Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 39
>> 39 is consider and take appropriate action on request to enter into negotiations with the conference of urban counties and tyler technologies for purchase of the odyssey case management system as software as a service for the justice of the peace courts.
>> junk, I think mr. Gray is here to get us into the discussion and why we need to reach this decision.
>> okay.
>> actually, the jp's are back here today with a status report to you on our new case management system that we're proposing for Travis County.
if you remember, we were here in December of last year where you approved an addendum to the tech share program with the cuc for us to proceed with the development of an implementation plan by tyler technologies who is their vendor.
in April the scope of work was approved.
the vendor has met with the jp's, with its over the last few months and have developed the implementation plan that each of you have received.
they have presented us with two options.
the first is a tr dition national license program where the county would purchase a license and maintain the system on its own computers.
the second option is called software as a service in the proposal.
in that proposal Travis County would actually be renting the software.
it would be maintained by the vendor on their hardware.
it is going to be our recommendation today that we pursue the software as a service option, and that's what we've come to you for today is to see if we could enter into negotiations on that particular option.
staff felt from the legal side if they flshed out both options that would be twice the amount of work, so we were hoping today to ask you to agree with us, with the staff recommendation, with the recommendations of the justices of the peace that we go with the software as a service option.
the implementation for either one is 15 months.
the initial five-year projected cost, which you have received, is virtually the same.
however, the short-term cost is actually less expensive for the software as a service because, of course, we don't have to purchase the hardware.
the money has been reserved for this fiscal year, my understanding sh in the budget, 1.2 million for this fiscal year.
the implementation would cross into next fiscal year as well and again we would be billed for the hours from the veppedder as they are accrued.
so the total project costs I believe we've provided to you a breakdown, just the bottom line numbers comparing the two options.
charles gray, who has been working with us for about a year now, as we had explored this option, which is in use in many of the cuc counties, and will align us, we believe, when the county is going forward with the acms model, which the court approved just a few weeks ago.
so charles is here to give you more background on that project.
>> thank you, judge.
I just want to mention I was here a few weeks ago, your honor, and commission, to talk about the acms project.
one of the things we wanted to do is we wanted to make sure that these two efforts were in sync and they are in sync because both tarrant and dallas counties, two of your acms partners, are already using the tyler technology project as well.
in the future these projects will come together.
about the time that the judge comes back to you to recommend the contract if this negotiation is successful.
I'm happy to answer any questions about the project '.
>> can you tell me basically how much reductions as far as work load and stuff has been done from the model up in dallas?
>> I can tell you that the jp's that have implemented the system in several counties up there have seen a significant work load reduction.
I can't give you a specific quote, but I would estimate 16%.
>> but you would have those numbers sometime made available.
we're going to use something, but I think that somebody that's already using it, we ought to see what the performance of that is.
>> judge, I can tell you right now that we have these wonderful electronic ticket machines and they swipe your ticket in them and they have this wonderful electronic data, which we then have to print a hard copy of and manually enter that into our system.
so with the new technology that data once it gets swiped just automatically gets downloaded and poof, it appears into our initial screen.
and we've already reduced the time it takes to.
a, copy the data, and two, reenter it.
so there's many processes in the new system that will result in us being a lot more efficient than we are right now.
and that's why we're looking forward to moving forward with this.
and again, if we can get the contract noalgted negotiated by the end of the year, they have promised us a start date in January.
>> but what I'm asking is that specific question, I would like to see that as far as what the other folks are doing.
>> we can bring back those work load statistics for the other counties prior to contract award.
>> thank you.
I would love to see it.
thank you.
>> I would like to add that I've been in meetings with the judge on the odyssey programs from the very beginning.
I have attended at least one presentation with a couple of members of my staff and I've been just waiting for this to happen.
so I hope we don't become like homer, that odyssey is not really --
>> [ laughter ] we really do need this.
I have used this type of technology in previous places about eight years ago.
so we really do need this.
so I'm just waiting for the moment.
>> thank you.
>> judge evanss, any additional comments?
>> I would like to thank judge steek for her long hours and hard work.
>> absolutely.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Acevedo?
>> we're just here to support judge steek in this endeavor and to reiterate that it is in line with the total strategy for the county.
>> ms. Montgomery, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> with purchasing still.
>> with its.
I'm the project manager that was on this project.
>> you look like a purchasing person to me.
>> [ laughter ]
>> I move that we take the appropriate action of dealing with the cuc to proceeding with the -- what is it, the software as a service?
and then it will be brought back to us.
>> I second that.
and of course, yesterday when I saw this on the agenda, I did notify judge williams' office because I wanted to make sure that our jp, the jp in precinct one, is familiar with what's going on.
and of course, I did receive some feedback that you were familiar with it.
and stuff like that.
so I wanted to make sure that we stay in the loop as far as keeping you notified the best I can as far as what's going on.
>> thank you, sir.
>> all right.
>> motion to authorize the negotiation of an appropriate contract?
>> yes.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank y'all very much.
move that we recess until sk 45.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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.
