Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, December 14, 2010,
Item 27
>> item number 27, consider and take appropriate action regarding Travis County integrated justice system, ijs, including a, briefing on future of ijs at Travis County.
b, recommendation from justices of the peace regarding conference of urban counties' techshare resource sharing program.
and c, other related issues.
let me -- why don't we hold that item right there.
38 we discussed this morning the contract in item number 38.
that has to be delivered to the seller by 4:00.
I understand that that contract is ready.
and there are pieces of that that we need to discuss probably, but I’m not sure we need to discuss the contract further or do we?
>> I don't think so, judge.
>> did we get the appraisal?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> it's not referenced in the contract anyway, is it?
>> no.
>> and did we get the cap?
>> did we get the legal fees capped?
>> john is working on the contract and should have it down here shortly.
>> john is still working on the contract?
>> he's got two documents --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we're still exchanging phone calls with the seller's attorney, but we expect to have an answer in the next hopefully 15, 20 minutes.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> they had that conversation.
he's printing up the documents right now.
>> all right.
will somebody give me a notice when he comes?
>> yes.
>> all right.
27 we just announced item 27 ab and c.
can we have the presenters and participants on that item?
we had a full work session on it, what, two weeks ago?
and so that discussion is fresh in mind.
any additional comments today, though?
>> let me start off.
joe harlow, the cio and executive manager for communications and technology.
the court asked us -- its and purchasing to review alternatives for facts for the jp court.
we participated in the joint taskforce to review those options and its is ready to make some recommendations for next steps.
its concurs that we do not continue to implement facts for the jp's because the vendor has indicated there will not be a next generation to the system as well as other modules in the ijs system.
this changes the long-term migration plan that we were operating under for all courts and for ijs.
therefore its supports the jp court's search for an alternative solution.
however, since any solution will take at least 18 to 24 months to I am plevment, we recommend -- to implement, we recommend some interim steppedz.
steps.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> and at this point I think janice is going into a little more detail as to what the
>> my name is janice brown, application support division manager.
it's our understanding that the jps would like to move forward and enter into an interlocal agreement with cuc.
this project is estimated 18 to 24 months and offers a variety of options pertaining to hostess systems. Basically they are looking at fast tracking the project.
however, any time a project is placed on the fast track, there are potential business risks associated with that.
and we feel that it is our responsibility to inform the court of these associated risks.
one of the business risks we have identified that we feel is a problem is in the area of requirements.
although a good start has been made on the requirements, they are not fully constructed.
they do not include documented work flows or narratives.
and this is a critical phase in any project.
best practice says at a minimum that you should have these documented work flows.
and to take that one step further, since the requirements have not been fully developed, the vendor has not had the opportunity to provide a gaap analysis.
without that comparison with software to the requirements, we're not really sure that it's going to fully meet their needs.
with that said, i.t.s.
offers the following recommendation: first to proceed with the interim recommendation mr. Harlow just made, making the modifications or enhancements to cjs, possibly looking at jp 4 while cleanup continues.
and pursue outside consulting for full construction of the requirements.
once we have these requirements, the vendor should be required to complete their analysis against our requirements.
once the analysis has been completed, if odyssey meets the jp's needs, then we're in a better position to move forward.
but there's another thing that we need to consider in moving forward.
if we are looking into entering into an agreement with cuc, are we prepared to address the other courts?
and the answer to that is no.
without fully developed requirements, we can't answer that question at this point in time.
perhaps it would be a better business decision to look at it as a whole, and that would require us to look at the entire ijs due to all the inter dependencys of the department.
we would plan to continue to use the outside consulting to gain the rest of the requirements for all of i.j.s., and there's also budgetary considerations that would need to be made in f.y.
12.
for example, we would look at to hire a full-time project director as well as there would most likely need to be staff augmentations for those departments participating in i.j.s.
>> and just to summarize our recommendations, the next steps, one, proceed with identifying consultant to modify current c.j.s.
system in the event further discrepancies in data.
2, contract with the expert to identify system and process changes that might assess jp 4.
three, proceed with identifying the consultant and costs to assist in the requirements and work flows.
beginning with the requirements developed by the jp task force and then move into the other courts.
4, once requirements are complete, provide these requirements to the cuc and tyler to perform a gap analysis of their systems against our requirements.
if the gap analysis indicates that tower odyssey system meets all court requirements, then proceed with contracts with cuc and tyler.
>> so that I fully understand this, you're suggesting, and I want to say at the up front, although this is a expensive recommendation, it sounds to be a very responsible recommendation, and frankly refreshing in an unjaundiced look at what we're facing.
but you're suggesting a consultant on the -- on i.j.s.
as relates to j.p., a consultant for facts as it relates to j.p.
4, and a consultant on i.j.s.
globally as it relates to the criteria document.
>> I think the consultant that would work for the j.p.
court said requirements could also carry on into the i.j.s.
like two individual contracts.
>> what time frame do you see this unfolding in?
>> we had a budgetary estimate from the gardner group that to get requirements for fully developed requirements for just all courts, not just j.p.s, but all courts was about six months.
and then the other systems follow on behind that.
you've got the -- in doing the courts, you've got to take a look at the prosecution modules and how that affects the district attorney's systems and they are on the same track as far as our vendor is concerned.
they are not going to continue to upgrade those systems for the d.a.
or the county attorney either, so ...
>> what say the j.p.s to the recommendation?
>> well, our recommendation to the court is to proceed down the road to approve the addendum to the c.u.c.
agreement.
I will remind the court before my time the court approved, I believe in 2004, the tech share agreement.
the next step, we understand, there's been an addendum since 2004.
that's the agreement we submitted to you.
we're not asking for action today, but I can't get it to the next step without the court endorsing that.
I can't get the county attorney to review it and give input.
i.t.s.
is reluctant to give input on it because obviously the court hasn't given the direction to go in that direction.
so I’m merely asking that we take the next step to pursue the tech share program through c.u.c., which would be a comprehensive review and then ask these other questions.
after hearing their presentation, I would love to be a consultant right now.
there's going to be a lot of business for consultants.
I don't think we need consultants.
I think down the road we might.
perhaps just the way I’m thinking is if the court decides to go this route with odyssey, again, it would come back maybe in about a month to you, and the first step would be commitment, I believe it's about $18,000, to -- for them to prepare an accurate cost proposal.
so I know, Commissioner, you were asking what the numbers are going to be.
until you actually go to the next step you won't have the real numbers as to what they can deliver under a couple scenarios.
I think as they look at j.p.
4 and the rest of the courts, they may issues about the facts and that to me might be the appropriate time you neat the facts consultant to talk to the new vendor to figure out how it's going to work.
I’m sitting here as a layperson and that makes more sense is to hold that consultant money to when you have that next vendor to find out how that's going to work.
I think judge gonzales can speak to you about what kind of help he needs today and tomorrow just in the short term.
so our open -- I want to also mention to you that I do have letters of support from both jplx that we can pass out to you.
sorry they couldn't be here today, but they had new judge training, so I’m not sure what your procedure is today, judge, to get these letters of support to the court.
and then sitting here, we've spent a lot of time over the last six months talking about requirements, and if you could also take a look at what work has been done today, we have copies, again, these may not be the final ones, but seriously, my staff has spend all the time we can spend trying to get these requirements done.
and if we hire a consultant to come in, the first thing they are going to sit down and ask me is what are your requirements.
they don't know our business practice, I’ve worked with consultants and that's your favorite question, you tell me.
we tried to write down as best we could -- we used the c.u.c.
requirements as a base point and went through about 20 of our staff from the various courts to add to those.
so that's one of the questions we would have for tyler as we go forward if we have some things that were perhaps not in those base requirements, how would that work, could they accommodate us and those answers would come down the line.
what we're asking at this point, we believe odyssey is a short-term solution for the j.p.s.
we understand the county will go a different direction in the future, but that solution is years down the road and we're currently working with technology from from the 1970s in my court.
and we would like to try to have a product again during my tenure, my upcoming tenure as judge that would meet the needs of our constituents.
>> I guess, judge, what I’ve heard, it's tough for me to kind of agree with paying $50,000 for consultants.
and I guess joe, let me ask you this question.
the number of applications analysts, development analysts that you have on staff, aren't they -- are they equipped to handle design, code, implementation, test, all of those things that are necessary to deal with convergence that we have especially with software stuff?
I’m kind of confused here.
because I know we have staffing here that is supposed to deal with this kind of stuff.
now, the question, are they not capable of dealing with this?
>> well, the -- just to give you a little background on the consultant's approach, that's the same approach that c.u.c.
took when they selected odyssey, they hired an outside firm that specialized and that's how they got this done.
as far as our staff, we would support a lot of systems in the county besides the court system.
and we have a dedicated person to each of those systems throughout the county, and some of those people can do the testing, some can do the design, but we are purchasing software and we don't do much coding ourselves.
>> how did we come up with the criteria for befit?
did we utilize internal resources or external?
>> it's my understanding the way that was done, and the auditor can speak to this better, but she obtained some
>> [inaudible] and used her more talented folks to go full time on writing specifications.
>> well, the problem I’m having, and let me ask p.b.o.
a question.
my question is, I guess, the -- looking at the overall system, how much money will it take for us to get the j.p.s in tune with the overall integrated system of the county?
if we were to go with odyssey, what would that money amount be?
I really don't know.
and what is p.b.o.
recommending?
it's getting to be where it's -- it can be very expensive to make
>> [inaudible] decisions, but there have been decisions made -- anyway, we won't go there.
but I’m concerned about where we are today and where we go from here.
seeing that we do have a problem with j.p.
as far as dealing with facts.
so I’m trying to hear everybody's issue, but also I want to make sure when we go forward that we are going in a positive direction where we make sure that whatever happens, it is -- it interfaces with everything else we have on board in the county, especially the auditor.
because the accounts payable, she needs to deal with that.
with all the other accounts that she has.
but accounts payable is something that we need to look at.
now, does this -- odyssey definitely deal with that?
I don't know because -- I don't know.
>> until those requirements are vetted, we don't know either and I think that's our point.
>> well, I’ll respond, odyssey is nearly a case management system.
that's all we're asking for.
there's other packages that do other things, but we're talking about a case management system.
right now we are not integrated with anything under c.j.s., and judge gonzales can tell you what he can see and what he not see and I don't think he can see very much in any other system right now.
so we don't have an integrated system right now, sir.
>> can you remind me as well, didn't we mention what the cost would be to go with tech share, since all these other counties were using odyssey?
can you remind me of that number?
was there a number?
>> all I believe I shared last time was a number I had gotten from colin county, again, they were an original member of the group so they probably got the best rate, and the number they gave us for colin county was 1.3 million, and that covered just their -- I believe their court system.
>> and if tech share has added members, then that number will go down as well.
>> well, if you will look at the end of the packet that I handed out, you'll find a nice map here, and that shows you all of the counties that are currently using an odyssey plod.
if you go to the next -- product.
if you go to the next page, we have it color code understand anything that's green means they have a j.p.
court live.
the last page of that document, everything green are j.p.
courts where it's under development.
so this is a product that, you know, seems to be out there.
we saw it in use and live in large counties.
we talked to them about conversion issues.
about their customer service.
and again, we didn't hear anything that would dissuade us from making this recommendation to you.
>> well, I know that we want to save money and I know we want to look at the big picture, but it almost -- to me it sounds like we're going to stop everything so we can backtrack and look at the big picture when they are in real need right now of doing something about what they currently have.
and so it appears to me that we could do the big picture, but at the same time address their needs.
and I would think that tech -- do you all have a number on the tech share cost?
>> I think the estimated cost we get from tech share was like 2.3 million.
>> 2.3 million?
>> yes.
>> goodness.
>> gosh, that's increased instead of decreasing, given the fact that the more members they have on board --
>> well, it depends on the size of the county and what additional customizations or enhancements or whatever need to be made.
that's just their estimate at this point.
as judge dietz said, we need to refine that number.
>> I just want to say too I don't think we need to be penny wise and pound foolish here.
we've already gotten the product installed in numerous counties and I think that we need to be prudent about our choices, but I think we need a solution and this is the direction that the state as a whole looks like it's going in.
>> I’m with the auditor's office.
I just wanted to comment on the importance of the requirements process.
our office spent well over a year working on befit just on our requirements piece.
folks throughout our office worked intensively as well as offices throughout the county.
the requirements are an extremely piece that allow you to judge whether or not what you are getting is actually going to meet your needs and meet them in an efficient and effective manner.
and I support what mr. Harlow has been saying about the importance of bringing someone in just so we can address these issues.
also from the standpoint of odyssey, I do agree that j.p.s are desperately in need of a new system, but there also an accounting piece, a large accounting piece to the system and being aware of how that fits in with the other courts as well as befit down the road is also important.
>> well, I also agree all of that is important, and yet at the same time I feel like we don't need to stretch this out in order to find them a solution.
you know, they are dealing with people every day who need the services of their office, and is there a way to come up with somebody needs to review their requirements, make sure that those are in place, but, you know, not take so darn long to get it done?
>> like a good amount of work has already been done.
>> but somebody could review it.
>> are you talking for a six-month period for an outside consultant.
>> for all courts.
>> to assist with the creation of the requirements document?
>> right.
>> if we were to do it just for j.p.
and not for the actual system, how long would it take to come up with the requirements document?
>> we don't have an estimate from that.
we asked for all courts back when the steering committee asked us to start looking into how we could approach this and that's when we asked for all courts at that time.
>> I’m leery, I am painfully aware of how overdue a solution for the j.p.s is.
at the same time, I’m also painfully aware of the results of doing ad hoc programs to address immediate need without having a trajectory and a plan for integrated and coordinated systems. I’d hate to repeat the sins of the past to fix the sins of the past.
so if we were to -- as your recommendation says, use an outside consultant for the construction of a full functional requirements for all integrated justice systems, the cost of that consultant is estimated at 85,000?
>> no, 85,000 was for the consultant that is a -- a unisys to come in and patch the system so we don't have disparaging data.
>> what's your estimated cost of a consultant to construct a full functions document?
>> the estimate from gardner was 300,000.
>> where would that money come from?
>> well, there's -- we can find some of that money probably in i.t.
there's money in the j.p.
fund.
and may have to go to reserves if we do it now as opposed to in the new budget.
>> but what we're talking about here is a stand-alone approach.
we talk about a fix for a stand-alone situation that may not have any relationship with anything else we have going for news the county and I don't think that's a good -- I don't think that's a good decision if you were to look at a decision table, I don't think that would be a good decision that the county should make, I really don't.
now, there is a need for a fix in this situation.
now, what that is at this point may be the audited system.
however, it would still be a stand-alone situation.
a stand-alone situation just for the j.p.s.
no one else.
and again, the accounting end of this thing, and I really don't know the front end of this because odyssey comes in, you are still going to have to deal with conversion because you have records.
isn't that true, joe?
>> absolutely.
>> still have to deal with conversion which has been a headache for us, a major headache for the county is dealing with conversion.
we are here today because conversion didn't work properly.
that's why we're here.
>> the conversion of bad data creates problems, and that's why we've got to work on --
>> I would counsel not to use the term bad data any longer because I think the j.p.'s have made a good case that you couldn't have the data necessary to do this conversion easily since the data was being housed in so many different systems.
>> correct.
>> so let's try to move away from the word bad data.
charged it sounds like --
>> but we're talking about almost a $3 million investment on a stand-alone situation that may not interface correctly with the rest of the county's integrated systems. And no one here can guarantee me that that is the case, whether interfaced -- accounts payable with the auditor, you got
>> [indiscernible] but the accounts -- accounts payable, receivable stuff is still something that we need to deal with.
>> well, the danger you run is that once you do address all courts that you -- determination would be made that you'll need to get a different system and then you wind up with two case management systems.
>> what -- what if we were to get with c.u.c.
and the top computer person for odyssey to meet with our i.t.
department, the j.p.s, the auditor, whoever else needs to be involved in a meeting, talk with them about requirements and see what they can do for us?
>> we've done that, judge.
>> the j.p.s have done it, but not with i.t.s.
--
>> yes, sir, they were at our side.
they actually arranged the presentation by --
>> what did they say?
what did the odyssey people say?
>> well, it's not what the odyssey people say.
we can't get to that step until you pay the adenied dumb and get them in here.
>> I asked one question, you answered another one.
we got voluminous requirements you say the j.p.
has put together, right?
>> let me explain.
>> let me finish.
>> yes, sir.
>> we have other departments with other needs also.
we have been talking about a integrated justice system for decades and we have spent a lot of money but we don't have one.
to me it would be foolish for us to go down a road when we don't know where it takes us.
the way we figure out where the road takes us is to get all travelers for Travis County together, it seems to me, to plot the course.
now, I don't think that's been done.
you had the conversation, but I keep hearing about requirements, I heard about the analysis gap.
now I don't know whether odyssey can do it or not, but there is a way to get them to give us a firm commitment about whether they can or not, and before we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems to me we want them to commit they can do it.
after that we may have to pay whatever the price is to get the product that we want, but we have to -- we have to know what we want first.
>> absolutely.
>> so I mean what I’m trying to do is meld all that time hearing today.
we're sitting here trying to make the right decisions.
y'all will be the ones impacted a whole lot more directly than we.
I’m as frustrated as anybody, although I don't have to look at those records at the j.p.
court, but I hear the level of frustration from many departments on the facts system and we've been told facts is on the way out and we're looking at the next generation of computers.
if that's true, we may as well try to make the best decision now about how to proceed.
and so that's what I’m hearing the court say too.
>> we have not asked odyssey --
>> in fairness, let's let --
>> I can't get a word in here.
>> now, you did start out today.
>> not to respond here because I want to make perfectly clear the base requirements are from the c.u.c.
odyssey agreement.
so what you have in there includes every c.u.c.
requirement.
so it's c.u.c., odyssey plus.
all right.
number 2, to get exactly your question answered is what I’m asking today is go to the next step, it will cost only $17,880 for odyssey to come in and sit down at the table with us and get some answers for you.
that's the way it works.
now, the other point I want to make is that this is a different type of arrangement that you are used to in that typically you do requirements and you put it out for bids and review the bids.
the way the tech share and joint purchasing is this group of counties came together largely as you know, you were port of that and they did that.
they put together requirements, they got lots of bids, they selected odyssey.
so it's not like I’m sitting here saying we don't have any requirements.
what we're saying is our consultant who is going to come in and steer us the rest of the way would be tyler because that's who was selected under the c.u.c.
agreement.
so we're not doing this willy-nilly.
it's just a different process that is not the typical process because you would be participating under this joint purchasing arrangement.
and I think that guarantees some cost savings because you're beating the market price.
as to the stand-alone issue, that's what we talked about in the work session.
if your decision is j.p.s, we don't want to go forward with you, just wait until we get our next decision, that's your decision.
what that means for us in reality we will be in plays with a stand-alone system that's 40 years old by the time we get our relief.
what we're thinking if we can get relief in 18 to 24 months while this simultaneously going on is the process to select the new integrated system, whether it's odyssey or not, we will be in a much better position with 21st century technology to integrate into that in the next 7 to 10 years when that new system comes.
that is, I hope -- I just -- I’m frustrated, judge, just because I don't think our points are coming out that it makes it sound like we're going forward willy-nilly without any requirements or anybody consulting with us.
no, the vendor we would consult with is the one who knows the system, how it works in almost 38 cities in Texas successfully.
>> that 17,000 number is what I was looking for.
but they would review it to see how it would fit in Travis County and in tech share.
>> and they would develop a hard cost proposal that would come back to you and you can give it the thumbs up or thumbs down at that point.
>> I move that we --
>> motion is out of order.
let's finish discussion.
any comments?
>> buck brown with i.t.s.
the 17, 18 thousand dollar engagement that we're talking about isn't for tyler to come in and do a requirements review.
it's for them to come in and better understand some of our data as far as data conversion goes.
and refine their pricing on moving forward.
it's not to step through requirements that we put together and respond to those requirements.
>> so they won't do that while they are here?
>> I don't know if they will, but that's not what is in their -- their implementation --
>> that's not their definition --
>> we could ask them to --
>> [multiple voices]
>> unfortunately we need to go to another item and come back to this one otherwise we're-we will mess up a very important matter.
so we'll take this item up in just a minute.
All right, my friends and colleagues, on the odyssey item -- thank you all, appreciate it.
maybe a little more discussion and we'll go back to Commissioner Huber's motion you were about to make.
we were discussing before we called up those two items regarding that real estate purchase item number 27, the matter involving the Travis County integrated justice system.
and the three subparts there.
looks like we're discussing b more than anything else and a would be I guess what action we should take as to integrated justice system arrangements at Travis County.
any more comments?
my final one would be that I think we really ought to try to promote collaboration as much as we can.
one.
two is I guess I feel a bit uneasy insisting that we proceed with implementation of facts in 4 because the j.p.
of 4 indicated that he's got more problems there than imaginable.
and my position would be that we ought to seek some sort of county-wide relief if we can get one.
this time instead of the j.p.s being last, maybe put them first on the implementation list.
>> they need to be first.
>> and the dates that I’ve heard thrown out, 18 to 24 months, it seems to me that if we commit to get this done, you know, we ought to be able to do it.
but if the requirements are central and looks like we got a head start, I don't know why we couldn't try to complete those and get the other county departments to work on theirs too.
I mean I know you can't just -- you can't do this overnight, but if you dedicated the right resources, we ought to be able to do it as expeditiously as possible.
>> who are you suggesting, judge, as far as resources are concerned?
>> I was talking about money really.
we've got a whole lot of ftes working on computer-related stuff at the county.
>> yeah, we got a bunch.
>> but I guess they have all been kind of dedicated to facts implementation.
>> we have some dedicated to facts, but we also support facts for all the other courts running on a day-to-day basis.
>> we would have to commit whatever resources to achieve it.
and the 17, 18 thousand dollars sounds like a small figure, but I heard 1.2, 2.3 so I guarantee in the end if we had a county wide solution it will be more.
even on the j.p.s other departments are affected by it and I think we need to get input from other departments before we proceed.
I mean, you know, you learn when you go through some of these major projects and we really ought to try to work together and get it done.
at the same time, I hear the j.p.s we ought not take forever to get it done.
to the extent we can move quickly, I think we ought to.
with that, Commissioner Huber?
>> judge Biscoe.
>> we'll come right back to you.
>> on facts out at j.p.
4, we appreciate the support financially you have provided us, however, I don't think we really should be wise -- it would not be wise to spend any more money on facts for j.p.
4.
I spoke to my office manager and my staff and what they think what would be more appropriate is to have more help in the sense of more folks at the help desk.
that type of support rather than having a consultant.
because I think we've maxed out as best we can what we can do with the workload we've got.
we've got sustainable operation with the workload we have at this point in time so I would not want you all to commit to spending any more money on facts, spending more good money after bad as far as a consultant there.
more support through the help desk.
right now there's a limited amount of folks supporting facts with the j.p.s there and that's what I think we need more internally with i.t.s.
rather than outside consultant.
>> are you referring to the help desk with i.t.s.?
>> yes.
>> joe, you heard that, didn't you?
>> the problem is that, you know, anybody that you put on the help desk has to understand facts and we have a limited number of people that are working on it.
>> seems like we need to take area of that.
that's what it appears to me.
that's what we're here for.
we need to take care of what you just stated.
>> that's why I was asking for the consultant to come in and do --
>> we shouldn't have to pay money for folks that can do the work in-house and that's what you said you need more help from the help desk, if that's part of the solution, I think we need to head in that direction.
that's the way it appears to me.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I can't tell you the level of my frustration on this.
and I have a more global question as it relates to this because we obviously have conflicting opinions on what's the next particular step of action.
we've got different departments having their even input.
what is the status of us getting our outside experts in i.t.
for the i.t.
advisory committee.
this is a good example where it would be nice to have input from that group of people.
>> I’ve got a second person we're trying to get in touch with that's been recommended to us so I think we're pretty close to meeting of the internal members of that committee.
and we're developing a charter for the group and also proceeding to try and identify these folks.
>> do you have a time frame in mind when that will be available?
because we're making critical decisions Marching down paths that we really need to --
>> I would hope we could have people identified by year end.
>> that's great.
I have a motion specific to the odyssey, that we approve the addendum and the 17,000 plus to develop that relationship to get those questions answered.
>> secretary.
>> I have been watching the c.u.c.
I cannot believe we have questions at this point about the value of this program and the ability to implement it.
there may be glitches, but it's used so broadly that for $17,000, I think it's worth walking down the path to see if we can't get a fix for the j.p.s.
>> the motion, let me make sure I understand it.
>> to do what judge was suggesting.
>> which was a recommendation for that to be vetted, if you will, and brought back to the court next month.
>> to determine feasibility of odyssey in the j.p.
courts?
>> to review that addendum taken expenditure of the 18,000.
so we aren't asking because this agreement wasn't able to be reviewed by the county attorney, we're just asking to you say this is important enough for staff to look at and bring that recommendation back to the court.
>> I don't guess I have any problem with that.
is that all this motion does?
>> at this point.
>> I have a question about the motion because I think further action should be taken today.
I think I’m in favor of this motion if it is embedded in larger action.
so I’m going to slow out there some language as a stocking horse that we direct i.t.s.
to -- in consultation with the i.t.
advisory committee to whatever extent it exists at this point to develop a plan for marshaling internal resources and hiring an outside consultant to compile the requirements document for a full i.j.s.
implementation.
prioritizing the j.p.s so that they get their requirements document completed first.
and a lot of work has already been done.
>> correct.
>> and then second, identify the funding source for the consultant component of that internal consultant team, internal and external, to identify the outside time frame for the development of that requirements document as well as the outside time frame for the development of that document as it relates to j.p.s.
because it sounds like we need it irrespective of whether we go with odyssey or not.
am I correct about that, judges?
>> that's what we want.
>> the judges agree we must have the requirements document even to utilize the --
>> our disagreement is we're not sure what it's lacking.
>> and I don't know what's lacking from this document either.
>> and we have additional documents on business processes and work flow that we've already done.
so again, without having the tyler, the vendor, tell us --
>> I hear that.
let me finish.
to return next week with an update about where we are with these.
and I think that can include what Commissioner Huber has moved for, which is to move forward with the exploration of the $18,000 expenditure.
it sounds like we need to do more work on that in any case.
right?
because legal hasn't had the opportunity to review the documents that have been provided by tyler.
>> I tried to have them review them back in October and they told me this was not a priority that was set by the court.
>> yet.
>> [multiple voices]
>> allow them to review those documents.
I’m sorry for my ignorance of how the process works.
>> and just to be fair, I mean part of the reason for that protocol is so that we don't expend resources on a large expenditure that hasn't been blessed by the court.
>> that's all I was asking for today was to give that permission so we can take this to the next step.
>> but I’m concerned, though, that -- and I guess my question is to Commissioner Huber, is your motion to move forward with odyssey definitely or to --
>> temporary.
>> to go to the next step.
>> vet was what I heard.
so the question procedural is, Commissioner Huber, is all of what Commissioner Eckhardt said friendly to your motion?
>> I’m not sure I understood all of that.
>> you said at least six or seven.
>> I agree there's more here that needs to be considered than my motion.
I just feel like I wanted to get that out there because I think that is a very critical next step.
>> and the second agrees.
>> we can take it as a separate subsequent motion, can't we, judge?
>> we sure can.
so should we assume that it's not friendly?
and just vote on your motion?
>> I’m not going to say it's unfriendly, I say it's cleaner to do it separately.
>> no ruling on whether or not it's friendly, but it's not clean.
>> [laughter] any more discussion on Commissioner Huber's motion?
and that is for us to move forward and vet odyssey for the j.p.s, which means to commit to 17 or 18 thousand dollars required.
what's the source of funding for that?
the j.p.
technology fund?
>> yes, sir.
>> that's it.
>> any more discussion?
>> so our office will have an opportunity to review the addendum and backup documentations and get back with the court with any legal advice.
>> yes.
>> all in favor?
shows Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber, yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis?
>> I’m going to -- I guess I would like to wait and see what the ruling of the attorney -- they haven't had a chance to review.
any way we can hold -- well, I really want to make sure that what we're doing is up front and legal.
>> Commissioner Davis abstains.
or do you vote against?
>> I’m going to abstain at this time.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> my second motion is direct i.t.s.
to develop a plan for marshaling the internal resources and hiring an outside consultant to compile a requirements document for full i.j.s.
implementation with the j.p.s as the number one priority in time.
>> I second that motion.
>> with plan being in caps.
plan for the court to consider and act on.
>> with review still by the attorney.
is that correct?
right?
I hope so.
>> well, of course, anything that would come out would be reviewed by the attorney.
and the idea -- you know, that's the motion.
but the idea is that we really do need to come up with the outside time frame for how long it's going to happen.
we need plan.
these are steps toward a plan and I appreciate that.
it's long overdue and this is, like I said, a responsible recommendation f,.
>> would you let your plan reflect the high level of collaboration that the Travis County has become accustomed to?
>> absolutely.
>> speaking of collaboration, judge dietz?
>> I’m really trying not to throw a monkey wrench and trying to help not hurt, but respectfully, I really think that the i.j.s.
-- I would like to look for our department and others, I would like to look at the architecture of how we've got the i.j.s.
advisory.
I think it is really important for all of the user groups, the clerks, the courts and everybody to buy into this, and I would like to see how joe and understand a little bit more because I agree with everybody it need to be a collaborative effort, it's just that I’m not sure that the structure we had of this group which is 2003 is appropriate for today, and I would just like to look at it and to see, but I’m still talking that we work collaboratively with all of the departments working on our requirements.
I just want to see if the structure works for us now currently.
>> and judge, I would like to incorporate your request under the marshaling of internal resources portion of my motion that that goes to the marshaling of internal resources, not just the i.t.s.
professionals that we have in-house but also the boots on the -- the troops on the ground who are having to utilize this database on a daily basis.
>> that means it's friendly so it's part of the motion.
>> I accept that as friendly.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you all.
>> and thank you to the j.p.
judges for pushing this so hard.
>> moving on, item 34, consider and take appropriate action on the first amended conservation easement and fencing agreement with 69 grand view lp in northwest Travis County in connection with the balcones canyonlands conservation plan.
>> hello, judge and Commissioners.
ly be very brief.
rose farmer, I’m the project manager of natural resources for the county.
we brought this item to you today.
we are requesting that you approve an amendment to a conservation easement that was agreed to back in about 2001 between Travis County and a developer.
and at this point some things have changed that that property has been sold to another developer which we are needing to put in a fence to protect the preserve.
the original conservation easement agreement did not allow us to put a fence in this location and so this agreement we're coming back to you all you is to allow us to build a fence that will protect the preserve and will also clearly mark where a trail will go that was originally allowed in the original permit.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> there are funds available for that.
>> I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
shows Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
>> thank you vich.
very much.
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, December 14, 2010 2:33 PM
