Travis County Commissioners Court

July 17, 2012 - Item 8
Agenda

Number 8, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, master interlocal agreement for participation in the urban counties tech share program; and b, tech share prosecutor development project adenied addm to the master interlocal agreement.

>> Good morning, roger jeffries, public safety.

>> Joe harlow, county executive forever i.t.

>> Charles great, program manager Texas conference of urban counties.

>> If you recall back in August of last year, you all approved an interlocal so we can begin planning a replacement for the prosecutor information management system and our facts system.
That process has gone on the last year.
I think the last one was in April where we promise to do come back to you all and give you a dollar figure for the development costs for the prosecutor module.
Our partners with the prosecutor module currently are, and this has increased in the last month or so, the original ones were travis, tarrant, dallas and cameron.
And to that we've added midlands and one other one.

>> Right now mclennan is considering.

>> There's the development of the process or the process for the prosecutor information management system which we're going to give you an update today.
There's also a process to select a vendor for the courts system, replacement for facts.
I think where you all are now is you are negotiating with the final vendors and we'll be coming to you with that recommendation probably in August sometime.
Is that correct?

>> Yes.

>> Another significant milestone in this, and I have to take responsibility for this, we prepared backup for the addendum for the prosecutor module this week.
It came to my attention we have not signed the master interlocal.
We have one that was in place, put in place in 2004, but what cuc has asked us to do is sign a new one that's got some updated information.
So in your agenda backup you have the new master as well as the addendum.
We're not going to ask you to take action today.
We're going to discuss this with you and brief out the contents and then come back at a later time.
I think some other folks want to put their eyes on the master and interlocal and I think there's out standing questions on the prosecution interlocal.
The difference in the master, the two significant differences from the one that's in place that you all signed in 2004 is, one, the oversight structure is going to be different.
Instead of multiple oversight boards there's going to be one oversight board by functional area.
And that's significant because what that will do is the oversight board that I currently represent you on will take on projects, I think the jp projects and there is the potential for the county to participate in tech shares juvenile justice system.
So that oversight committee would then oversee or perform their duties on all four of the projects that we are participating in or potentially participating in under tech share.
And that might affect who you want to represent you all going forward.
Just something to consider right now.
I'm representing you on the projects sponsors for the ijs, I'm representing Travis County to oversight board as a voting member.
Just something to think about.
And then the second major difference, and I'm going to actually ask charles to describe this a little bit, it talks about the ownership rights of the intellectual property that we're entering into.
I think the way the master reads is that c.u.c.
Retains ownership and we as participating members and funding members have access rights to that intellectual process and can utilize it as with need to.
But do you want to add anything to that?

>> I would only say if you participate in the actual development or acquisition of intellectual property under the tech share program, then you retain the right to that property at any time if you decide to withdraw from the program, you retain the right to take a copy of that intellectual property and use it for your own internal use.
If you come in later, after the asset is already developed, then you have to participate for a set period of time before you have that right.
We call the first case a funding county.
So in this case if you decide to participate in the development of the prosecutor module, you will be a funding county so you are immediately granted that right to intellectual property at any time.
The c.u.c.
Holds that intellectual property kind of as a custodian, you maintain it unless you exercise your right to withdraw and take a copy of it with you.
That's the main difference is how we're managing the intellectual property going forward in the program.
We are developing more assets, the juvenile, for example, and now the prosecutor system, so we wanted to update exactly thousand that intellectual property is managed going forward.

>> So Commissioner Davis, I know you had asked how much we have spent on this process today and to date we've spent or budgeted, put in the budget $183,000 for the two processes, the court and the prosecutor.
What we're going to be asking you, not today, but what we will be asking you probably in a couple weeks is to approve $1,695,000 to go forward with the development of the prosecutor project.
And that is out of a total development budget of $5.647 million.
And so the -- our allocation of that is based on population.
Our other partners will be sharing in those development costs and, again, this maintains a little bit, it sound like if another partner or two comes on before we ask you all to take action.

>> It would only change by being less.
If mclennan county joins the process, your share would be reduced because the size of the population would be greater.

>> Miss peterson, are you here to talk with us about money?

>> Just briefly for clarification.
That $1 million is over two fiscal years so we would not be -- we would -- there would be a budget amendment for this year for about $59,000.
For f.y.
13 we are setting up another integrated justice system reserve.
The prosecutor module portion would be about 710,000.
Then the remainder would probably be in f.y.
14.
But it would also include money for the court's module and the document management system as well.

>> We believe that six additional county staff will be need understand.
Needed?

>> Yes, and we had two approved midyear and then there will be a business position for the district attorney, the district clerk, i.t.s.
And a project manager for i.t.s.
As well.

>> That cost is in addition to the figure you just gave us?

>> Yes.

>> When will this come back?
Excuse me.
Were you threw?
When this comes back to court, one of the things I would like to see for the benefit of the public because I know what it really brings to the county, but first of all you mention being a custodian of this software.
And could you benefit on the -- I mean comment on the inter operability between jurisdictions and why this is such a good benefit to our county in participating?

>> Yes.
Commissioner, first off, if we look at what tarrant county has spent so far on their prosecutor system, and they have a working system now that we're using as a model for this system and as a starting point.
They've spent $7.75 million developing that product.
So that's an example of what a county might spend on their own if they were going into a development effort on a major justice system like that.
What you are going to spend is just a fraction of the cost because you are sharing that cost with others.
So you are going to get a very high quality system for a fraction of the cost, sharing the cost with five other counties.
That's really the primary benefit.
Then secondarily, the counties will be operating on a common system, a common framework so it makes it easier for them to share information.
Our forward thinking vision on tech share is the counties will be able to share information across jurisdictions themselves without relying on the state data repositories for criminal justice.
That's proven to be true in the juvenile system where we have 14 systems using the information and they are sharing information and finding tremendous benefits for that.
Part of our vision for tech share is really one to save costs and two to share information across jurisdictions.
I hope that's responsive to your question.

>> Little and I would like to see that laid out in the backup.
Also I think there's an element that ought to be addressed and that's how the software program particularly when it's utilized by others that we communicate with our law enforcement and judicial systems and whatever, communicate with -- across the state, that if there's a way to demonstrate the personnel savings in the future and how this will change the ability to have this technology that's shared is a time savings to those who will be using it.
Because I believe that it is.
I mean, I hear -- have heard that people have to actually go literally pick up paper documents in other cities on a particular individual that's in the system and things like.
That if there's a way to demonstrate that, I think that would be very useful for us.

>> We'll put that together for you.

>> I would like to comment on one thing.
There's a third piece that I think is critical and that is that the ownership of the software.
If you look at where we are today with our vendors that we've made some selections 10, 12 years ago and some of these applications are sunset and they are not going to support them anymore at some point.
So if we -- if the counties own the software, then that kind of problem goes away.
And so that's a major benefit, in my mind, is that, you know, you have to keep throwing millions of dollars at something to redo it again when the vendor backs away from you.

>> Commissioner Eckhardt.

>> There is another benefit that I wanted to dove-tail on.
Aside from a huge savings in cost, inter operability between the major metropolitan counties in the state which is a huge benefit, there also is the issue of an ongoing trend of unfunded mandates from the state with regard to data collection in the area of criminal justice.
By banding together and developing a interoperable system, we are much stronger as a -- as an interest group going to the legislature or to the Texas supreme court or to the court of criminal appeals and saying, since y'all aren't paying for it anymore anyway, let us handle it and rather than legislating the minutia of forcing us to spend millions of dollars to retool, let's improve our state, local relationships to squeeze optimal statistical benefit out of a interoperable system.
It will show huge dividends in our ability to see what is actually working and what we may have thought worked or felt good, but isn't actually moving the dial on criminal justice.
Both in the juvenile setting and in the adult setting.

>> If I can offer a comment, Commissioner, the two examples to prove that point, first is on the juvenile system, we were able to get the department of public safety and the Texas juvenile probation commission at that time to agree to a common set of data elements for reporting purposes.
And before the counties had to report one set of statistics to one agency, another set to another agency.
And so we brought those agencies together through our collaboration and helped to clarify that.

>> It's really improved the relationship between state and local and also has the added dividend of us big counties are contributing as -- what's the category?
The developing --

>> The funding counties.

>> The funding counties.
It's a platform that smaller counties could purchase into as they mature and start to run head long into some of the same issues that we have run into.

>> What's our goal in terms of the number of counties that we would like to see?

>> Well, I think, your honor, that we would like to see five or six counties participating in the development.
Because once you get beyond that, it becomes difficult to coordinate everyone's interests.
And then we want to offer the software to counties to share like we are with the juvenile system.
In that system, three counties funded the development, but we have nine counties who are going to be joining that collaboration next year.
What that means is those original three counties will get some of their investment back.
We don't call it investment, but they will get some of their money back as those counties contribute their share of the cost of development even though the system is already finished.
The way tech share works, if you fund development and another county comes in later, they pay their portion for the development costs based on population and that money goes back to the counties who paid for the software.
For example, on our current contract with tyler for the system, we refunded over a million dollars back to the counties as we've achieved certain milestones in that program.
So you can get some of your money back.

>> So who makes the call on whether a new county will be added?

>> The -- the -- the call on whether a new county will be added will be made by that oversight board that roger mentioned.
It won't be made by the c.u.c.
Board but by department I was on that board.
Right now that's roger and as he mentioned because we're expanding the jurisdiction of that board you may want to consider appointing one of your own members to that board or some other official who has a broader jurisdiction over juvenile as well as j.p.
Issues.

>> Just two more and I'll be done.
Katie, do you recall how much is in the i.j.s.
Reserve?

>> For this year?

>> Yes.

>> For this year -- I should have it.

>> Can you estimate it?

>> About 4 million dpols.
Dollars.

>> I think there was some expected costs for the courts module that didn't appear this year.

>> Remember to remind us of that when we go through budget process.

>> We've looked at this one quite a bit for this year.
For next year, for 13.

>> If we look just at Travis County, not the other counties, but there are multiple county departments that need to sign on in order for us to achieve maximum effectiveness and efficiency with this system.
Right?
And I'm looking at the list on page 1 of the backup.
So my question really is whether we do have some indication from these departments regarding their participation in the future.
Looks like the d.a.'s office, the county attorney, district attorney, county clerk, i.t.s., sheriff's office, purchasing office, probably some others that are smaller.

>> Judge, we've been utilizing the i.j.f.
Steering committee to bring everybody on board.
I think the vote to go forward on this was unanimous with one abstention from the county clerk's office.
So that's -- that's the body that we've been using to move forward.

>> Well, the intention is when these come up the others go down, right?
I mean, we're not operating more than one system at Travis County.

>> That's the plan.

>> So the county clerk --

>> And the Commissioners court will make the call on that.

>> Yes.

>> Because, I mean, in the end we will spend a significant amount of money to participate, including additional county staff.
And looks like the county staff will come from various county departments, and those departments really need to be on board.
So what I'm hearing is that except for the county clerk, the other impacted Travis County departments are signed on so an email from the county judge asking for affirmation of that will be favorably responded to.

>> I believe so.
Looking back on the our chair, vicky skinner, anything you want to add to that?
Okay.

>> Now, ms. Skinner is kind of quiet today, but she's 100% behind this, right?
Commissioner Davis.

>> Thank you, judge.
Several questions.
In fact, I was the one that we looked at the backup we didn't have a figure on how much we had spent thus far in this project.
And, of course, you related and said it was 183,000 and that was my staff reported to me and told me that was the amount and so I'm glad that you reported that to us because it was not a part of the backup.
My concern is is if we look at this and as it evolves, there's probably maybe possibility especially when you add in staff and all these other kind of things to a particular project such as this, what will it ultimate impact be as far as our budget is concerned?
Overall.
In other words, will there be -- even though I looked and we saw the many benefits of this project, which I'm really not -- not really complaining about anything like that, but I'm just trying to be as realistic as I possibly can be.
And that is the overall impact.
Are we really getting the bang for the buck.
Maybe if you do it independently as an example you gave earlier, somebody -- cost more than $7 million, but if you do it in a share situation of course you bring the price down.
But even so, there is still an impact to -- to our budget, and if you are talking about ftes, that's an impact.
And if you look and measure this thing, how do we determine the benefit all across the board.
In other words, I want to explain to the taxpayers out there that this is what we're doing and this is the benefit we're getting on the investment that we're initiating today -- we're not going to take action today, but whenever this comes back, then I'll have to explain to them exactly what that is.
And it kind of hit and miss in the backup because I looked at it very carefully.
Now, my question is this, and you mention code, if anybody wants to opt out, they could actually look at opting out and, of course, they will own that portion of software.
But when you are dealing with software, there's code in software.
All this code has to be looked at.
You become ownership of that code.
However, looking at that, the maintenance of that and the operation of that, what would it cost the individual if they were to opt out and say I don't like this deal, I think we may do better on our own, but to maintain this particular operation, do the maintenance of it, who is going to maintain it across the board?
Are independent participants can going to maintain it or will there be across the board maintenance where the persons that are participating in this, whoever it may be, Travis County, tarrant, midland, all those folks, whoever participated in it, who is going to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of software?
Because code in all of these things, it's no guarantee that it's not invincible.
I mean, something can go wrong with it.
I didn't see any of that stuff in the backup.
So someone will have to help me as far as flushing out out the nitty-gritty of these things that haven't been revolved thoroughly enough in the backup.

>> We can add this, and I think you should know that the -- what we're proposing today is a million six.
959 is just for development.
And I think these are pretty rough estimates, but an implementation cost of $583,000.
Then ongoing annual maintenance of 194,000.
And if I'm not mistaken, the c.u.c.s tech share program will be maintaining the code at all time.

>> So the c.u.c., if I'm hearing you right, will end up having affiliations in all these other counties that we have touched base with or have the relationship at this point.
Is that correct?
Or am I misunderstanding?

>> That's correct.
Because as you so wisely say, Commissioner, the long-term cost is in the maintenance and operation.

>> It really is.

>> We want the counties to benefit from sharing that as well.
That's why we talk about one code base that everyone shares, it's maintained through the urban counties for your benefit only.
As a nonprofit association.
We're not a vendor trying to make a profit off that.
It's a nonprofit organization maintaining the software for your benefit.
We want to keep it what they call ever green, it's always current, so there's not a big investment in the future to keep it current so we keep it every year going forward.

>> Now, this happens to be between 2012 through 2014 as far as what we're looking at now.
And, of course, I would like to see the projected ongoing costs for that as far -- I know we have a reserve for right now, but if we use reserve, it's going to be used for certain things.
And -- but eventually you bite into the reserve and, of course, you are going have to replace the reserve or you are going to have to do something else to get the money that you need.
As we go through this process, appears to me there ought to be a step by step process of what we're going to end up spending according to the necessary needs for this particular project.
I think it's a great idea.
It's not that.
I think it's something we can look at.
We've already got part of the way but now we have to have the prosecutor portion at the d.a.
But all these different players and parts and I say the guts and bolts and enough of an issue, my concern software is software is software, but the maintenance and operation of the software is so key.
It's not worth a plug nickel if it's not working right.
That's where I'm coming from.

>> So the c.u.c.
Maintain the judicial system -- the juvenile system.

>> It started in March of 2011.
We have 14 counties on the system and three more are going on on July 28.
Eventually we hope every county in the state will be a part of it.

>> So what you are asking today is that we be informed and I guess next week we bring the master plan back plus the addendum?

>> Yes, sir, if we can get all the questions answered.

>> Plus I saw emails that raised additional questions.
Are you all trying to communicate, to work through those issues?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay.

>> We'll try to have it back on next week.
If not, I think we have a little bit of time for the c.u.c.
--

>> There's not a specific deadline according to the c.u.c.
The project will start as soon as dallas and tarrant, they've agreed to fund the project regardless of any other county.
As soon as they approve it they can start and the county can join at any time.
You can take all the time you need to make a decision.

>> What about the other counties?
That was just dallas and tarrant but have you others.

>> They can join at any time.
So far cameron and dallas are officially approved.
Travis will be considering this on the 24th, I believe.
Tarrant, I'm sorry, tarrant, a week from today.
And midland in August.
So I mean, they can join -- we don't expect the project to really start until September.

>> All right.

>> > so if we have questions we did not think of and ask do we just send an email to you?

>> Send it to me and I can get it out.

>> We will not have a full compliment of court members next week.
And so if -- if a member wishes for us to delay action until he or she gets back, just let us know and we can do that.
But if it's a no brainer, we may as well go ahead and act on it.

>> I feel very positive about this interlocal.
I think it's cost savings, efficiency, it's really progressive county governance.

>> I agree and I'm one that won't be here next week.

>> I won't either.

>> I'm in favor of this.

>> Okay.
Got two votes.

>> [laughter]

>> You know Commissioner Davis

>> [inaudible].

>> Send me those answers.

>> I'll be glad to.

>> Otherwise I think we're supportive and we've been mulling over this for several months now anyway.
So it's not new, but still there are questions that we ought to try to address before we act on it.
So we'll have the same wording next week unless somebody tells me otherwise.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you all very much.
Good to see you again.

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.

July 3, 2012: Travis County Launches New Video Playback System

Our new streaming video system uses a single video clip for each session and items are linked to specific locations on that clip. Some browsers and mobile devices do not recognize the location information and display the entire clip. If this happens the "start time" will help you find your item's video within the larger clip.

If you encounter playback issues check out our video playback help page. If you still encounter problems let us know.

On July 3rd, 2012, Travis County began leveraging free resources by posting Commissioners Court meetings on Youtube. Previously every video clip was edited separately and hosted on the county's video server. The old system also required RealPlayer to view the video clips.

The new systems save time and resources -- and that saves taxpayer dollars!