year, our office will as well. That's why you see only one position from i.t. But I will tell you more will be needed as we go down the road. We have worked very hard as a group with these departments to come up with plan. On the big sheet here, because of the recruiting issue that's the auditor's office has and i.t., we believe that if we are authorized to begin recruiting immediately, you know, October 1, that we could have you start funding effective January 1. So in other words we would get 75% of the funding this year, we would work that out. So that we don't need 12 years funding, 12 months funding in this budget. The purchasing office and hrmd believes they can recruit right away, we have 12 months funding for them in here. That is a difference. As you look at these then, you can see the ongoing operating, the one time operating, the 231,000 there already in the preliminary budget. So that's already in the preliminary budget. So what we need to be putting in the budget is that 1.3 minus 231 already in the preliminary budget. If you plan to fund this program. That's the money that we're going to need in '09.
>> this is actually just for the staffing.
>> '09.
>> of what you are suggesting. This amount of money.
>> yes, sir right.
>> okay.
>> let me ask this question. Has there been any attempt, with all of these affected departments, you mentioned several and the number of f.t.e.'s what's associated with the scheme of things, have -- have each department been asked as far as the funding aspect of it, to look at current vacancies within those particular departments to have -- to offset the expense of the cost of that?
>> yes, they have. When you look at that.
>> okay.
>> think this: these departments will not only be doing their regular work, current maintenance, but even though we have people working full-time, they will be coming in and the people who work there on a daily basis will be involved in this project. So there will be an increased workload on operating as well as these new people. I mean, this is a -- a pressure on departments to bring up the system like this. So yes they have been asked that question.
>> they have been asked to look at the current vacancies, the funding associated with those vacancies and the new f.t.e.'s.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> hrmd, one of their positions would be funded benefits out of fund 526. So that -- that hrmd fund 526 doesn't come out of the general fund. Let me talk a moment about the facilities costs on the bottom are really not new numbers. We have talked to facilities about numerous arrangements of what to do with this team. I believe those numbers are now high. What we did, because this would be the next step is that part of it is when you bring on new people they have to have a place to sit. There just plain isn't enough room in any of these offices for the new people to come and have a seat. So there are facilities issues with that. What we did is we looked at facilities let us look at the rusk building. That building would hold the team as well as we will have a team from the vendor that will come in and they will be with us for a long time. So ideally what we found out in the rfi, from vendors and users, you would have a larger training room, hold about 40 people, they can put one that will hold 27, not a bad compromise. Then really very open space so that these team people are not shut away in an office but are out in a team environment talking and working with each other. So when we looked over at rusk, I brought mike and christina the project manager and we think that could work there with minimal amount of money put into rusk. We would ask to probably have new carpeting and painting and have that big room up on top. The other thing is no matter who goes to rusk, we need to bring two -- we are going to have to phone lines, computers that type of thing. That cost whoever goes over there, we will have. I don't have that number for this project. But if the court takes direction on facilities that you are going to approve the new systems and that they house in rusk, we will put the time in to figure that out with facilities. And if we did that, what our department agreed to, our systems and building consultants people, we would give up our offices. Those seven people that are systems people, the five that we redirecting the two that you gave us last year, those seven will go to rusk and that will be their offices, they will give up offices in stokes and the seven new functional people will take those offices. Now that does leave at the end of the project someplace for those people to go. However, you are doing a major planning on facilities and, you know, some of those answers will come with that. I don't know that we need to figure all that out now. But I would encourage you I mean this is a large package. It is a statutorily required function of what I have to do, the treasurer has to do and what the purchasing office and the budget office has to do. And this is a tool that we need, we need it to be in good shape in a strong system in order to take care of taxpayers' money. I understand that you will have to raise taxes in order to do this. But I believe it is in the benefit of the taxpayers to have a financial system which -- which is functional, is not at the brink of failure and is available to make the kind of -- provide the information that you need to make decisions and what we need to control that money and them to do reports. So -- so I was -- I very much hope that you will fund this and if you do and you make a facilities decision we can kind of do whatever we need to on that. Like I think that we might be able to help out with the
>> [indiscernible] there. If you say that we are going to rusk we will spend that kind of time and work with i.t. To find out what kind of lines we want over there, can we go wireless, what the cost would be to the county for that type of a thing. So --
>> susan, it appears to me that the 1.3 million investment to handle 413, you know -- huge number, it seems to me minimal investment to try to -- to account for all of the money that comes through Travis County. In addition to that, I think at the very top of all of this the request we ought to say that the current hte is a dead end street at this point.
>> it is a dead end street.
>> if it's dead end it's like do we want to catch ourselves into that dead end cul de sac, probably not even a cul de sac because you condition turn around and come back
>> [laughter] so it appears to me this is very minimal. Infrastructure investment for the amount of money that we handle for our taxpayers. I'm ready.
>> listen, let me ask just a couple of questions, susan. Margaret, were you finished?
>> uh-huh, go ahead.
>> you pointed out that rusk building has facilities management been notified.
>> yes.
>> of this? And if, you know, required I don't know how many square feet that you would need probably need for that, I really don't know, I have no idea. It's a lot of moving parts here.
>> it is.
>> and I want to make sure that I'm on top of every part that moves as much as possible. Definitely don't want to get into a situation where we end up getting burned. The county. On something that's not in the best interests of the county as far as some of these systems that we are purchasing. I understand -- you answered one of my questions about offsetting some of the expense by looking at the money that's set aside for vacancies and departments to help fill some of these -- help fund some of these particular f.t.e.'s. I have got some news from -- I looked at that unisys system for example, understand that a little bit may be coming off line real, real soon I hope so.
>> I understand.
>> because it's been a nightmare for us dealing with that old antiquated unisys system. My question is this, with all of the moving parts of all of the other operations that are going on in the county, computer-wise, my question is can all of this be integrated, looked at into a very viable financial system that would have the best interests of the persons -- the taxpayer and what we end up deciding to do. I looked at some -- some problems that currently exist and I think this probably came up during the work session, we talked about even having to generate -- well, you guys talked about even having to generate account codes kind of out of sight out of mind especially doing some things within your limited field --
>> limited field.
>> the characters that you can have within a certain data field of this thing can't accommodate. You only have --
>> cannot.
>> you only have so much space according to data length. Those are some very serious problems.
>> they are.
>> but at the end of the day I want to be very, very comfortable making sure all of the I's are dotted, t's are crossed. Somebody is going to have to convince me overwhelmingly to keep me posted on this particular venture as far as doing what we need to do. I'm very cautious about it because I think that we have experienced some problems in the past so I have to be cautious. And I'm cautiously moving forward toward looking at all of the things that I think that we can overcome successfully using, looking at what you are presenting. Lastly, is it any possible way that of course we may want to -- we know that we want to retain existing files. We have to keep our history, retention period, archive stuff, I don't know how stuff is archived I don't know how that works here. But there's -- there are history files, there are things that we need to keep as far as a matter of record is concerned. How will those things be integrated into the new system and the transition that will take place. There's a lot of loose ends. It's just not just putting your hands on it and saying hey here it is that's not that simple. It's a lot of loose ends that has to be tied up correctly. I'm throwing all of this out to realize that I -- that I see a lot of these loose ends. I want to tie them down as quickly as I possibly can. Make sure that this is very successful.
>> the data base architect which is one of the positions you gave us two years ago to look at the entire position of conversion and data. Like I said in the work session as we get more information and better information we may change some of our decisions. You don't just set your mind on something and, you know, forget about the facts. But at this point in time what our goal is that we will not bring data from 1990 and forward from hte on to the new system because it's just too expensive, what we would do is keep the old data pretty much on hte and until some time at which there may be a very cost effective way to pull that off of hte on to a different type of technology, we will look at that. It is not our intention to convert all of that data. Just plain too expensive. We wouldn't be updating hte or anything, but our idea is in fact we would keep the data on hte. You need financial history.
>> in essence, you wouldn't be adding anything to hte, you would just have to have it --
>> right.
>> in itself it would be a data base for the history files in itself. Stand alone -- not stand alone but a system that has all of the accurate information if you need to refer to it.
>> yes.
>> but all of features that we are dealing with right now, the, you know,
>> [indiscernible] forms, all of these new accounts, all of this new stuff that we are looking at will be used in the new for the new system.
>> right.
>> that's correct.
>> uh-huh.
>> I want to make sure that I'm following you directly --
>> one of the things that you mentioned reminded that when you bring these systems up, you really have to look at best practices. All of these people, all of these deposits are looking at -- all of these departments are looking at that. There are ways we do business we will have to change because it's too expensive to say we are going to do business the way we also have, we want a system that does it exactly the same way. There will be issues that will come in fronts of the court. I will tell you should you approve this I very much would like to have the county judge sit with the teams say once a month to apprise him of policy issues and get his feedback and then bring this back to the court because one of the issues that you brought up a while ago you want us to look at biweekly payroll. That's a policy issue. We need to look at that. Those things we need not estimate the time that takes. Look at those kind of things. We're trying to think ahead because I'm as nervous as you are. This is as lean of a proposal as I know to put together. I know that you don't want to spend money but this is going to cost money. These systems cost between 25 and $30 million. They are very expensive. So we need to put the appropriate up front work on that. And we've got a attentive time table out there. But if in fact the business process takes six or seven months longer we are going to do that because we need to get it right and get it up. Meanwhile, you know, you have got to -- I've got to keep doing business, cyd does, h.r., p.b.o., I think that this is the best proposal that we can -- I mean it's the result of our best efforts I guess that all that I know how to say.
>> uh-huh.
>> ms. Grimes.
>> I just wanted to add that group we've been talking about this for several years, susan and i, and to susan's credit, susan is the best auditor that the state of Texas has for any county. She deserves her and her staff deserve so much credit for the -- the place financially this county is in. I can't think about susan, I mean I'm getting to the age where I start to think about retiring. I can't about us waiting until some of the people that have been working here for the years and years and years that I have been here the last 16 years, go away and that institutional knowledge and experience is not here. So first of all, we need to do this project while we still have the best county auditor in the state. The other thing is we have been able to through technology to be more efficient and not add on staff. In the beginning of the system we had to add on staff. But in the long term it is -- it makes us more efficient and able to do work with less people and there's a huge infrastructure cost in that. And we have susan and them we have been through the rfi process, we are trying to cross all of those t's, dot all of those I's. If you have to work with the auditor's office on a daily basis you know how thorough they are. So we are -- I think that you feel very confident in the team. Some of the things that I hear across the state are that county auditors because they are the chief financial officer for the counties, implement these systems without any input from the Commissioners court, the i.t.s. Department, purchasing department, the other departments. And susan has taken a much different approach to, a very team oriented approach, and we are -- takes going to save us a lot of heart ache and a lot of money in the long run. We are very supportive of the project. Not that I'm looking forward to another huge project on our plate. But I do think in the long term this is something that we need to invest our money in. We were talking this morning about our infrastructure, we need better gattin services out to our different command centers. There's the technology that's going to help us in the long run, we are here to support susan and get this project going.
>> unfortunately our purchasing agent doesn't get a vote.
>> darn!
>> but if she did --
>> [laughter]
>> any other brief remarks?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> ditto what cyd said about the need for a system like this. One of the opportunities that it creates in h.r.'s opinion is to bring not only the accounting system into the 21st century and be ready to move beyond, but also your h.r. Processes. We were before you I think a couple of years ago asking for sort of an ad hoc software promise. You said wait a minute, wait a minute, we're taking a look at that through what the auditor's office is bringing forward. Having waited for that period of time to now be able to not only participate and collaborate very jointly with the auditor's office on this initiative has been a very positive experience for the h.r. Staff and leading us to where we feel you would want your h.r. Department to go. I can only compliment the process to date. We have been very involved. We've had a chance to analyze and assess the needs of the software program in materials of h.r.'s best practices -- in terms of h.r.'s best practices in our industry. The systems that have been examined are the top of the line and very much favorable towards the larger companies that are pulling their systems into this particular type arena. So h.r. Supports it. We are behind it 100% and compliments to susan and the management team for the work that's been done thus far.
>> just like to add within one other thing -- one other thing along the same lines the effort that susan has put forth and organization that's gone into this created a working together team relationship and getting all of the issues up front and getting things defined up front so we don't run into issues on the back end that causes us to have to add additional staff we don't know about or continue to make the project run beyond what any of us like for it to rub. We can talk to several of our previous projects, I'm sure that you know what I'm talking about. That I don't see that happening with this structure in the way that susan has laid this out. I.t.s. Is here to support her in every way possible. We have been part of the team since the get-go.
>> thank you.
>> brief remarks?
>> just from someone who has gone through financial system implementation, I would just echo the comments that have been made regarding the approach that susan's team has taken. I think that it will be successful. I think they will make for sure that it does happen and it will be successful. I just want not to down play this, I've heard some comments made about not adding staff or not -- this system not requiring the addition of any staff down the road. And the only thing that I would add that is the court go into this with their eyes open to understand that a system of what susan's group is talking about is a very laborious system to maintain. And it will require staff beyond just these seven folks that are being presented to you today. It's not -- I'm not talking about in the next year or two, but ultimately when this thing is installed, configured and up and running, it is going to require additional resources to maintain this system. I just bring that out because I don't want court going into this thing with the idea that this thing is not going to add any additional staff because it will.
>> well, looking at the example that they had up in tarrant county, similar system, what would the required number of staffing that it took to -- to maintain it, to make sure that things are up and operational? Did they have a -- I know we are talking about seven folks here, but as far as initiating it getting it off the ground. In the overall big picture of the vendors that are using maybe a similar system or have a similar population as Travis County to serve, the question is how many staffing persons were in those particular -- in that particular comparison?
>> typically what you are going to find is what we use for example in tarrant county, sap system, that is going to require somewhere in the neighborhood of around 20 to 30 people to ultimately maintain. And that is not unusual for a similar sized county which we are with tarrant. In my recent past I have seen other counties implement sap systems for example and they begin have ultimately had a team comprised of about 20 to 30 individuals maintaining the system long term. And that -- that doesn't -- that's not unique just for that one system. It is for all systems that will be reviewed and consider.
>> I remember our experience going through the what was the -- what was the name of the exercise we went through to get all of the criminal justice.
>> ijs.
>> I remember that experience. I think what we have here, I think that was like 25 million as well, wasn't it?
>> I don't remember.
>> it wasn't as big.
>> so yeah Commissioner Davis this took place in '95 when I was here and yeah we had to invest resources in order to have everyone on the same page and being able to communicate with each other, avoiding duplication with the -- our constituents that we have to deal with. It's large but on the other hand we couldments calculate the costs -- we could also calculate the costs for not doing it. See what those costs are to us. I think it would bring Travis County to its knees if we didn't look at this as a good investment in the future for our system.
>> again I just want to make the court aware. I do support the system and everything that susan is trying to do. I think that it's most definitely needed. But I just want to make the court aware that.
>> absolutely.
>> it's not a seven person install. There's long term commitment.
>> bigger than that.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:51 PM