Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998 ... .. [þ / / FFICE OF MANAGEME~T & BUD~~~ MEMORANDuM#98-156 ~ J~ \ TO: CITIZE~S BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMB~ FROM: /:.HARVEyLINCObN;MAm:GrMENT -&BUDGET MÀ SUBJE~ INITIAL MEETING FOR mE FY 99 BUDGET YEAR DA TE:DE£-EMBE~~_ªL~22_~____~__._~___._________--·/- We have scheduled the initial FY 99 meeting of the Citizens Budget Committee for Wednesday, January 20, 1999, from 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. in the Community Development Department conference room at the County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue. Since the committee has several new members, this will be in part a "get acquainted" session. Please be prepared to share with other committee members some general information about your background and interests as they relate to the work of the committee. If possible, please talk with your individual sponsors about their budget concerns and interests, so you will be able to share that information with the group as we consider the FY 99 agenda. We will briefly review the origin of the committee and it's work and reports to date, and discuss the scheduled January 28 Board Strategic Planning Session. We will determine the time and general schedule for future committee meetings, and determine an agenda for the organizational meeting in February. If you will not be able to attend the meeting as scheduled, please notify us as soon as possible (462-1670), and we will make every effort to reschedule at a time convenient to all committee members. If you have any questions or suggestions in the meanwhile, please call us at the above number. cc: Doug Anderson Board of County Commissioners r'~ [€ W 'fr;'n- \Ù--¡é'-:: , (: ¡ r-'~.1__.'~~__:_ . \'I~..._!E-_~.! .J219æ I 'q' CBC99/12'23memo , " CITIZEN'S BUDGET DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Contact Person - Harvey Lincoln - 462- I 670 Meeting Date - every third Friday at 8:00 a.m. Meeting Place - Conference Room 3 County Administration Building Appointee Appointing Authority or Representing Expires lillílIi,ñl1ilill 2004 David F. Samuel 426 SE Gasperilla Avenue Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 871-6430 Commissioner Bruhn 2/2003 Ms. Judy Tillis 9950 S. Ocean Drive #1203 Jensen Beach, FL 34957 229-8555 Commissioner Coward 10/2006 Joe Mancini 145 NW Central Park Plaza, Suite 200 Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 340-7781 Commissioner Coward 10/2006 Paul Young 520 Tumblin Kling Fort Pierce, FL 34982 0-460-2271 464-6420//Fax 467-2004 Commissioner Lewis 2/2005 Donald Pruitt 2208 SE Glover Street Port St. Lucie, FL 34984 0-336-9900 878-6420 Commissioner Lewis 11/2008 This Committee was created by Resolution No. 91-221 adopted on October I, 1991. It was amended by Resolution No. 93- 77 adopted on March 9, 1993 deleting the two appointments made by the County Administrator and limiting the total number of members to no more than IS, none of whom shall be County staff members. Each appointment serves at the pleasure of the person making the appointment however, procedures adopted by the Board in May 1996 limit members to a maximum of eight years on the committee. There are 2 black males, 10 white males and 2 white females. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET '" MEMORANDUM #98-129 TO: DOUG ANDERSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: HARVEY LINCOLN, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MANAGER SUBJECT: ROLE OF THE "CITIZENS BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE" DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,1998 The Citizens Budget Committee, a.k.a. the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, was established by the Board by resolution on October 1, 1991, as the Citizen Budflet Development Committee. It originally had two members appointed by each Board member, two by the County Administrator, and one by each Constitutional Officer that wished to participate. In 1993, the resolution was amended to eliminate the County Administrator appointments. The committee was originally established "for the purpose of establishing a budget development process in order to increase County government efficiency, and ease the problems of future government growth caused by the demands of a growing population" (Italics added). Criteria for membership included "special expertise and experience in managing large businesses..." During that time period, there was some concern about county investments. An investment policy was established, and an oversight committee, which continues to function, was established separate from the budget committee. A budget development process has been established, docwnented, and continues in place. Having accomplished that objective, the committee moved on to participation in the budget process, first at the detailed line item review level and later at a more policy oriented level. The committee was instrumental in identifying and facilitating the adoption of the "Investment for the Future" initiatives. Over the past three years, six committee members have been candidates for or elected to the county or city commissions. It may be that the committee has served its purpose; its original purpose of "establishing a budget development process" has been achieved. In any event, it would be timely for the Board to examine the objectives and role for the committee. There is general consensus that detailed budget review is not an appropriate committee function. If the committee is to playa constructive role, it will be important for the Board to specify that role, to provide clear direction regarding what it wants the committee to do, and to ensure that the membership composition of the committee, and staff support provided, is suitable to the mission assigned by the Board. I will await your direction prior to taking any further action related to committee operations. ~ CITIZEN'S BUDGET DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Contact Person - Harvey Lincoln - 462-1670 Meeting Date - every third Friday at 8:00 a.m. Meeting Place - Conference Room 3 County Administration Building Appointee Appointing Authority or Representing Expires ( Sfep,.µe~Sv~) ~p.lli§'i!pñç,~¡¡liII 2004 David F. Samuel 426 SE Gasperilla Avenue Port St. Lucie, FL 34983 871-6430 Commissioner Bruhn 2/2003 Ms. Judy Tillis 9950 S. Ocean Drive # 1203 Jensen Beach, FL 34957 229-8555 Commissioner Coward 10/2006 Joe Mancini 145 NW Central Park Plaza, Suite 200 Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 340-7781 Commissioner Coward 10/2006 Paul Young 520 Tumblin Kling Fort Pierce, FL 34982 0-460-2271 464-6420//Fax 467-2004 Commissioner Lewis 2/2005 Donald Pruitt 2208 SE Glover Street Port St. Lucie, FL 34984 0-336-9900 878-6420 Commissioner Lewis 11/2008 This Committee was created by Resolution No. 91-221 adopted on October 1, 1991. It was amended by Resolution No. 93- 77 adopted on March 9, 1993 deleting the two appointments made by the County Administrator and limiting the total number of members to no more than 15, none of whom shall be County staff members. Each appointment serves at the pleasure of the person making the appointment however, procedures adopted by the Board in May 1996 limit members to a maximum of eight years on the conunittee. There are 2 black males, 10 white males and 2 white females. "=::.J-r 'J 4-.1:=\ t.. :5 1...1'1 {J:z1- FI~I..IOI.4Jlr C-~ S. CITIZEN'S BUDGET DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE )v I Þ<: (Continued Page 2) ~ I (f4/L Appointee Appointing Authority or Representing Expires AI Sorcelli 201 S.W. Port St. Lucie Blvd.,Suite 102-B Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984 Phone 878-1181 Commissioner Hutchinson 10/2006 Debbie Hawley 8460 Immoklee Road Fort Pierce, Florida 34951 464-2405 Commissioner Hutchinson 10/2006 Edward Lounds 1491 South Brocksmith Road Fort Pierce, FL 34945 H-464-7675/C-595-2525 Office 595-1868 Commissioner Barnes 10/2002 (A !4~) ÎÄiII§iîinli¡¡lm;$ 10/2002 Jeff Furst, Channan 1161 S.W. Mirror Lake Cove Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 H 465-2100--0466-0515 Fax 466-0612 Constitutional Officer/Sheriff 2005 Harold C. McCarthy 7837 Long Cove Way Port St. Lucie, FL 34986 465-4790 Constitutional Officer/ Clerk of the Court 10/2003 Pat Ferrick 4802 South 25th Street Fort Pierce, FL 34982 461-3612 Constitutional Officer/ Supervisor of Elections 10/2000 This Committee was created by Resolution No. 91-221 adopted on October 1, 1991. It was amended by Resolution No. 93- 77 adopted on March 9, 1993 deleting the two appointments made by the County Administrator and limiting the total number of members to no more than 15, none of whom shall be County staff members. Each appointment selVes at the pleasure of the person making the appointment however, procedures adopted by the Board in May 1996 limit members to a maximum of eight years on the committee. There are 2 black males, 10 white males and 2 white females. Ii -- - OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MEMORANDUM #98-129 TO: DOUG ANDERSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: HARVEY LINCOLN, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MANAGER SUBJECT: ROLE OF THE "CITIZENS BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE" DATE: SEPTEMBER 29,1998 The Citizens Budget Committee, a.k.a. the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, was established by the Board by resolution on October 1, 1991, as the Citizen Budget Development Committee. It originally had two members appointed by each Board member, two by the County Administrator, and one by each Constitutional Officer that wished to participate. In 1993, the resolution was amended to eliminate the County Administrator appointments. The committee was originally established "for the purpose of establishing a budget development process in order to increase County government efficiency, and ease the problems offuture government growth caused by the demands of a growing population" (Italics added). Criteria for membership included "special expertise and experience in managing large businesses..." During that time period, there was some concern about county investments. An investment policy was established, and an oversight committee, which continues to function, was established separate from the budget committee. A budget development process has been established, documented, and continues in place. Having accomplished that objective, the committee moved on to participation in the budget process, fIrst at the detailed line item review level and later at a more policy oriented level. The committee was instrumental in identifying and facilitating the adoption of the "Investment for the Future" initiatives. Over the past three years, six committee members have been candidates for or elected to the county or city commissions. It may be that the committee has served its purpose; its original purpose of "establishing a budget development process" has been achieved. In any event, it would be timely for the Board to examine the objectives and role for the committee. There is general consensus that detailed budget review is not an appropriate committee function. If the committee is to playa constructive role, it will be important for the Board to specify that role, to provide clear direction regarding what it wants the committee to do, and to ensure that the membership composition of the committee, and staff support provided, is suitable to the mission assigned by the Board. I will await your direction prior to taking any further action related to committee operations. . . G) 6= c: Q. <0 CD 5 C ~ ;u o Õ m () Õ ~ '" ~ '" ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 (Dœ.......cnc.n...wr\>....... ~ ~ 0 :J: :Þ m :!! S; 0 c...:Þ ::u 0 c... < ::u C 0 Z 0::U (J) ~ :Þ ñ (J) jZ::u ::u ~ :J::Þ -<0 :J: c... ~ -I -I ñ :Þ m ~ c::U 6 :Þ' (), , ::u " m 0 ,-< m ,0 mO , 0 " (J) ::u (J) -I m ~ 'tI ::u () :!! S; -<:J: (J) ~ 0 ~ , " Z 'tI ~ 0 m m (J) o~ OJ " , ::U:Þ -I -< ~ m ::u ::u ¡:: c c 0 C(J) C C ::u Sz -I , Z ::u Z ::u::u zo m m ri ~x :J: m 0 (J) ñ;; G')z ::u , -< ::u (J) -I G') ^(J) 'tI ú) .>. :J: .>. m 0 0 m Z I I I\) 0 m 0) 01 0 .... Z 0 01 C .>..>. .>.O) ~O) .>..>. .>. .>. Õõ ú) .>..>. ~ mm m-.. ~õ3 mm m ~ -.. ú) mm mOl .>..... -,,OI m eo 01 ....0 OJ m~ ~~ ~~ m~ ~ I I W I I m -.. 0 ú).... ::u ú)0) .... -.. m -.. ~ mOl om ~~ .... I\) meo 0 -.. m .... eo 001 0)0) 00 0 01 eo eo 1\)1\) .>..>. .>. 0) .>. .>. .>. ~ mm m -.. m m m -.. 01 .>. 0) -.. m m I I I Ó1 I I I 1\).... eo m ú) 0 a.>. -.. .>. I\) .>. m oeo ú) ú) .>. 0 .... ,>,OI ú) .... m I\) I\) >- ^ (J) (J) (J) ():J: () Z (J) ~ 'tI OJ ~ OJ ~ :J:o :J: ~ ~ :Þ ~ 0 , ::u ::u , :Þ, :Þ ~ Z ~ m ::u~ ::u ::u , ::u (J) C , C , ~ , Z , , ^ Z 0 :J: m :J: m hi:Þ m m m m m m ::u Cñ Z ::u Z ::u Cñ (J)Z (J) (J) (J) ::u ::u (J) - 0 ::u ::u m m m Z () (J) (J) 0 ~ G5 G5 -I (J) Z Z m m m m (J) 0 0 0 .... :Þ 'tI :Þ :Þ :Þ :Þ'tI 'tI :Þ 'tI :Þ 'tI .... 'tI èO -.. .... 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ'tI 'tI'tI 'tI'tI 'tI 'tI:Þ ::::;: m I\) 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ:Þ :Þ'tI :Þ'tI 'tI'tI 'tI i\3 0 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ'tI 'tI'tI 'tI'tI 'tI:Þ :Þ ~ ....:Þ ú)~ ú)m 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ :Þ:Þ :Þ'tI 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ __Z ~~ Z .>.() 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ'tI :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI'tI :Þ ::::;:m -.. 'tI :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI'tI 'tI'tI 'tI'tI :Þ !:!! 0) :Þ 'tI:Þ :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ :Þ ~ eo 'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ :Þ ~ ú) 'tI -,,OI 0)01 o ú) .>.m -..m -..-.. 01 I\) ::u m (J) :Þ I\) .... .....>. I\)m 01 ú) I\)ú) 1\)0 .>.-.. OJ (J) -I ~" O;u Cm Oen ;Um cz š:-i II .:::! m .... .... eo .... o -.. eo eo 01 m ~:...~ II II II ~:...'" ~~~ S3~~ ~"i~ t:::i "i :... ~ ~ ~ ............... ...... WI\J.......OCOCO......,¡CDUI...W '" ~ o :::¡ Ñ m z cñ m c: c G) m -4 o o i: i: :j m m » :: m z ~ z o 'm ~ ~ < :J: :Þ m :!! 'tiS; :Þ m c... :Þ ::u 0 < ::u C ::UO 0 ::u (J) ~c... ñ (J) :Þ::U ::u z~ :J: -< 0 :J: 'tI-I -I c::U ñ 0_ :Þ () , :Þ ::um :ÞO 0 , 0:::1 ,-< m zo , m , -I::U (J) -I m ~ 'tI ::u 0 " S; :J: (J) (J) 0 ~ , ,,~ -< m Z :Þ OJ ~ 0 m (J) 0 (J) ::U:Þ -I Z -< ~ ~ m ::u ¡:: C C() ::U::U C (J) C C ::u -I , Z ::U:Þ Z 0 m ::¡ m -I Z :J: m 0 (J)Z ñ;; G') Z ::u :J: , (J) X -< ::u (J) -1-1 ^(J) 'tI ú) .>. :J: .>. m 0 0 m Z ~ 6 m 0) 01 0 .... Z 0 01 C .>..>. .>. .>.O) ~.>. .>. .>. .>. Õõ .>..>. ~ mm ~ m-.. ~~ m m m -.. mm OJ mOl m.... 01 m .>. eo ....0 m~ I I ~~ ~ ~ ~ I 6 I I m eo .... -.. ú) .... ::u ú)0) eo I\) -.. m -.. mOl om ~g ú).... m eo 0 -.. m .... eo 001 00) 0 0 0 01 eo 1\)1\) .>..>. .>..>. O).>. .>. .>. ~ mm m ~ -..m m m -.. 01 .>. 0) -.. m m I I I I I I I 6 I\) .... eo eo ~~ ~ a.>. -...... ~ oeo ú).... ú).>. 0 ,>,OI ú)ú) ....m I\) I\) "- ^ (J) (J) (J) () () 'tI ~ Z ~~ :J: :J: :J: ~ 'tI ~~ 0 ,OJ ~ :Þ 0 :Þ c, Z ~ê ::u , ::u ::u :i~ ,::U (J) , , C, , ~ , Z ^Z 0 _:J: m m :J:m m :Þ m m :Þ_ mm ::u (J)Z ::u (J) z::u (J) Z (J) (J) ~(J) ::U(J) - Z 0 -I m (J) 0 .... -i 'tI:Þ :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ :Þ'tI -- » 'tI'tI 'tI'tI .... " -.. ~ I\) 'tI'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI'tI :Þ'tI :Þ:Þ 'tI 'tI'tI ~ 'tI'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI'tI :Þ'tI 'tI'tI 'tI 'tI'tI ~ C m , m () :Þ () ~ 0) :Þ :Þ'tI 'tI:Þ 'tI'tI :Þ'tI :Þ:Þ 'tI :Þ'tI ~~ I\)m I\)z m~ 'tI:Þ 'tI:Þ :Þ'tI :Þ'tI :Þ'tI 'tI 'tI:Þ ::::;:Z I\)() m 0) 'tI'tI :Þ:Þ :Þ'tI :Þ:Þ 'tI:Þ 'tI 'tI:Þ i\3 0 'tI ,>,OI .>.o .>.m a.>. ú)ú) m OI,>, ::u m (J) :Þ .... .... I\)m 1\)0 ml\) ú) ú) 0 ....1\) OJ (J) -I -a. co co CO ~'tI D::u cm O(J) ::Um cz ~-I II -:::! 0) eo .... .... o -.. -.. m ~:...~ ~ II II ~~~ ~~~ S3~~ ~"i~ t:::i "i :... ~ ~ ~ \0 ~(S) ~ ~/ '?' Þ o :::¡ Ñ m z cñ m c: c G) m -4 o o i: i: :j m m » :: m z ~ z o m I -a. co co ...... .,l'- 7~ ,7 -<" 11"-' -' ¿.; ~., /\ ""--:, J....:,.....ç..... è' " CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE ~~ AGENDA JULY 13,1998 8:00 CONVENE MEETING REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW MINUTES \ ( vf ~ I ~ prv' ( JEFF FURST 8:05 FY 99 BUDGET STATUS HARVEY LINCOLN' 8:10 REVIEW -AUTO DATA STATUS - YEAR 2000 BOB SEARL / 8:20 REVIEW - CONSIDER FY 98 RECOMMENDATIONS JEFF FURST BOARD REVIEW SCHEDULE ... 8:40 CONSIDER FY 99 AGENDA - SCHEDULE JEFF FURST 8:50 NEW BUSINESS J ~ . 9:00 ADJ ~ v J\ leI ¡lwlb-J ~ l ø ¿¿t~ S77J- <-ð --- A ~~ 7~ 9-" ~ ) é/' l.~/¥) ~- ~ ~\ \J ~ - 1\ @ /-/d ¿2 . ø /-/0<-' ~/A:4 w--4 ~ ~ ~"-C /Õ ;77J;Çé ¿:¡~ ~ ~~?1 J G:\bUdget\QUATTRO\CBC\AGENDAS.wB~ ¿ ~ ~_ 07/10/98 ¿~/ð #'~~,.- ~ l,.r<'1, ~_127£ ~~ JEFF FURST JEFF FURST fi ßa.é V~ØL~t. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE ON ~~/q~ AUTOMATED SERVICES 3-20-98 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 II. BACKGROUND 3 A. ADVANTAGES (BENEFITS) OF CONSOLIDATED DATA SERVICES 3 1. COST SAVINGS 2. SYSTEMS COMPATIBILITY 3. SYSTEMS CAPACITY B. DISADVANTAGES (COSTS) OF CONSOLIDATED DATA SERVICES 5 1. AUTONOMY/ACCOUNTABILITY 2. SERVICE LEVELS 3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. POLICY DIRECTION 6 B. COST SHARING 6 C. STAFFING 7 D. YEAR 2000 8 IV. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 9 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (A) The Citizens Budget Committee finds that the consolidated delivery system for Automated Services in S1. Lucie County is an innovative and cost effective approach that both improves service to the public and saves taxpayer funds. The Committee commends the Board of Governors for maintaining a cooperative approach in providing policy guidance to the automated services function, and commends the Board of County Commissioners for authorizing and participating in this cooperative system. The Budget Committee strongly encourages that this cooperative approach be continued to the benefit of the citizens and taxpayers of S1. Lucie County . (B) The Citizens Budget Committe finds that an equitable cost sharing formula is essentail to the cooperative approach to the automated services function, and that the "node" based cost allocation system currently under development appears to offer a sound basis for accomplishing this purpose. The Committee recommends that the node based pricing system be fully developed and implemented, and that due consideration be given to phasing in a revised cost allocation system in a manner acceptable to the participants in the system. (C) The Committee recognizes the need for flexibility and responsivness in personnel and related administrative processes critical to the successful operation of the consolidated system. The Committee encourages the Board of County Commissioners to delegate approriate administrative authority to the County Administrator provide direction and support to the Automated Services function in a manner that is responsive to both the policy guidance of the Board Of Governors and the oversight requirements of the Board of County Commissioners. Sufficient resources should be made available to attract and retain qualfied staff, and should be applied in a manner that will most effectively support the accomplishment of program purposes. The Committee recognizes training as both essential to maintaining technical competency, and as a motivator for technology oriented staff, and recommends that sufficient funding be made available to ensure adequate and appropriate training for Automated Services staff (D) Based on current private sector experience, the Committee recognizes the "Year 2000" readiness issue as a major, immediate and potentially expensive issue facing the County. The Committee recommends that Automated Services prepare a "timeline" documenting steps being taken to meet year 2000 requirements, that the Board be briefed on this issue, and that sufficient dedicated reserves be established to deal with any last minute major costs that may arise in this area. As a final thought, we would encourage the respective Boards to consider changing the reference to "Automated Services" to the more current terminology of "Information Technology". 2 I. INTRODUCTION In St. Lucie County, the Automated Services Department provides technological support to departments under the Board of County Commissioners, as well as to the Constitutional Officers, and several state and local agencies. Policy guidance and coordination for this consolidated system are provided by a Board of Governors, comprised of the Chainnan of the Board of County Commissioners and each of the elected Constitutional Officers. Over the past few years, questions have arisen regarding the adequacy of the level of service provided to the participating agencies, and the equity of the system used to allocate costs to the participating agencies. Actions to address these issues have been and are being taken. The Citizens Budget Committee elected to look in to this matter, with a view to reporting their findings to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration in the decision making process. II. BACKGROUND While there are some limitations and inconveniences involved for the agencies participating in the consolidated Automated Services program under the Board of Governors, the advantages of this system can be significant. The significant advantages and potential disadvantages are outlined below. A. ADVANTAGES (BENEFITS) OF CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SERVICES 1. COST SAVINGS - From the standpoint of the overall system (and the taxpayer), coordination/consolidation of automated data services is a lower cost option than either (1) the independent staffing and equipping of each of the affected agencies (because you achieve economies of scale, avoid duplication and get more efficient allocation of staff resources) or (2) contracting all work by the hour or job (which can be very expensive). Primary savings are in staffmg. In prior years, cost sharing on mainftame hardware was a key cost reduction factor. While mainframe costs are less important in a distributed systems environment, there are still cost savings to be achieved by sharing some basic equipment and systems capabilities. In addition, the services of the Automated Services Department in building, upgrading, and maintaining computer equipment have resulted in significant cost savings to the agencies served. 3 2. SYSTEMS COMPATIBILITY- From the citizen-taxpayer or "customer" standpoint, the political jurisdiction of the service provider is irrelevant - when a citizen calls 911, they expect access to the proper agency to respond to their emergency situation, be it city police, county sheriff, district fire or emergency services, or whatever. In a natural disaster, infonnation coordination among the responding agencies is critical. Coordinated automated data systems are the foundation of this process. When a criminal passes from the arresting agency to the jail to the courts, with the intervention of the state attorney and, in many cases, the public defender, it is important that a seamless web of infonnation about the individual be available on a timely basis to every element of the system. - Requirements for this type of coordination exist in many of the systems serving the public in St. Lucie County. The ability to share data bases, connectivity, and the attention to compatibility from the systems design stage through day-to-day operations, enhances the effectiveness of the existing coordinated system. 3. SYSTEMS CAPACITY- With the increasing complexity and rapid change of technology, specialization and continuous updating of technical skills is necessary. It can be difficult for the small staff of an individual agency to have and maintain all of the skills relevant to the operation of advanced technology systems. A larger staff supporting a multi-agency operation allows for greater in-house specialization in the first instance, and for more attention to updating critical skills on a timely basis. Similarly, within a consolidated system, there is the prospect that agencies can "buy in" to larger or more sophisticated systems on a cooperative basis that they could not afford on their own, thus increasing the capacity and effectiveness of their programs. The area of Geographic Infonnation Systems (GIS), and law enforcement's "EAGLE" system, offer examples this potential. 4 B. DISADVANTAGES (COSTS) OF CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SERVICES 1. AUTONOMY/ACCOUNTABILITY Information is the life-blood of agency operations in the technological age. Management has become dependent on information technology to provide the data needed for day-to-day decisions and the delivery of services to its customers. In some cases, as in law enforcement, the timeliness and accuracy of data can be literally a life-or-death matter. In any event, agency administrators are reluctant to have to rely someone outside of their direct influence for this element so vital to their agency operations. This is particularly true of Constitutional Officers, who are accountable directly to the electorate for their performance in office. At the same time, the Board of County Commissioners is accountable for all departments under its purview, and such departments are thus ultimately accountable to the Board. This includes the Automated Services Department, which cannot simply set up shop and operate as an independent entity without appropriate oversight. A mechanism for ensuring that the interests of each agency participating in the system are adequately represented, while at the same time ensuring proper accountability for the service delivery system, is essential to the proper operation of the system. 2. SERVICE LEVELS Each participating agency has an information technology issue that, from it's perspective, is the top priority issue, and it's own list of other technology related priorities. The Automated Services Department must evaluate all of these competing priorities, and establish a system-wide priority list that the participating agencies will endorse. This is fine as long as everyone's priority needs are being met; but if and as system resources are or become insufficient to fully and adequately meet each participants technology needs, problematic situations develop. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY A consolidated system is inherently more complex to administer. Bureaucratic rules that serve a useful purpose in one setting may be unduly restrictive in another. More people, programs, and processes are involved, and more administrative time and skill is required to coordinate the activities and priorities involved. At the same time, more resources are available to be brought to bear on issues; with an appropriate policy framework and effective management, processes can be devised which minimize the administrative complexity inherent in multi-agency approaches to service delivery. 5 III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. POLICY DIRECTION 1. BACKGROUND - The Board of Governors was created byinterlocal agreement in 1984 to provide coordinated policy direction to the Automated Services Department. The Automated Services Department, in turn, provides the staffing, mainframe operations, network administration, programming, and systems and hardware acquisition, development and maintenance for the Constitutional Officers and the departments under the Board of County Commissioners. During 1997, the Tax Collector elected to employ two systems analysts directly, contrary to prior practice, raising some question as to the viability and future role of the Board of Governors. 2. FINDINGS - Automated Services under the Board of Governors system has served the participating agencies well on a cost-effective basis, providing for well coordinated data systems while realizing cost savings for the taxpayer. For the past several years, cost containment decisions have resulted in both unacceptable service levels in some systems, and inequitable cost allocations among agencies served. The value of a coordinated system for the delivery of automated services support, from both a program and cost perspective, is such that a concerted effort should be made to preserve and strengthen this system. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS - That the Board of Governors continue it's function of providing policy guidance to a coordinated Automated Services delivery system, and that the Board of County Commissioners, though the adoption of appropriate policy initiatives and delegation to the County Administrative staff, continue to provide management oversight while providing for sufficient flexibility in administrative procedures to allow the Automated Services department to be responsive to the needs of the agencies served and the requirements of emerging technology B. COST SHARING 1. BACKGROUND - Multiple agencies operating under a consolidated approach to information technology support requires a cost-sharing plan that is equitable and acceptable to each of the participants. Since under a consolidated system overall costs decrease, cost savings are a benefit to the system as a whole. To the extent that these savings are shared equitably, this is a benefit to each participant; to the extent that one or more participants shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs, this is a disadvantage, or cost, to them. 6 2. FINDING - The cost sharing formulas developed related to main frame utilization served a useful purpose in the past, but no longer serve as a fair basis for the allocation of costs. A revised cost allocation methodology, probably involving a multi-tiered approach, appears to be required as a basis for equitably allocating costs in the current operating environment. 3. RECOMMENDATION - That a multi-tiered cost allocation formula that includes (a) a base cost for all participants in the system, based on the work station or "node" as the service unit measurement, be implemented. The formula should also address additional costs for services provided that are unique to (b) one or (c) a selected ~roup of agencies within the total group, (d) allocations for systems and hardware maintenance and replacement costs (depreciation), and (e) allocations for new program development. C. STAFFING 1. BACKGROUND - One key to maintaining adequate service levels is maintaining an adequate number of properly trained staff. There have been expressions of concern about service levels from participating agencies, staff turnover figures are a matter of concern, and Automated Services management has expressed concern about retaining skilled staff in a competitive market environment. 2. FINDINGS - Management has identified retention of qualified staff as a key issue in maintaining satisfactory service delivery levels. Fair compensation, a positive and technically challenging work environment, and adequate training opportunities have been identified as important elements in staff retention and recruitment. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS - (1) That the Board of County Commissioners provide sufficient flexibility on staffmg and compensation matters related to Automated Services that actions on salary, classification, and related matters can be taken in a timely manner to retain and recruit qualified staff; (2) that compensation levels of Automated Services staff be reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate in light of market demand and internal relationships; (3) that sufficient funding be made available to ensure that an appropriate level of staff training is maintained by Automated Services; and (4) that sufficient funding is made available under professional services to provide system support and staff training as required. 7 D. YEAR 2000 1. BACKGROUND - Many computer records - for example those related to payrolls or tax records - are date sensitive. Many computer programs use 2 digit codes for the "year" designation, which works until you get to the year 2000, when the computer does not know how to interpret the entry "00". Every computer program that involves dates needs to be reviewed, and rewritten if necessary, to ensure that it will work in the year 2000. The common tenninology for this issue is "Y2K", which stands for "Year 2000" . 2. FINDINGS - The St. Lucie County Automated Services Department is aware of the Year 2000 (Y2K) issue, and is making efforts to ensure that county programs and systems will function properly at the turn ofth~ century. The target date for being in compliance is January 1999. While Y2K is being addressed, the county did not get an early start on this issue, and additional resources have not been provided to Automated Services to address this issue. While current estimates are that the county will probably meet this deadline, there will be limited time for testing systems, and there may be problems not yet identified that will need to be addressed. Across the industry, resources 'available to address the Y2K issue are very limited and very expensIve 3. RECOMMENDATIONS - that (1) the Automated Services Department prepare a "timeline" document identifying key issues, problems, or systems that have been or need to be addressed to ensure meeting Year 2000 requirements in a satisfactory manner, including the planned schedule for accomplishing them, and (2) that the Automated Services Department brief the Board of County Commissioners on the Year 2000 issue, and (3) that the Board establish a restricted reserve in the amount of $250,000 to provide for dealing with unresolved Year 2000 issues on an emergency basis should such action become necessary. 8 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - SUMMARY A. POLICY DIRECTION - That the Board of Governors continue it's function of providing policy guidance to a coordinated Automated Services delivery system, and that the Board of County Commissioners, though the adoption of appropriate policy initiatives and delegation to the County Administrative staff, continue to provide management oversight while providing for sufficient flexibility in administrative procedures to allow the Automated Services department to be responsive to the needs of the agencies served and the requirements of emerging technology B. COST SHARING - That a multi-tiered cost allocation formula that includes (a) a base cost for fill participants in the system, based on the work station or "node" as the service unit measurement, be implemented. The formula should also address additional costs for services provided that are unique to (b) ~ or (c) a selected grou¡> of agencies within the total group, (d) allocations for systems and hardware maintenance and replacement costs (depreciation), and (e) allocations for new program development. C. STAFFING - (1) That the Board of County Commissioners provide sufficient flexibility on staffmg and compensation matters related to Automated Services that actions on salary, classification, and related matters can be taken in a timely manner to retain and recruit qualified staff; (2) that compensation levels of Automated Services staff be reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate in light of market demand and internal relationships; (3) that sufficient funding be made available to ensure that an appropriate level of staff training is maintained by Automated Services; and (4) that sufficient funding is made available under professional services to provide system support and staff training as required. D. YEAR 2000 - that (1) the Automated Services Department prepare a "timeline" document identifying key issues, problems, or systems that have been or need to be addressed to ensure meeting Year 2000 requirements in a satisfactory manner, including the planned schedule for accomplishing them, and (2) that the Automated Services Department brief the Board of County Commissioners on the Year 2000 issue, and (3) that the Board establish a restricted reserve in the amount of $250,000 to provide for dealing with unresolved Year 2000 issues on an emergency basis should such action become necessary. G\wp\cbc\adp 9 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDG~T !ì jq'i MEMORANDUM #98-80 N~ ~}:>I/ / TO: CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE FROM: HARVEY LINCOLN, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET MANAGER v SUBJECT: CHANGE IN SCHEDULE - CIl1ZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE MAY MEETING DATE: MAY 4, 1998 The Citizens Budget Committee meeting scheduled for Friday, May 15, has been changed to Friday, May 8, at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room #3 at the Administrative Annex. A copy of the tentative agenda is enclosed. We will be discussing the Sheriff's budget, as part of the continuing series on criminal justice system budgets. A copy of the Sheriff's FY 99 budget request is enclosed. Also enclosed are copies of the March 30 and April 17 minutes for your review. Again, the meeting has been rescheduled for Friday, May 8, at 8:00 a.m. in Conference Room #3 at the Administrative'Annex. We apologize for the unavoidably late rescheduling of this meeting, and hope that it does not inconvenience you. cc: Board of County Commissioners ~11TI _ ennis Williams HL:my S'8mting fõ)Œ © Œ ß \Yl Œrñì lIù MAY 5 1998 ~ CO. ADMIN. OFFICE ;¡ /1t-/~_j1- REPORT TO THE CITIZENS BUDGET COMMITTEE AUTOMATED SERVICES DRAFT 3-5-98 m[ß!lJífF TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 II. BACKGROUND 3 A. ADVANTAGES (BENEFITS) OF CONSOLIDATED DATA SERVICES 3 1. COST SAVINGS 2. SYSTEMS COMPATIBILITY 3. SYSTEMS CAPACITY B. DISADVANTAGES (COSTS) OF CONSOLIDATED DATA SERVICES 5 1. AUTONOMY/ACCOUNTABILITY 2. SERVICE LEVELS 3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. COST SHARING B. STAFFING C. POLICY DIRECTION IV. SUMMARY 8 1 · , FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - SUMMARY A. COST SHARING - RECOMMENDATION [ff][fJf)}~~ That a multi-tiered cost allocation fonnula that includes (a) a base cost for all participants in the system, based on the work station or "node" as the service unit measurement, be implemented. The fonnula should also address additional costs for services provided that are unique to (b) one or © a selected ~rou,p of agencies within the total group, (d) allocations for systems and hardware maintenance and replacement costs (depreciation), and ( e) allocations for new program development. B. STAFFING - RECOMMENDATIONS (1) That the Board of County Commissioners provide sufficient flexibility on staffing and compensation matters related to Automated Services that actions on salary, classification, and related matters can be taken in a timely manner to retain and recruit qualified staff; (2) that compensation levels of Automated Services staffbe reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate in light of market demand and internal relationships; (3) that sufficient funding be made available to ensure that an appropriate level of staff training is maintained by Automated Services; and (4) that sufficient funding is made available under professional services to provide system support and staff training as required. C. POLICY DIRECTION - RECOMMENDATIONS (1) That the Board of Governors continue it's function of providing policy guidance to a coordinated Automated Services delivery system, and (2) that the Board of County Commissioners, though the adoption of appropriate policy initiatives and delegation to the County Administrative staff, continue to provide management oversight while providing for sufficient flexibility in administrative procedures to allow the Automated Services department to be responsive to the needs of the agencies served and the requirements of emerging technology.i 2 I. INTRODUCTION [ff]æLJJ~v In St. Lucie County, the Automated Services Department provides technological support to departments under the Board of County Commissioners, as well as to the Constitutional Officers, and several state and local agencies. Policy guidance and coordination for this consolidated system is provided by a Board of Governors, comprised of the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and each of the elected Constitutional Officers. Over the past few years, questions have arisen regarding the adequacy of the level of service provided to the participating agencies, and the equity of the system used to allocate costs to the participating agencies. Actions to address these issues have been and are being taken. The Citizens Budget Committee elected to look in to this matter, with a view to reporting their findings to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration in the decision making process. II. BACKGROUND While there are some limitations and inconveniences involved for the agencies participating in the consolidated Automated Services program under the Board of Governors, the advantages of this system can significant. The significant advantages and potential disadvantages are outlined below. A. ADVANTAGES ( BENEFITS) OF CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SERVICES 1. COST SAVINGS - From the standpoint of the overall system (and the taxpayer), coordination/consolidation of automated data services is a lower cost option than either (1) the independent staffing and equipping of each of the affected agencies (because you achieve economies of scale, avoid duplication and get more efficient allocation of staff resources) or (2) contracting all work by the hour or job (which can be very expensive). Primary savings are in staffing. In prior years, cost sharing on mainframe hardware was a key cost reduction factor. While mainframe costs are less important in a distributed systems environment, there are still cost savings to be achieved by sharing some basic equipment and systems capabilities. In addition, the services of the Automated Services Department in building, upgrading, and maintaining computer equipment have resulted in significant cost savings to the agencies served. ' 3 ~ 2. SYSTEMS COMPATIBILITY - [ßJœliJ~v From the citizen-taxpayer or "customer" standpoint, the political jurisdiction of the service provider is irrelevant - when a citizen calls 911, they expect access to the proper agency to respond to their emergency situation, be it city police, county sheriff, district fire or emergency services, or whatever. In a natural disaster, information coordination among the responding agencies is critical. Coordinated automated data systems are the foundation of this process. When a criminal passes from the arresting agency to the jail to the courts, with the intervention of the state attorney and, in many cases, the public defender, it is important that a seamless web of information about the individual be available on a timely basis to every element of the system. Requirements for this type of coordination exist in many of the systems serving the public in St. Lucie County. The ability to share data bases, connectivity, and the attention to compatibility from the systems design stage through day-to-day operations, enhances the effectiveness of the existing coordinated system. 3. SYSTEMS CAPACITY - With the increasing complexity and rapid change oftechnology, specialization and continuous updating of technical skills is necessary. It can be difficult for the small staff of an individual agency to have and maintain all of the skills relevant to the operation of advanced technology systems. A larger staff supporting a multi-agency operation allows for greater in-house specialization in the first instance, and for more attention to updating critical skills on a timely basis. Similarly, within a consolidated system, there is the prospect that agencies can "buy in" to larger or more sophisticated systems on a cooperative basis that they could not afford on their own, thus increasing the capacity and effectiveness of their programs. The area of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and law enforcement's "EAGLE" system, offer examples this potential. 4 " [jJ[p/il B. DISADVANTAGES (COSTS) OF CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SERVICE~ LnJ f}~ 1. AUTONOMY/ACCOUNTABILITY Information is the life-blood of agency operations in the technological age. Management has become dependent on information technology to provide the data needed for day-to-day decisions and the delivery of services to its customers. In some cases, as in law enforcement, the timeliness and accuracy of data can be literally a life-or-death matter. In any event, agency administrators are reluctant to have to rely someone outside of their direct influence for this element so vital to their agency operations. This is particularly true of Constitutional Officers, who are accountable directly to the electorate for their performance in office. At the same time, the Board of County Commissioners is accountable for all departments under its purview, and such departments are thus ultimately accountable to the Board. This includes the Automated Services Department, which cannot simply set up shop and operate as an independent entity without appropriate oversight. A mechanism for ensuring that the interests of each agency participating in the system are adequately represented, while at the same time ensuring proper accountability for the service delivery system, is essential to the proper operation of the system. 2. SERVICE LEVELS Each participating agency has an information technology issue that, from it's perspective, is the top priority issue, and it's own list of other technology related priorities. The Automated Services Department must evaluate all of these competing priorities, and establish a system-wide priority list that the participating agencies will endorse. This is fine as long as everyone's priority needs are being met; but if and as system resources are or become insufficient to fully and adequately meet each participants technology needs, problematic situations develop. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEXITY A consolidated system is inherently more complex to administer. Bureaucratic rules that serve a useful purpose in one setting may be unduly restrictive in another. More people, programs, and processes are involved, and more administrative time and skill is required to coordinate the activities and priorities involved. At the same time, more resources are available to be brought to bear on issues; with an appropriate policy framework and effective management, processes can be devised which minimize the administrative complexity inherent in multi-agency approaches to service delivery. 5 <, III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. COST SHARING !fJ(jJIJJß? 1. BACKGROUND - Multiple agencies operating under a consolidated approach to information technology support requires a cost-sharing plan that is equitable and acceptable to each of the participants. Since under a consolidated system overall costs decrease, cost savings are a benefit to the system as a whole. To the extent that these savings are shared equitably, this is a benefit to each participant; to the extent that one or more participants shoulder a disproportionate share of the costs, this is a disadvantage, or cost, to them. 2. FINDING - The cost sharing formulas developed related to main frame utilization served a useful purpose in the past, but no longer serve as a fair basis for the allocation of costs. A revised cost allocation methodology, probably involving a multi-tiered approach, appears to be required as a basis for equitably allocating costs in the current operating environment. 3. RECOMMENDATION - That a multi-tiered cost allocation formula that includes (a) a base cost for all participants in the system, based on the work station or "node" as the service unit measurement, be implemented. The formula should also address additional costs for services provided that are unique to (b) one or © a selected ~rou'p of agencies within the total group, (d) allocations for systems and hardware maintenance and replacement costs (depreciation), and (e) allocations for new program development. B. STAFFING 1. BACKGROUND - One key to maintaining adequate service levels is maintaining an adequate number of properly trained staff. There have been expressions of concern about service levels from participating agencies, staff turnover figures are a matter of concern, and Automated Services management has expressed concern about retaining skilled staff in a competitive market environment. 2. FINDINGS - Management has identified retention of qualified staff as a key issue in maintaining satisfactory service delivery levels. Fair compensation, a positive and technically challenging work environment, and adequate training opportunities have been identified as important elements in staff retention and recruitment. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS - (1) That the Board of County Commissioners provide sufficient flexibility on staffing and compensation matters related to Automated Services that actions on salary, classification, and related matters can be taken in a timely manner to retain and recruit qualified staff; 6 ~. @œßj~u (2) that compensation levels of Automated Services staffbe reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate in light of market demand and internal relationships; (3) that sufficient funding be made available to ensure that an appropriate level of staff training is maintained by Automated Services; and (4) that sufficient funding is made available under professional services to provide system support and staff training as required. C. POLICY DIRECTION I. BACKGROUND - The Board of Governors was created by interlocal agreement in 19_ to provide coordinated policy direction to the Automated Services Department. The Automated Services Department, in turn, provides the staffing, mainftame operations, network administration, programming, and systems and hardware acquisition, development and maintenance for the Constitutional Officers and the departments under the Board of County Commissioners. During 1997, the Tax Collector elected to employee two systems analysts directly, contrary to prior practice, raising some question as to the viability and future role of the Board of Governors. 2. FINDINGS - Automated Services under the Board of Governors system has served the participating agencies well on a cost-effective basis, providing for well coordinated data systems while realizing cost savings for the taxpayer. For the past several years, cost containment decisions have resulted in both unacceptable service levels in some systems, and inequitable cost allocations among agencies served. The value of a coordinated system for the delivery of automated services support, from both a program and cost perspective, is such that a concerted effort should be made to preserve and strengthen this system. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS - That the Board of Governors continue it's function of providing policy guidance to a coordinated Automated Services delivery system, and that the Board of County Commissioners, though the adoption of appropriate policy initiatives and delegation to the County Administrative staff, continue to provide management oversight while providing for sufficient flexibility in administrative procedures to allow the Automated Services department to be responsive to the needs of the agencies served and the requirements of emerging technology. 1. BACKGROUND 2. FINDINGS 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 7 " IV. SUMMARY @ æ aJ íf The Citizens Budget Committee finds that the consolidated delivery system for Automated V Services in St. Lucie County is an innovative and forward looking approach that both improves serve to the public and saves taxpayer funds. The Committee commends the Board of Governors for maintaining a cooperative approach in providing policy guidance to the automated services function, and particularly for focusing at the policy level and avoiding the temptation to intervene in the management operations of the Automated Services Department. The Committee commends the Board of County Commissioners for authorizing and participating in this cooperative system. It recognizes and applauds the special provisions related to purchasing that the Board has made to allow Automated Services to function effectively in a multi-agency environment, and encourages the Board to extend this type of provision to personnel and related administrative processes critical to the successful operation of the consolidated system. While the Committee does not wish to get in to details of management organization and procedures, we do encourage the Board of County Commissioners to delegate substantive administrative authority to the County Administrator, assisted as appropriate by the Budget, Personnel, and Purchasing Managers, to provide direction and support to the Automated Services Department that is responsive to both the policy guidance of the Board Of Governors and the oversight requirements of the Board of County Commissioners. As a final thought, we would encourage the respective Boards to consider changing the reference to "Automated Services" to the more current terminology of "Information Technology". G\wp\cbc\adpl 8 Mr. Douglas S. Putnam Property Appraiser S1. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 #/} J"Þ'ðh~ ~ / C r r;;cJ- f / '/;". v /"'1 / ¡)¡O~ V~ t.I~ /ðrJíl . U February 20, 1998 Dear Mr. Putnam: The Citizens Budget Committee is interested in reviewing three separate subjects this year. They are: 1. Automated Data Systems operations (scheduled for February); 2. The programs and budget outlooks for the Constitutional Officers (scheduled for March and May); 3. Selected elements of the criminal justice system (scheduled for April). The intent of my January 29 letter to you was to invite you as a Constitutional Officer to "share with us your program structure and priorities, and any major issues that you anticipate may have a budgetary impact in the immediate or near term future", in relation to the second of the three subject areas above. Unfortunately, the wording of the letter was such that it could be interpreted that we were inviting you to address Automated Data Systems issues. While we welcome any comments or insights you may have regarding Automated Data Systems, the intent of our meeting with you would be to focus the programs, issues, and budgetary matters that you believe to be of importance to the community. I would like to apologize for any confusion that may have occurred as a result of the January 29 letter, and reiterate on behalf of the Committee our invitation to you to share with us your view of program priorities, issues, and concerns as we look to the future of the County and its citizens. Sincerely Jeff Furst, Chairman Citizens Budget Committee \..(00.. ,rn ® rf l_,~L_Œ ~ fñ'.' , Ii I : " : n· FEB 2 3 f' , ¡ ~!I. , 1998 ¡~ [ 1 ' ¡ L-cO.A~MI~~~F;~ cbc219 DOUGLAS S. PUTNAM PROPERTY APPRAISER · St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, Florida · 34982-5652 Mr. Jeff Furst, Chairman Citizens Budget Committee 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982 P f"~ c¡ Co II~ cY f I j / f (¡ " ~ f~.v {I V jlJ Op? J~ ~¡" 1 February 19, 1998 Dear Mr. Furst: Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1998, inviting me to meet with you and the Citizens Budget Committee to discuss Automated Services, There have been many changes recently. There are also misconceptions regarding the roles of the individual members and the Board of Governors (BOG). Until these things improve, your review will not be meaningfuL Accordingly, I respectfully decline your invitation. Many of the problems prevalent in Automated Services (AS) today originate with the mistaken belief that AS is simply another department functioning under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners. AS has functioned well in the past under the guidance of the BOG which is comprised of the Constitutional Officers and one County Commissioner, The County Administrator serves as ex-officio Chairman. The county now seems to want to exert more influence and control by micro-managing AS. TI1is way of thinking is wrong. It is divisive and will only lead to more problems in the future. I am concerned with the declining support level from Automated Services. This has reached the point where it seems that the foundation of our venture is now in question. All of the members, as elected officials, have varying data processing needs and responsibilities. Cntil recently, this was not an issue because we were able to meet all member needs in a timely and cost efficient manner. However, this no longer is Ù1e case, My needs might be better served by acquiring data services elsewhere. As an example, two of my support staff no longer work for AS, they have not been replaced, but yet my payment requirement has remained the same. I can only conclude that the current funding formula is unfair. There is a study presendy on-going to address the funding fairness issue, Also, we are in a serious state of transition. \VIe have a new director, many staff have relocated, and computer technology has changed from main,frame to client server. As I see it, we must study these problems together, and use our technology to better communicate for the betterment of our taXpayers. How our funds will be reallocated is up to the members of the BOG, Unfortunately, d1e atmosphere is difficult, to say the least. I am confident we can solve these problems. Si;cCl~ (]j Do:::-¡['"' xl Property Appraiser ~- cc: Constitutional Officers County Administrator Director of Automated Services [i)ECEI'I~ IJ1] FEB t t 1998 l!J CO. ADMIN. OFFICE Telephones: 561/462-1000 . Facsimile: 561/462-1055 . SUNCOM: 259-1000 A:-.' EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGENCY