HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitizen's Budget Committee 3-20-15Meeting Date: March 20, 2015
Conference Room 3
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Knaggs, Chair
Ed Lounds
Patrick Campion
Jay L. McBee
Steven Weaver
Carl Hensley
Gwen Morris
Richard Pancoast
John Culverhouse
Craig Mundt
James Clasby
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jane Bachelor
Stephanie Morgan
William Donovan
Dan Kurek, Vice Chair
OTHERS PRESENT
CALL TO ORDER
Robert Bentkofsky
Chris Lestrange
Beth Ryder
Asheley Hepburn
Ed Matthews
Don Pauley
Mr. Knaggs called the meeting to order at 7:31 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke at the meeting.
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 20, 2015 MINUTES
Jennifer Hill
Don West
Laurie Waldie
Michael Quinn
Mark Satterlee
After a motion by Mr. Pancoast and a second by Mr. Clasby, the minutes were
unanimously approved.
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING — PROJECT WORK PLAN & APPROXIMATE
TIME LINE
Mr. Knaggs asked if Mr. Bentkofsky he would be at the next meeting. Mr. Knaggs thanked
Citizens' Budget Committee
March 20, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Bentkofsky for his efforts for the Committee. Mr. Bentkofsky expressed his
appreciation to the Committee for their time.
Mr. Bentkofsky introduced Mr. Hepburn. Mr. Hepburn outlined the topics planned for the
meeting.
Starting with a definition of ERP, Mr. Bentkofsky gave history and the future plan of the
process. The Executive Summary, attached, was sent to the members.
There was discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the Banner system.
REVIEW OF CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS & RELATED ISSUES
® Stormwater MSTU Fund
Mr. Hepburn presented the attached PowerPoint. Mr. Knaggs started discussion about
the definition of underspent and multi -year projects. Mr. Lounds commented on cost. Mr.
Knaggs asked about needs and five-year plan. Mr. West informed the Committee of the
State mandate and credit. Mr. Mundt asked about baseline and other counties. Ms.
Morris asked about the sewage treatment plant and Indian River Lagoon. Mr. Weaver
inquired about benefits of South Water Florida Management and measurements. Mr.
Knaggs asked about other Counties and recommendations.
• Parks MSTU Fund
Mr. Lounds asked for an explanation of Capital Improvements, Fairgrounds and the
contract with the Fair Association. Mr. Knaggs started discussion about the date of the
Constitutional Officers' budget submittals. Mr. Lounds inquired about any of the
enterprises being able to support themselves. Mr. Lounds started discussion on the
Stadium. Mr. Knaggs asked about the golf course repaying a loan from the County. Mr.
Mundt asked about the debt and bond repayment of the stadium. Mr. Knaggs inquired
about sharing revenues and expenses with the Cities. Mr. Matthews added background
information on the questions asked and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr.
Knaggs started discussion on the total dollars and millage recommendation. Mr. Hensley
asked for clarification about timing. Mr. Knaggs reviewed the expectations.
• Transportation Trust (Gas Tax) Funds
Mr. Knaggs asked about the plan for the fuel tax that expires August 2015 and if it is at
the max. Mr. Lounds asked about fuel efficiency affecting the revenue, natural gas and
propane. Mr. Hensley asked for history. Mr. Knaggs clarified that the 5th cent is shared
with the City and what is shown is the County's share. Mr. West gave an update on
current projects. Mr. Pauley answered Mr. Lounds' question on savings from a dirt road
being chip sealed. Mr. Knaggs started discussion on multi -year projects and an estimate
of need. Mr. West explained the process. Mr. Mundt started discussion on grants and
Citizens' Budget Committee
March 20, 2015
Page 3
the stability of the list. Mr. Clasby asked about the Jenkins Road project.
OVERVIEW OF LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX
Mr. Knaggs confirmed the numbers were per year, how the revenue could be spent and
asked about a recommendation.
Ms. Morris asked about the current bed tax and what percent would have to approve a
vote. Mr. Clasby asked if an increase has to have a specific use assigned to it. Ms. Hill
clarified the process. Mr. Knaggs reviewed the numbers. Ms. Morris started discussion
on other Counties' taxes.
INFORMAL BOCC MEETING UPDATE
Mr. Knaggs reported on the last two meetings which were not budget related.
OTHER ISSUES
No other issues were brought up.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Knaggs adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Brenda Marlin
The next CBC meeting will be held on Friday, April 17, 2015, at 7:30 a.m., in Conference
Room 3, at the St. Lucie County Roger Poitras Administration Annex.
M <
CC5
r
U rl
IN
0
W
m
E
ca
E
E
E
7u-
C 0
0
a)
0
W) j
-n
i Lo
Lf) 1 Lo
41) 10 ;Lo I
LO LO Jo
Lo
0 LL
a-
C-1 za
10
Lo i�
Lc)
iB
0
i
11
0
LL m
0
LL -
Cc iu_
,LLlL
LL
U- i22 M
-v-4
�i
..... ............ .
. .... - ...........
10
Lo
to 46
Ad* o
0
A
izz
Z-0
Lo
53
lo
'o !o
r-
0 10
c
0 D
a
'a
0 10
0
- -- --------
d)
U)
a)
IL
1
O
E
Im
CL
.2 1
ID
(D
U)
i'o
0
0
E
LL
.1p =
CL
0
0
IJ
i2
1-
o
i'r-
10)
-2 E
m �.2
-
m
0
z M
!.2
0
-
(n
aEi
i :3
a)
=
iLL
CL
13
CL
ic) 10
.0
FL
0 '0
COL
0
1.
. 2
. FSO !9
.a!-
a) 0
98L
2
c
to,
: (� E
111) io
CL
it i
ag i
0
M
Co
2 � =
0
: a)
-6
�5
:3 fo
-5c
� 0
75 a)
=
CL ;
C)
1-0
0
U) 0
10
1.2
0
12 i lay)
E
i,. r2- IIL
aw) a.)
-6 fo
o
o (D
C) CL
LLJ
it
it i.&
ao)
15 .6,
-0 1 w
$!
i . 5 w
= tx
a)
la. >
> o
j�a
= iu)
CL
;o CL
: m la.
!a.
W.2
LL,
! w
Lu
w
W
aEi
T
taL
0
0
i CL Us
0
cl
CL
a
Z
:-6
CL)
4 M �b
0 4f
z
m
a Lu
IM
C14 cv)
I- t0
I- I-
I-
C'j
m
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary................................................................................. 2
1.1
Project Scope.................................................................................................................................2
1.2
Project Approach............................................................................................................................
3
1.3
Summary of Observations..............................................................................................................4
2
System Assessment................................................................................. 7
2.1
Identification of key strategic options..............................................................................................
7
2.2
SWOT Analysis...............................................................................................................................9
3
Cost Analysis.......................................................................................... 10
3.1
Overview.......................................................................................................................................10
3.2
ERP Replacement Project Costs..................................................................................................11
4
Recommended Next Steps
4.1
Recommended Strategic Approach..............................................................................................12
1 Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
f. Executive Summary
The County of St. Lucie, FL implemented Banner approximately 20 years ago as the County's primary
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system that provides support for Financial Management and
HR/Payroll business processes. The County recognizes that its existing ERP system is deficient in
supporting certain business needs as many of the constitutional officers have slowly moved away from
system. Currently, only the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Clerk of the Circuit Court
operate on the Banner system as their primary software solution for supporting the various financial
business processes of their departments. The remaining departments have been voicing their concerns
with the lack of functionality in the Banner system as well as the vendor's primary focus in being
committed to the higher education sector. As a result, the County engaged Plante Moran to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of current back office systems and business processes to determine the
feasibility and practicality of replacing Banner with a new ERP solution.
1.1 PROJECT SCOPE
The intent of this project was to perform an assessment of the BOCC and Clerk's current financial, utility
billing, and personnel systems and business environment and identify key strategic options and
recommendations. Discussions with the Sheriff, Property Appraiser, Supervisor of Elections, and Tax
Collector were also in scope to identify needs for integration to a central County ERP system. In addition
to looking at Banner's functionality, the project included an assessment of all shadow systems used by
the BOCC and the Clerk to perform the financial, utility billing, and personnel processes. Specifically, the
project scope for phase 1 of the project included the following major tasks to develop this ERP Needs
Assessment report:
• Conducting project management tasks
• Reviewing documentation
• Conducting interviews
• Assessing the County's technical environment
The following functional areas were included within the scope of the project:
• Accounts Payable • Human Resources
• Bank Reconciliation • Misc. Billing and Accounts Receivable
• Budgeting • Payroll
• Cash Receipting • Projects & Grant Accounting
• Contract Management • Purchasing
• Fixed/Capital Assets • Utility Billing
• General Ledger
2 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
1.2 PROJECT APPROACH
The following chart illustrates the approach that was taken in performing the ERP Needs Assessment:
1. Initiation
-Define Project
Organizational Structure
• Develop Project Charter
• Develop Project Plan
-Establish Project
Collaboration Center
2. Needs
Assessment
• Review County
Documentation
• Conduct Interviews
• Conduct Cross
Functional Sessions
• Assess Technology
Environment
3. Draft Report
-Compile Findings
• Prepare Draft Report
• Present Draft Findings
4. Finalize Report
• Review Draft ERP Needs
Assessment
•Update Draft Report
• Finalize Report
The process for implementing new technology not only focuses on the technology itself, but also aims to
enhance existing business processes performed by individual departments across the County.
Technology is intended to enhance departmental business processes by:
• Making them more efficient
• Making them more effective
• Improving decision -making
Providing enhanced customer service to both internal and external customers
•- Improving access to information
• Streamlining processes to reduce costs.
The overall goal of this needs assessment was to define a future course of action for the County's ERP
environment to include software and supported business processes. The project was conducted using a
participative and inclusive approach with significant input from County management and staff to ensure
accuracy, completeness, and ownership of the resulting recommendations. Participation was obtained
through the following activities:
• Developing a Project Charter, working with the County staff to identify needs, making decisions
about the project, and reviewing and providing feedback on project deliverables.
• Facilitating project management status meetings to manage project activities and provide status
updates.
• Conducting interviews with the County departmental end users and process owners to evaluate
current systems and business processes. Departmental management was encouraged to
participate and invite team members.
3 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
• Conducting cross functional sessions where staff from all departments was invited to discuss
issues, current processes and opportunities in the following areas: Projects & Grants, Budgeting
and Contract Management.
• Collection and review of numerous documents provided by the County as well as completed
questionnaires by the departments.
• Soliciting input from participating departments that included an evaluation of the following items:
o Identification of current systems
o Duplicate entry/re-keying of information
o Issues with/shortcoming of current systems
o Strengths of existing systems
o Unused features/functionality of current systems
o Opportunities to interface systems
o Unique County business rules
o Vendor interaction
o Current technology project initiatives / future technology projects
• Requesting and collecting data which was used to develop a return on investment analysis (ROI)
relative to recommendations presented herein.
• Development of the Needs Assessment Report.
1.3 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS
The approach Plante Moran followed in developing the Needs Assessment report focused on identifying
how the current technology applications support the County's business goals and denoting opportunities
for improving the effectiveness of business processes performed at the County in the future. While the
County has a significant number of shadow systems to address the financial, procurement, and human
resources functions across the organization (further detailed in the System Inventory section), the primary
systems in use to centrally manage these functions are as follows:
Table: Current Primary County Applications
4 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
1.3.1 Key Findings
Below are the key findings and opportunities:
Aging Financial System Recent advances in ERP systems, which the County's Banner system
Lacks Functionality Found in does not fully utilize (either because they are not available or were
Many Modern ERP Systems never implemented); include electronic workflow and self-service
functionality. These functions significantly enhance efficiencies, as they
enable end -users to complete and route transactions to the appropriate
decision makers leveraging the use of notifications and queues which
allows for greater organization and less redundancy.
Limited Access to - _... The
...0 .... __.... _ , ... .... ..,... ,,...... ., ..__,.... , ._..., ._.._ .
ounty's past policy of denying access to core financial and human
Information resources functions caused departments to create many Excel
spreadsheets that duplicate all transactions that are entered into the
Banner system in order to access necessary detailed information in
real-time. This causes significant delays, manual processes, and
reconciliations, to keep these shadow systems updated.
Lack of Training Some departments do have access to their financial data but do not
have the training on how to report or inquire on the information.
Therefore, they rely on Excel spreadsheets and Access Databases to
store duplicate information so that they can have real-time information
accessible to them.
Chart of Accounts (COA) The County currently manages grants and projects by assigning them a
Design new fund. When a grant or project is completed all of these accounts
must then be inactivated. This has made the COA very large and
cumbersome to manage. A redesign of the COA is needed and a
change in processes on how to manage this change is required to
improve reporting capabilities.
Manually Intensive Stand- Many of the shadow systems consist of individual Microsoft Excel
alone "Shadow Systems" and spreadsheets, Access databases, and paper files that require
Processes excessive time to use and maintain. Incorporating the information and
calculations from these shadow systems into an integrated ERP system
can reduce the effort required to maintain the information, make
information more accessible to others, eliminate redundancy and
manual reconciliation and reduce the risk of human error.
5Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
1.3.2 Key Opportunities
There were a number of consistent themes of unmet needs that were identified across each of the
functional areas. The unmet needs, which County management and staff expressed as opportunities for
improvement, are summarized as follows.
1. Full integration between all modules, allowing for the elimination of shadow systems.
2. Real-time, immediate update and access to additional financial and human resources
information.
3. Single entry of data and reduction in manual processes and shadow systems.
4. A consolidated modern system with user-friendly features (e.g., easy navigation, drop down
boxes, drill down functionality, validation of data upon entry, etc.) that offers on-line help
functions and customized system documentation.
5. User -driven, user-friendly, and flexible reporting tools that support the information needs of
staff and the County Commissioners including tracking and reporting of performance metrics.
6. Elimination of paper -based processes and replacement with automated, online workflows and
approvals.
7. Streamlined business processes incorporating established best business practices.
8. Self-service capabilities and other "e-government' opportunities such as employee and
vendor self-service and mobile workforce capability.
9. Improved reporting capabilities including dashboard capability.
Overall, the majority of the unmet needs that are listed above could be met by a public sector based ERP
system with a single, integrated database that allows integration with other existing applications.
6Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF KEY STRATEGIC OPTIONS
Based on the analysis of information provided by the County, there are three primary options in regard to
the strategic direction for a future enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems environment. The graphic
below illustrates these options and the table that follows provides more specific information relative to
each option.
1. Do Not
Change
Existing
Environment
Strategic
Options
` =
°
Evaluated
2. Further ��
�3. Replace
Deploy &
Current
Integrate
i Systems w/
Current y
'k Integrated
Systems „
ERP
Option 1:Do Not Change the With this option, the County would not elect to proceed with the
Current Application acquisition and implementation of a new ERP system and would
Environment instead retain the existing Banner system, standalone systems, MS
Office applications, and manual processes. It is possible that some of
the manual re -keying of data between systems could be avoided by
developing incremental new interfaces (as per Option 2); however, this
option would not seek to promote additional integration for the County.
In addition, training for all of the staff on the existing functions and
features of the system could eliminate a small amount of work and
frustration.
7 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
Option 2: Further Deploy and Through a structured process, the County has the potential to better
Integrate Current Systems access functionality within its existing Banner systems by purchasing
additional software and implementing some existing software, re -
engineering its account structure, as well as developing/revising custom
technical integrations between the various systems to link, associate, or
sending transaction data between the systems. In order to successfully
realize the benefits of the future integrations, the County would need to
simultaneously consider the impacts of each integration point and plan
for optimization of each of the systems affected by the integration. This
option would require a capital investment and necessitate additional
ongoing investment compared to costs required to maintain the existing
environment.
._--_--------
Option 3: Replace Current The County can purchase an integrated financial management,
Systems with an Integrated procurement and personnel software suite from an ERP software
ERP provider which would be intended to replace the existing Banner
applications as well numerous shadow systems and manual processes.
An ERP solution would not replace all the County applications. A
strategy would need to integrate or interface the purchased solution
with some existing County applications using advanced tools. The
system selection should be a competitive procurement with stakeholder
input to define requirements and measure vendors against them. It
would require a capital investment and necessitate ongoing sustained
investment through software maintenance and continued internal
technical support.
8 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
'i11911r_11,11TA [+W
The following is an analysis of the key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats based on the
County of St. Lucie's current systems environment, ERP system selection project status, and
implementation considerations/plans to date:
1. IT support and other County staff have
created significant workarounds to
address user reporting needs
2. County commitment to engaging
stakeholders in change process
3. County -wide desire to reduce paper -
based processes whenever possible
4. New County staff have experience using
newer ERP systems
5. Growing interest in participating in
selection of new technology
6. Pent up demand: Users crave system
changes to improve their work processes
7. IT staff gearing up for implementation
phase
1. Stronger standard system reports in a
new system supplemented by a report
writer
2. Transition to an information self-service
environment
3. Growing belief that process re -design will
be critical during implementation to take
advantage of new systems
4. Leverage lessons learned from other
County technology implementations
5. Grass roots project involvement
strengthens likelihood of implementation
success
6. Vendor solutions incorporate public
sector best practices
7. Large County -wide project is conducive
to phasing, prompting incremental
change and spreading resource
requirements
8. Improved integration with other County
systems
9. Shared database for reporting
10. Automated electronic workflows
91Page
1. Limited tools to develop reports for access to critical
information
2. Lack of integration between Banner components
3. Vendor has moved focus from Public Sector to Higher
Education
4. Limited knowledge of the Banner system frustrates users and
discourages use of current systems
5. Significant shadow systems exist to assist with departmental
tracking of data in multiple functional areas
6. Several staff expressed frustration due to limited access to
data.
7. Banner inquiry feature limitations and limited reports make
access to information challenging
8. Limited ongoing training available. As a result, new staff
members may not be receiving enough training to fully utilize
1. Managing staff expectations that future system may not
provide all requested features
2. Managing expectations that system functions will solve
problems - will require process redesign, procedure & policy
changes and changes to roles and responsibilities
3. Managing expectations re: balance of robust data tracking
capabilities vs. simple interface
4. Strong institutional/current system knowledge concentrated in
staff nearing retirement
5. General anxiety about change
6. Users entrenched in established systems and processes
since Banner was implemented
7. Need for ongoing system support staffing
8. Inherent complexity with data conversion and integration
9. If single vendor solution is not selected, County's integration
goals may be challenged
10. Managing change required when moving from paper -based
processes to electronic processes
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary
April, 2014
3.1 OVERVIEW
The following represents the cost benefit analysis for five scenarios. The five scenarios are summarized
below. If the County decides to go with Option 3 — New ERP, two choices for each option are provided.
The two choices for each option show a traditional and cloud solution. A traditional solution would have
the hardware onsite at the County (similar to the current Banner system) and the software license
purchase as part of the one-time cost. A cloud solution would not include hardware (this would be
housed and maintained by the vendor) or a software license purchase. Instead an annual fee (roughly
three times the cost of traditional software maintenance) is charged for the use and maintenance of the
software.
Option 1 - Status Quo
This represents costs for maintaining the status quo, including maintenance and support for
Banner and the additional systems that could be replaced with a new ERP system.
Option 2 - Invest in Banner
This represents estimated costs for purchasing additional functionality for Banner, including the
current (status -quo) costs plus an estimated $181,215 one-time cost for new functionality and
$20,490 in additional annual support costs. ACS quoted an annual cost increase of 10% which
has been included in this estimate.
Option 3 - New ERP
• Low Estimate (Lower -end Tier 2). This represents a lower cost scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with more conservative estimates of cost savings (based on the low
end of the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign and
implementation of a Tier 2 system with a lower degree of complexity, thus maintaining lower cost
and implementation effort. The multiplier used is .75 and costs are based on market data
obtained and analyzed by Plante Moran.
• Medium (High Tier 2) Estimate. This represents the most realistic scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with an expected estimate of cost savings (based on the mid -point of
the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign and
implementation of a Tier 2 system with a high degree of complexity, thus driving up cost and
implementation effort. The multiplier used is 1 and costs are based on market data obtained and
analyzed by Plante Moran.
• High Estimate (Tier 1.5 Scenario). This represents a higher cost scenario based on Plante
Moran's experience, along with more aggressive estimates of cost savings (based on the high
end of the expected cost savings range). This scenario would involve process redesign
implementation of a Tier 1.5 system with a higher degree of complexity, thus maintaining higher
cost and implementation effort. The multiplier used is 1.25 and costs are based on market data
obtained and analyzed by Plante Moran.
101Page
Q
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary
April, 2014
Recommended Next Steps
4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC APPROACH
While many incremental improvements could be made or added to the current fragmented applications
which would mitigate the investment required by changing systems, the primary challenge with
maintaining the status quo would be the inefficiencies, lack of recent advances in ERP systems (e.g.,
workflows), duplicate and triplicate entry with the excel spreadsheets and very little confidence in the
current software by the majority of the users. When Ellucian took over the Banner product in 2012, the
strategic focus is only on the education community. Staying with a vendor that is not focusing their
software development on the municipal sector would not be recommended.
Should the. County conclude to remain with the twenty year old Banner software and current shadow
systems, the complexities of the decision process could be delayed; however, it would be likely that the
County would conclude to change its ERP system in the future at a time which is more reactionary than
strategic and planned.
Remaining with the current environment does not appear feasible in the long term and inappropriate as a
future strategic direction in context of the County's strategic goals and concerns of the current financial,
procurement and personnel applications environment.
While current inefficiencies were difficult for the County staff to quantify, there is a common. belief
amongst.staff that the Banner system and processes are inefficient and there is a universal
acknowledgement that current information is not accessible or reportable, therefore, all departments have
created several shadow systems for tracking budget, financial transactions and calculations. The same
data is being entered intomultiple spreadsheets as well as in the Banner application. Given this inefficient
environment and negative attitude toward the Banner system, the County may be best served to move.
toward procuring a new ERP via a competitive bid process. Should the County move with this
recommendation, they should investigate both a vendor -hosted solution as well as an on premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
'D 75
Ilk
r
�cli Q
u n
CL
0
M m
@
E E
C O N
U
N
N � O N
7 7 L
Rf N M 'C 2 a
LL. LL In
I! €� t
tn Lc) ;� t� itn Iuf ;uf i� :b !� � :Ht� ;b :N
,
it° n :Lp
ice' t<
So !t0
MhN N
_
0N
C°
`LL O
'_ _O
LLL
,
C LL LL ?c fO I O
LL ELfLOL�
ILL-'LL"
,
i
` ` i. --........
`
in :L: •i i. Ei n n I m Ern Ia i
i st ;N <N...'M
�:.....
,M iC
_
E fILIA
,a,
1M
C i C ` O O E O 10 ; 7 ` 7 i O , C
m
C I CO ` C !, C
<:>
,
,___ .i
Z
i
ad
VOlt
' I `
N N N E Y
,j c
( I to
I j I
E > > > m R
tl
U
) i
` Q.
0. c
°
c
CL
I i
E
c c U
W
( I FN
N 1-61C)
I
-
fi :U
ic,
-
ILi
C IL SC j In -0
m
y N
Vi O) OO tC y 'C
'.O
N
'C
tC l�
@ N
Od p10
iN 1c '�-
'c '�
° E E
cco
pL 2 i aci j(n I••t_' C 08 iL' i Orn ° '•d ;
N 1 0 I N t
fN0 •G 7 •� N
rn !a"i c � i� 'm o 'c '� IU
i0 r, i�
F- cn t4 a.
.C-, !d c I m .a io j0 iN sU E :N O ;chi i� !� jN
ii� o
o m�
j€y
;cL
;as
d IIc <(a
CD I iN y � E !Uis
'i�rn
0'a-
ImCY)c N m
L
oo°
5 4)
N
«iv i
a
'GP1 O :Lai N I� p > ;0
W N EO iy I� N
`U IO y
N
U d
it
i iG1 I'O `O I> Io
`c ;� IN S �� O'N.N ip. I> Ia
I'O 'O icA
c
o !� 'C
LL(
p�j
i� i� W ;Q iQ W y `� `:W i� E:: Id
;y O
7 i ip '� !W 10 'C
¢ Iw
U IC
�i
`�N
N
o ; �, 'p IO j0 0 `a
Li 4CfZ4 'tN ;C ;v iN t.N `.° IT
N i7
!N -0 iN
y tau j
C i crS o N�
n
N
a a a
Fm
(�
•a fei
�
m �
—
rr,
—
N M - N (O t` 00 —
O
(V
N
m
N
fV
a
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
4.1 RECOMMENDED STRATEGIC APPROACH
While many incremental improvements could be made or added to the current fragmented applications
which would mitigate the investment required by changing systems, the primary challenge with
maintaining the status quo would be the inefficiencies, lack of recent advances in ERP systems (e.g.,
workflows), duplicate and triplicate entry with the excel spreadsheets and very little confidence in the
current software by the majority of the users. When Ellucian took over the Banner product in 2012, the
strategic focus is only on the education community. Staying with a vendor that is not focusing their
software development on the municipal sector would not be recommended.
Should the County conclude to remain with the twenty year old Banner software and current shadow
systems, the complexities of the decision process could be delayed; however, it would be likely that the
County would conclude to change its ERP system in the future at a time which is more reactionary than
strategic and planned.
Remaining with the current environment does not appear feasible in the long term and inappropriate as a
future strategic direction in context of the County's strategic goals and concerns of the current financial,
procurement and personnel applications environment.
While current inefficiencies were difficult for the County staff to quantify, there is a common belief
amongst staff that the Banner system and processes are inefficient and there is a universal
acknowledgement that current information is not accessible or reportable, therefore, all departments have
created several shadow systems for tracking budget, financial transactions and calculations. The same
data is being entered into multiple spreadsheets as well as in the Banner application. Given this inefficient
environment and negative attitude toward the Banner system, the County may be best served to move
toward procuring a new ERP via a competitive bid process. Should the County move with this
recommendation, they should investigate both a vendor -hosted solution as well asanon premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
at
0
o
U)
-L-4
C,
a_
5
U rl
m
0
(D
CD
mLL
E
E
0
0 3L
0
2
(DI
001
M
Co
t Mn
2
tm
2
;t�
'a
2
2
s
0 U-
a-
0
:La � LO Lo
L-0 L-0 N l2 l'q Lo LO U) LO
�LO
A
La
—Cq
Ln
io)
m
.0
-r 0
1c: ro
I.L
U-
0 0 1 LL
�:E i:E
AL
ILL
�F
M
LO 1 LO
U) LO
i U U-) Ln
I Ln
Lo Lo
F Fz
F
F
�10
aC',
cNq
j�
CO
Co
s i rl-
ra OC
ID (D
0
0
i-0 10 0
i 0
O
..........
.
ca
=3 U)
0Y
0
E
44
0
ca
U)
1?
4)
U1
>
:3
CL
_j
m
CL
w
s; S
2
wre,
v)
O
!V ic
.0
;E
a.
0
ss
j.2 1
j j
m
O
4)
N
1.4
a
(D
7�
co
LL
E
wo
c
Jq
a) .5
jM(D `�
CL
.0
0
im Z'
0
12
ro
d
C m
U
m
�a.
i(L E
E
E
E
a)
U.
I
Lat
0 Z
E a)
(u
U)
U)
aa)
LLI
In
U i'Z5
ll�
(D
U) 0
'Or-
(D
0 , 0.
o
� R 00-
o ca
i 'co 6
0)
i Mq
0
i-O
a) 0
0
� 0
CL
4) U)
.U) (D iL
0
tOM
0 M 14
1.a
2
16 1 E
i> i
CO 8 i j - M
it
� m
0
U)
75 a)
ca
(D 0
0
i
_0
0
0) 0
iro -0
'a
co 0
�2
LL
0
a) i 23
(D im
0
jo Im
1 0
io
a)
0
aO—
ul
.2� 10
12
t a.
1-0 1 w
C CL
1.2 la'
0 IL
1:1 t7
i U (1)
0
!u) CL > � C: '00-
i-a
i
;U)
i.00 i 0)
CL
ire i w ic i.2 AL
tEL
a.
0
o.
CL LU
LL, m
a) a)
c
a
a)
(D
0
>
N 4)
(1)
>
>
>
z
0
cl :w
(j)
a(A�C)
J IL
�a.
CL
m
cq
1--
a. a
4/10/2015
Enterprise
Capital Project•
Overview of LocalOption
Surtax
Citizens Budget Committee Meeting
March 20, 2015
Agenda
• Enterprise Resource Planning - Project Work Plan
• Review of Capital Project Funds & Related Items
• Stormwater MSTU
• Parks and Recreation MSTU
• Transportation Trust (Gas Tax)
5th Cent Gas Tax
• Overview of Local Option Sales Tax
1
4/10/2015
Capital Project
Funds
Stormwater MSTU Fund
• A dependent special taxing district that comprises
the unincorporated area only.
• Provides a financing mechanism to fund stormwater
maintenance operations and stormwater capital
improvements.
• Current millage rate is set at .3497 mills which
generates property tax revenue of $2.4. million.
• $1.3 million is dedicated to recurring maintenance
operations. Approximately $i.oi9 million is available
for capital improvements.
4
4/10/2015
Stormwater MSTU
Beginning Fund Balance @ io/oi/i3 $6)154)784
Plus:
FY 13-14 Operating Revenues $2,431,355
FY 13-14 Grant Revenues $212,327
Less:
FY 13-14 Operating Expenses $1,333,128
FY 13-14 Capital Expenses $2.050,g3q
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14 $5,415,299
3,000,000
215-o,000
2,000,000
11500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2014 Stormwater MSTU Capital Projects
Bud vs Actual$2.050 Million
2,681,oi3
Culverts
1,346
Neighborhood Improvements Small Projects
0 Bud. ❑Act.
3
4/10/2015
Stormwater MSTU Fund — Budget Projections
® The 5-year CIP identified priorities for both culvert
replacement and neighborhood infrastructure
improvements.
® In FY17 and FY18, significant budget shortfalls are
projected based on the proposed capital
improvements scheduled in those years.
® The projected budget includes increased property
tax revenues from shifting millage of .1234. mills back
to the Stormwater MSTU fund over a 2-year period
in FY17 and FY18.
Stormwater MSTU — Unmet Needs
• 5 Neighborhood Improvement Projects ($70 Million)
• Projects are divided by phases and each includes land
acquisition, design and permitting and construction
• Land acquisition represents the element with highest
priority. It is estimated land acquisition for all 5
projects will cost $2.3 Million
4
4/10/2015
Parks MSTU Fund - Overview
• Municipal Service Taxing Unit - A Countywide Ad
Valorem millage currently set at .2313 mills.
• MSTU millage can be levied up to .25 mill. Expires on
12/31/2023.
• Ad Valorem revenue is shared with SLC's 2 cities & St.
Lucie Village. Annual County share of revenue net of
fixed costs is approximately $552K.
• Sole purpose of MSTU funds is to provide "Recreation
Facilities' to all residents of St. Lucie County and to pay
debt service on outstanding or refunded bonds.
Parks & Recreation MSTU
Beginning Fund Balance @ io/oi/13 $3)745,467
Plus:
FY 13-14 Operating Revenues $3,451,941
FY 13-14 Reimbursement (Ft. Pierce) $282,618
Less:
FY 13-14 Operating Expenses $3,075,103
FY 13-14 Capital Expenses $2.266,94.o
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14 $2,137,983
5
4/10/2015
1,000,000
gogoo. .... ... .. ...
3A�358 z86,4i8
......_ .- ...
z6�,000
.........._. _......
...._
.__.. .-._.... ...... _..
z64 800
n
zu,om
86,219
®�1_._.
>gr,48o
N.,n._
o .,.®I I_..
_._..z6�3�5 _
..
_. ..._
.,
..
__._
Golf
Coastal
Special Fac.
Reg. Parks & Stadiums Tourism
■Bud.
❑Act.
Parks MSTU Fund — Budget Projections
The CIP has identified priorities FY 15 to FY 18:
• Golf Course ($587,000):
• Restroom Renovation - Clubhouse A/C
• Enclose Pavilion/Storage/Gazebo
• Parks & Special Fac. ($510,000):
• River Park Marina (ADA Improvements)
• Paradise Park (Playground)
• Pool Resurfacing/Equipment
• Regional Parks & Stadiums:
• Tradition Field - Stadium Improvements
• Concession Equipment, sound System, Batting Cages, Parking Lot
Resurfacing and Green Sports Lighting
10
4/10/2015
Transportation Trust Funds -Overview
• Local Option Fuel Tax:
• ist cent to 6th cent tax, expires Aug. 2015
• 9th cent supports operating and maintaining the County's
transportation system. Expires Aug. 2015:
• Acquisition
• Construction and Reconstruction
• Maintenance of Roadways
• Constitutional Gas Tax:
• 2 cent tax authorized by the Constitution and the State and
allocated to each county.
• Can be used for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance
of roads
• County Gas Tax:
• 1 cent tax authorized by the State and allocated to each County
• Can be used for transportation related expenses
5th Cent Gas Tax - Overview
Local Option Fuel Tax:
• 5th cent tax, its use is restricted to construction which
increases capacity. Expires Aug. 2015:
• New roads
• Reconstruction
• Resurfacing existing paved roads
4/10/2015
Transportation Trust Fund
Beginning Fund Balance @ to/oi/i3 $10,439,290
Plus:
FY 14 Operating Revenues 7,142,522
Less:
FY 14 Operating Expenses 7,814,728
FY 14 Capital Expenses/Transfers 1,666,899
Total Expenses 9,481,627
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14 $8,100,185
5t" Cent Gas Tax Fund
Beginning Fund Balance @ io/oi/i3
Plus:
FY 14 Revenues
Less:
FY 14 Capital Expenses
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14
$2,524,356
1,054,242
i,o36,761
$2y541,837
0
4/10/2015
2014 Transportation Trust Capital Projects Bud vs
Actual $1.667 Million
41500,000 _.._.
_...... .....,__ ._.._.. ..
_._ __.__._ ____...
....__.... .-__............
4,—,000 ._.__._
..... ... ........_.,_..
_,....3!93!.76Z.......... .....
.__._...... ...................._.
31500,000
.. .... ._...
.......
._. ... .,.....�.....
.... _... ._.... .._.._ ___...
3,000,000 ..__.,....._
......
.:_ _..._.....
._.._........... .............__....
z,000,000
_. -. ..._
.. __
_... _ ..
_.._. ... _. ... ._ _..
11500,000 _.
............. _... ._..__.....,.._...._._
......__.._.
_. .,___.__....._......
,iz6,7z7
r,000,000
..
..... . ._
79 ,950 .
p6,5zo
500,000
r32,693
_. 259,898 z49,966
ro5,552 56,26r 51,96r
Road & Bridge
Drainage
Equipment
Sidewalk Other Transfers
■Bud. ❑Act.
2014 5th Cent Gas Tax Capital Projects Bud vs Actual
$1.037 Million
1,600,000 ........... ._........_ ... _._._ ___. _.... ............ ...__.. r510;128 ..._.......... ._... ..... .. _......_. _. ......,
11400,000
_...,___. ... .._.__...... .. __--.._.
...____.__ .. ...._..,____ ......__..
1,000,000 ..._,
__..... .........._.. ..........._.
...,.............
819,801
800,000
._............ ......_........_...._......_.:.
.. .._. _......._... ._. .. .._...._.....,..
__ ..
600,000 .__...,.._...
_._.___._ ..,........_.
_..........._
400,806
400,000 _.
..,...__. ..._._.. ...............
......__........ _.......... .....__.._.
295,805
203,131
Gt,r78
60 68r
95,102
o
n
Stormwater/Drainage
Culverts Roads
Bridges
■Bud. ❑Act.
91
4/10/2015
Roadway Projects— Unmet Needs
ROADWAY WIDENING NEEDS (,$95.5 Millions
® (Priority i) West Midway Road (Selvitz Rd to Glades Cut-off Rd)
® (Priority 2) Kings Highway & Indrio Rd Intersection Expansion
® Jenkins Rd (Midway to Edwards Rd)
® Jenkins Rd (Edwards Rd to Orange Ave)
® Lennard Rd (Walton Rd to US Hwy i)
ROADWAY MAINTENANCE NEEDS (i.5 MillionnL&.
• (Priority 3) Pavement Resurfacing Program (ongoing)
Overview of Local
Option Sales Tax
M1
4/10/2015
Local Government Infrastructure Surtax
• Amount Levied:
• Each county may levy a discretionary sales surtax of 0.5% or 1%
• Referendum: Two Methods
• Enacted by a majority of County Commission and approved by the majority
of the voters by referendum.
• Municipalities representing a ma ority of the county's population may
initiate the surtax by adoption of resolutions calling for a countywide
referendum and approved by the majority of the voters by referendum.
• Length:
• Surtax Referendums enacted after July 1, 1993 do not have a limit on the
length of levy
• Distribution: Two Methods
• Local agreement to determine the distribution of the surtax
• Formula provided in Florida Statute 218.62 (based on the Local Government
Half -Cent Sales Tax formulas)
• 50.02% - County
49.98% - City
Authorized Uses of Proceeds
• To finance, plan, and construct infrastructure
• To acquire land for public recreation, conservation, or
protection of natural resources
• To provide loans, grants, or rebates to residential or
commercial property owners who make energy efficiency
improvements to their residential or commercial property,
if a local government ordinance authorizing such uses is
approved by referendum
Per Section 212.005(2) Florida Statutes
11
4/10/2015
Infrastructure Examples
Infrastructure related investment with a life expectancy of least 5
years. Examples are:
• Roadway Improvements
• Stormwater Drainage
• Equipment and Vehicles
• Building and Facility Improvements
• jails
• Parks/Special Facilities
• Other:
• Energy Efficiency Improvements
• Court Facilities
• 15% can be allocated to Economic Development
Estimated Proceeds
• $14,574,218 (based on the Local Government Half -Cent
Sales Tax formulas 50.2% to County)
Bonds
• May pledge the proceeds of the tax for the bonds
• Counties and municipalities may join together for the issuance
of bonds
County Comparison
• 18 Counties in the State of Florida levy the Infrastructure Surtax
• Neighboring counties that levy the Infrastructure Surtax and
effective date:
• Okeechobee (Oct 1. 1995)
• Indian River (Jun.1989)
12
4/10/2015
Capital
FundsOverview of
LocalOption
Citizens Budget Committee Meeting
March 20, 2015
13