HomeMy WebLinkAboutCBC Minutes March 2015MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:.
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting Date: March 20, 2015
Conference Room 3
Ron Knaggs, Chair
Ed Lounds
Patrick Campion
Jay L. McBee
Steven Weaver
Carl Hensley
Gwen Morris
Richard Pancoast
John Culverhouse
Craig Mundt
James Clasby
Jane Bachelor
Stephanie Morgan
William Donovan
Dan Kurek, Vice Chair
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 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.
County of St. Lucie
ERP (Needs Assessment Executive Summary
I Executive Summary
April, 2014
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
• Budgeting • Payroll
• Cash Receipting • Projects & Grant Accounting
• Contract Management • Purchasing
•' Fixed/Capital Assets • Utility Billing
• General Ledger
2Page
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:
N rui icuUi 10
c Cash Receip
• Human Resources
c • Service Orde
LL • Payroll
• Meter Invent(
Y
Table: Current Primary County Applications
4 1 P a g e
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.
6 1 P a g e
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2094
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.
81P.age
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary
3.1 OVERVIEW
April, 2014
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
County of St. Lucie
ERP Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2094
4 Recommended Next 1
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 as an on premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
County of St. Lucie
ERP /Needs Assessment Executive Summary April, 2014
4 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 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 as an on premise (i.e.,
County -hosted) solution.
121Page
-0
U)
aI
<
0
"2
A
U
N
m
0
E
E
E
E
:3
:3
>1
1 0
(n
0
2
w ul
12
'(2 ';t LJr)
Lo LO
LO Ln
Lo
L,�
LO
U-) LO
Lo Lr)
LO LO Lo
0 LL
0-
�42
C)
Q
U) !(0
CQ
izz
cy)
17L
LL .L3
LL
L.
LLL
LL.
o
�LL
a
C) a
0
c
0
LL -r-
,LL
th-
. ......
Ln
LO Lo
F:
F
i:z nF:
F
C,
04
C,
LO
N.
(75
0
C c
o 0
c c
'0 0
0
d)
:3
0
0 -0
0 :2
0 0
Q)
0 m
E
U)
:3
M
E
(D
0
M
cu w
M
CL
G
S
LU
a)
2
Ol
Z
U)
C)
CL
r
ca
t; I
ra
i 'LL
)
I 1=
=
Q)
E
N0
m
'0
.0
i a)
i COL
o 0
E
0
CL
Mr
7�5
c
U)
0
2
iLL
(D
co
L)
.13
1
E
i
r
M 0
'o CL
m
0
lo
lo
a
0)
oc j
i [2
i
E
Cc
i 0 10
J i COL
1 t
o
:jE
I'a,
;
.0 � CL
—
M
E
0
r
0
itp � 0
i m im
a-)
� a) 14) i m
0-
1- �.3
.16
COL
12 ;L
.2
;
4)
; >
j5
a) 0
tm
0 A �.La
L)
iS j
2 io
>
i'a 4)
'CL
'2
r
10
>
o i 0)
Q.
.-
�o
0
%
(L
m 0) CL Z
4 A i (J)
i U) !a
i ia'
-
-0
C -ro
=
iFa 5
uj
0
20 rr E
c
.0 � LL
10
1 w
;>
o
i
a)
0 C
CL
>
i CL
i
-a' 2 in.
2
(L 0
�U)
Lu
<
tEL
a i9L
D. CL 0
.75 ;LU IL
CL
(L)
CL -5
. w
ICL
(D
c
C
0
0
0 :�i
0
E
(D
0
>
N IN
>
Imo
U)
0
0
Z
in Cl
a
::2
o
CD
0)
u
'2 751
U rl
CL
.2
Of Of
m
E M
E(o
E
E
M
42
M
M2
LL
2
CL
N iN Lr) LO :V !W) ;Ln LO Lr) L, La
i
N7-5
1D) ..
- i
Q '4 Cll
!
if
iiLL
m
!LL
-
Ir-
;.r- 10
!LL 12 iLL LL. 0 0
,c i o U -
LL Lj
.......... ....
Lr) u
iz in izz
a jizz izz
to
ZZ
LO
C
c a
0 2
in
1
O: i i 0 o c
i 10 0 0
n
.
..........
..... .........
0
Em
C) 0)
CD E
0
c
CD
4)
(o
0
0
s
1 r
c
a
CL
w
—r -
w
:a.
M
m
0
c
i
0
2
ON
cn
c)
Or
00i r -
!LL
1 E 1 =0 1
1:3 0,
E
E
0
i 2 1.2 1
M, lle
(D
r- i.2
in . i.�
o 1�
i a is
a m
-2 E
t
i
0
r-
U
2 0
m
CL a E i
iod LL .0 i E 4)
i E
-
0
E
(D
•o
6
aEi
is j io 10 0)
-ru
U)
CL
r
a
A
dto
o) " ID
In !W
1:5
10
j
1 c I— 0, 20 r
"a U) :.-
`o. i 8
0 0
! E
FL 0 o la-
m E 1 i= COL 0. 00- (D 5 m
r-
4)) i.2
1 M, is
-E ig im
a) 0
i (6 E
jy r- 4) 46
:a. it 1:3 i,
0 m 15
i C i:e
i
i
i 0 i
(D
:0
w
W
a. 1-S
m 1
j 2) -0
h o
Foo
:(b
iD 0
j 76
-t5
0 0
m
Mm
�o
cr
E
r-
0
ia. ; :2 0 . w S 0 c 4)
AL (D i . i� . (n o I
0 a.
W 0 i a)
it
1.2
a
M cr 0 .0
:.E-
CL :0 : CL
: M (L
�75
0 CL :"o a)
11L >
CL m
0
CL CL 1-
UA
CL
:LLI LIJ CL : :
0
:'Oo
0 0
>
CD
>
>
E
Z
0
C:l 0
0 0 CD
0
CD r 0 .0
0 i icl. ;C)
Q 7a
0
z
-%d
m
.c
CL
m
�.c
CS a m IQ U)
.
19L
IL
I- I- I 1 0 1 (0 1- 1- 1!�! Iz: 17TSN
N N
Cym
L 0
Enterprise Resource Planning,
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
4/10/2015
1
Stormwater MSTU
Beginning Fund Balance @ io/oi/13 $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,oSo,o3,g
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14
$5,415,299
2014 Stormwater MSTU Capital Projects
Bud vs Actual $2.050 Million
2,68,,0,3
Culverts
15,852 1,346
Neighborhood Improvements Small Projects
■Bud. ❑Act.
4/10/2015
01
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 @ 10/o1/13
Plus:
FY 13-14 Operating Revenues
FY 13-14 Reimbursement (Ft. Pierce)
Less:
FY 13-14 Operating Expenses
FY 13-14 Capital Expenses
Ending Fund Balance @ 09/30/14
$3)745)467
$3,451,941
$282,618
$3075,103
$2,266,94o
$2,137983
4/10/2015
A
Transportation Trust Funds -Overview
• Local Option Fuel Tax:
• 1st cent to 6th cent tax, expires Aug. 2015
• 91h 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
ofroads
• 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
7
2014 Transportation Trust Capital Projects Bud vs
Actual si.667 Million
41500,000 ...._.......
.....__.__... _.
....__._.._ ..,...
..
._
4,000,000 ...
�.._..__ .... .
393t 76Z..__...._ ...
.._.. . .
..... . ...
.._..... . ............ ....
.......... . _........,.._
3500,000
600,000
3000,000 .........__
...___..... _
........ .
.. ........_...
400,806
2,500,000 __._.......
..__....._.....
_ _.._._
_...._
400,000 _....._.._
...
2,000,000
............
295.805
1,500,000
_. _....,.. ._ _......._._.. ...__..,_......
...
200,000
o
...
.__ ___
_ ....6o.1681.
60 681
..,...
,tz6,727
Stormwater/Drainage
1,000,000
-..... _ _ ..
■Bud. ❑Act.
. _ _ ..
796;950.. ._ _
5t6,520
500,000 ..
o _
3 93
_ _.®t z 6
f-1._..
.
. __
__.
-
.259.898w49,
�y66
_
_ .. ..
105.552 56,261 St,961
— r'—
Road & Bridge
Drainage
Equipment
Sidewalk Other Transfers
■Bud. ❑Act. -
2014 5th Cent Gas Tax Capital Projects Bud vs Actual
$1.037 Million
1400-0
__._.......... .... _.. _._. ____........
1,200,000
1,000,000 .._.
... ........... ....._..,. ... .... ......_.._
....... ____.. ..... .............
.__...... _, _. .. _.... .. ...
_....._....,
..
81g,8o1
800,000 ....,......_.
_____...... ......._.
...,.._.._.....
600,000
_.......... ....._. _..... ..........,,,.
............ .._._:......_
400,806
400,000 _....._.._
... ..... ........_ ......
...... ........ ............. ..... ........,.. ......
............
295.805
zo3,gt
200,000
o
.._.. ._.. 7 ...__
61,1 8
r—�
.__ ___
_ ....6o.1681.
60 681
..,...
_.._ ._.... ._... .....__.
95 toz
n
Stormwater/Drainage
Culverts Roads
Bridges
■Bud. ❑Act.
4/10/2015
E
Local Government Infrastructure Surtax
• Amount Levied:
• Each county may levy a discretionary sales surtax of 0.5% or i%
• Referendum: Two Methods
• Enacted by a majority of County Commission and approved by the majority
of the voters by referendum.
• Municipalities representing a majority of the county's population may
initiate the surtax by adoption of esolutions 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 218.6z (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
4/10/2015
11
Capital Project
7unds & Overview •
Local Option
4
Citizens Budget Committee Meeting
March 20, 2015
4/10/2015
13