Court Case Management Software System Project … Case Management Software System Project ... 127 within and outside the scope of the court case management system . The project ...

Court Case Management Software System Project Report Month of: May 2014 Submitted by: Bob Enright, CMS Project Manager and Barb Garza, ITD Project Manager Project Sponsor: Roger Fahnestock, ITD Chief Information Officer

Project Charter: The Court Case management Software System project as authorized by the Kane County Board is to select and implement a court case management system for the Circuit Clerk, Judiciary, State’s Attorney and Public Defender. The project includes selection of a qualified vendor, finalization of an agreement with the chosen vendor, preparation of a scope document, project schedule, budget, provisions for change orders, communication plan, procurement policies, and risk evaluation. Project oversight is through the Judicial and Public Safety Strategic Planning and Technology Commission with project management through the Kane County Information Technology Department in conjunction with the vendor. Current Project Status: Contract Negotiations

Schedule: (detailed Schedule attached) 1. MTG is engaged in the review & gap analysis which includes contract issues, functional questions, integrations and data conversion. Meetings are

scheduled for May 21, 28, and 29, 2014. 2. The contract negotiation phase is expected to be completed in June.

3. ITD will begin initial project tasks while contract negotiations are being completed such as data cleansing and conversion, etc.

Budget: (Budget Performance Report attached) 1. Revenues are slightly higher than anticipated. There have been no changes to anticipated expenses. 2. Upon completion of contract negotiations and County Board approval of a contract, the project budget and schedule can be finalized. 3. The financial policies review for procedures for handling change orders, budget, and out-of-scope expenses are on the Commission agenda for May.

Scope: (Contract Negotiation Phase) (No Change from April 2014) 1. MTG will provide functional, technical, and integration requirements for the CMS system to ensure

an understanding between the County and Tyler Technologies. a. Development of a comprehensive CMS contract and software licensing agreements to

minimize County risk. b. Ensure that total County costs for implementation and maintenance of the CMS system are

comparable to similar acquisitions in other Illinois counties and in other states c. This will be accomplished by review of the RFP, vendor proposal, contract, and will facilitate the contract negotiation process. 2. State’s Attorney’s Office will provide contract review after MTG review is completed 3. Contract is currently expected to have final County approval in July.

COURT CASE MANAGEMENT PROJECT SCHEDULE PROJECT INITIATION AND PLANNING

CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PHASE

May 15, 2014 DATE COMMITTEE/GROUP AGENDA ITEM STATUS

MAY/JUN MTG FINAL CONTRACT AND LICENSING AGREEMENT PENDING JUN SAO REVIEW OF CONTRACT AND LICENSING AGREEMENT PENDING JUN JPSSPT COMMISSION MEETING

- RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO CMS CONTRACT PENDING

JUL 11 JUD/PUB SAFETY RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH VENDOR PENDING JUL 29 COW-TENTATIVE REPORT TO COW ON CMS CONTRACT PENDING JUL 30 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS & RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT

WITH VENDOR PENDING

AUG 6 EXECUTIVE COMM RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH VENDOR PENDING AUG 12 COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO CONRACT WITH VENDOR PENDING AUG 27 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS PENDING AUG 30 ITD PROJECT TEAM CONTRACT SIGNATURE FINALIZED PENDING SEP 1 ITD PROJECT TEAM PROJECT INITIATION PENDING SEP 24 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS PENDING OCT 29 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS PENDING NOV 26 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS PENDING DEC 31 FINANCE COMM PROJECT STATUS PENDING

INITIAL PROJECT TASKS

ITD is creating a list of initial tasks and timetables to work on items such as data cleansing and data conversion that will be included in the next schedule. These tasks can begin while contract negotiations are being completed. ITD will also be preparing a presentation for all of the offices to provide them with an introduction as to what occurs and what to expect during a software implementation. This can be presented at the next Commission meeting if desired as well.

Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % used/Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year TotalFund   127 - Judicial Technology Sales Tax

REVENUEDepartment   800 - Other- Countywide Expenses

Sub-Department   000 - Revenues30105 Sales Tax- RTA 896,500.00 .00 896,500.00 66,235.30 .00 233,378.69 663,121.31 26 928,113.9638000 Investment Income 4,250.00 .00 4,250.00 2,313.50 .00 5,203.19 (953.19) 122 1,125.6739000 Transfer From Other Funds 1,000,000.00 .00 1,000,000.00 .00 .00 1,000,000.00 .00 100 1,450,000.0039900 Cash On Hand 1,532,353.00 121,214.00 1,653,567.00 .00 .00 .00 1,653,567.00 0 .00

Sub-Department   000 - Revenues Totals $3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $68,548.80 $0.00 $1,238,581.88 $2,315,735.12 35% $2,379,239.63Department   800 - Other- Countywide Expenses Totals $3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $68,548.80 $0.00 $1,238,581.88 $2,315,735.12 35% $2,379,239.63

REVENUE TOTALS $3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $68,548.80 $0.00 $1,238,581.88 $2,315,735.12 35% $2,379,239.63EXPENSE

Department   800 - Other- Countywide ExpensesSub-Department   812 - Judicial Technology Sales Tax

40000 Salaries and Wages 275,000.00 5,500.00 280,500.00 18,834.58 .00 100,705.55 179,794.45 36 33,779.7045000 Healthcare Contribution 79,352.00 (7,737.00) 71,615.00 3,134.48 .00 13,869.60 57,745.40 19 3,304.8545010 Dental Contribution 2,264.00 .00 2,264.00 134.46 .00 591.72 1,672.28 26 150.2645100 FICA/SS Contribution 21,038.00 421.00 21,459.00 1,417.08 .00 7,611.96 13,847.04 35 2,566.2245200 IMRF Contribution 30,773.00 615.00 31,388.00 2,072.82 .00 11,148.60 20,239.40 36 3,827.5350150 Contractual/Consulting Services .00 80,000.00 80,000.00 .00 .00 72,275.00 7,725.00 90 75,900.0050340 Software Licensing Cost .00 2,000.00 2,000.00 468.00 .00 1,943.66 56.34 97 .0053000 Liability Insurance 5,748.00 .00 5,748.00 .00 .00 .00 5,748.00 0 .0053010 Workers Compensation 5,335.00 .00 5,335.00 .00 .00 .00 5,335.00 0 .0053020 Unemployment Claims 743.00 .00 743.00 .00 .00 .00 743.00 0 .0053100 Conferences and Meetings 2,500.00 20,000.00 22,500.00 5,291.39 .00 39,148.97 (16,648.97) 174 .0053110 Employee Training 6,800.00 .00 6,800.00 132.50 .00 132.50 6,667.50 2 .0053120 Employee Mileage Expense .00 .00 .00 26.88 .00 84.72 (84.72) +++ .0060000 Office Supplies 450.00 .00 450.00 .00 .00 1,414.93 (964.93) 314 .0060020 Computer Related Supplies 3,100.00 .00 3,100.00 .00 .00 306.17 2,793.83 10 .0060070 Computer Hardware- Non Capital .00 .00 .00 .00 60.00 600.28 (660.28) +++ .0070020 Computer Software- Capital 3,000,000.00 .00 3,000,000.00 .00 39,115.00 .00 2,960,885.00 1 .0070030 Computer Software License Cost .00 20,415.00 20,415.00 .00 .00 .00 20,415.00 0 .00

Sub-Department   812 - Judicial Technology Sales Tax Totals

$3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $31,512.19 $39,175.00 $249,833.66 $3,265,308.34 8% $119,528.56

Department   800 - Other- Countywide Expenses Totals $3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $31,512.19 $39,175.00 $249,833.66 $3,265,308.34 8% $119,528.56EXPENSE TOTALS $3,433,103.00 $121,214.00 $3,554,317.00 $31,512.19 $39,175.00 $249,833.66 $3,265,308.34 8% $119,528.56

Fund   127 - Judicial Technology Sales Tax TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 3,433,103.00 121,214.00 3,554,317.00 68,548.80 .00 1,238,581.88 2,315,735.12 35 2,379,239.63EXPENSE TOTALS 3,433,103.00 121,214.00 3,554,317.00 31,512.19 39,175.00 249,833.66 3,265,308.34 8 119,528.56

Fund   127 - Judicial Technology Sales Tax Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,036.61 ($39,175.00) $988,748.22 ($949,573.22) $2,259,711.07

Run by Enright, Bob on 05/15/2014 09:25:03 AM Page 1 of 2

Budget Performance ReportFiscal Year to Date 04/30/14

Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account

Grand TotalsREVENUE TOTALS 3,433,103.00 121,214.00 3,554,317.00 68,548.80 .00 1,238,581.88 2,315,735.12 35 2,379,239.63EXPENSE TOTALS 3,433,103.00 121,214.00 3,554,317.00 31,512.19 39,175.00 249,833.66 3,265,308.34 8 119,528.56

Grand Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37,036.61 ($39,175.00) $988,748.22 ($949,573.22) $2,259,711.07

Run by Enright, Bob on 05/15/2014 09:25:03 AM Page 2 of 2

Budget Performance ReportFiscal Year to Date 04/30/14

Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account

1 | P a g e

FINANCIAL POLICIES REVIEW JUDICIAL PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGIC PLANNING AND

TECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

ISSUE: Requests for payment from Fund 127 within and outside of the scope of the CMS project. The Commission requested a review of handling of requests for payments from Fund 127 within and outside the scope of the court case management system project. The Commission identified issues in handling these requests, namely: ü Allocation of expenses among offices ü Expenditure Limits

Expense types authorized by Fund 127: The Judicial and Public Safety Strategic Planning and Technology Commission (JPSSPTC) was established as a result of a settlement agreement between the County and the former Circuit Clerk. The following language is taken from the ordinance establishing the Commission (Ordinance 11-400, amended by 13-27 and 14-12).

“Section 3. The Commission shall make decisions for the County regarding

capital purchases in technology for the judiciary and public safety departments of the County. These departments shall include but are not limited to the Judiciary, the State’s Attorney’s Office, the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, and the Circuit Clerk’s Office.

“Section 4. The Commission shall, upon receipt of a report developed by the firm of URL Integration outlining proposed standards and budgets for the acquisition of new Case Management Systems (“CMSs”) for the Circuit Clerk, Judiciary, States Attorney and Public Defender for judicial and public safety departments of the County, propose a budget for the development and purchase of new CMSs. Thereafter, the Commission shall forward its proposed CMS budget to the County Board for approval. If the proposed budget is acceptable to the County Board, the County Board shall pass a resolution formally approving the budget for the CMSs, and establishing the method by which the budget shall be funded, the source of such funds, and the allocation of such funds between County departments (“CMS Process Resolution”). The budget so proposed and approved shall include both a proposed CMS budget, and a sub-budget for each department that shall seek to participate in CMS acquisition and integration.

“Section 5. In addition to proposing budgets for the development and purchase

of new CMSs, any time the County wishes to expend funds to be used for capital technology, the Commission shall make recommendations to the County Board regarding that capital technology, and regarding the selection of consultants for capital technology purposes.” The Ordinance was written to address replacement of the CMS system and before a funding source was identified keeping in mind that each office maintains funds whereby

2 | P a g e

CMS-related expenses are paid including the general fund, capital funds, and/or various special revenue funds. In June of 2013 the County Board passed Resolution 13-175 transferring $1,450,000 from the Public Safety Sales Tax Fund 125 into the Judicial Technology Sales Tax Fund 127 to allow for consistency in processing expenses for the project through Fund 127. At the same time, Resolution 13-176 changed the Kane County Financial Policies to reflect that 6% of the Mass Transit Sales Tax would be used for operational and capital projects including systems, administrative expenses, personnel, and other costs for the purchase, implementation, and integrations of projects relating to technology improvements for the judicial system. Shortly thereafter in August of 2013, the County Board passed Resolution 13-247 which provided the funding framework for the CMS system through the “Public Safety Sales Tax Fund 125, the Judicial Technology Sales Tax Fund 127 and the Transit Sales Tax Contingency Fund 126 with possible additional funding sources being available through Circuit Clerk Court Automation funds.” Two recent issues came before the Commission which included purchase of an iJuror module for the Judiciary and purchase of new hardware and software for the Circuit Clerk’s document storage system. These additional expenses will cost just under $100,000, and were approved by the JPSSPTC to be paid from Fund 127. As a result, the Commission wanted to review and establish policies for handling of expense to ensure that: ü There are adequate funds to pay for additional requests ü Each offices needs are treated equitably ü Approvals are established for fund expenditure

Availability of Funds: The County’s financial policies indicate that technology improvements for the judicial system can be paid for through the funds established. However, because funds are limited, the JPSSPTC needs to be apprised of the funding model and fund limits as t prepared by the County’s Chief Financial Officer for Fund 127. The actual CMS project cost has not yet been determined as we are currently in contract negotiations. Bid numbers from Tyler indicated $4 million in project costs and $2.2 million for 5 years of maintenance which are within the budgeted range. However costs for data conversion, customizations, use of additional software systems for document management, and change orders have yet to be determined and will accrue throughout the project. Additional cost savings could be realized during contract negotiations, but it is premature to be able to determine what any savings or expenses will be. The ITD Department requested the County’s Chief Financial Officer review the funding model and availability of additional funding, and he notes that after the software is implemented in 2015 there is just enough revenue to fund ongoing maintenance and IT staff expenses. He further goes on to say that this assumes implementation costs of $6.0 million and maintenance costs beginning in 2016.

3 | P a g e

The additional technology-related costs which are outside of the scope of the CMS system could include hardware (PC’s, laptops, mobile devices, servers), software, printers, scanners, etc. Funding for these items should be reviewed in the normal course of budget preparation starting this year using existing funds established for those purposes. The ITD Department should work with each of the offices to identify future technology requirements and develop a plan for all technology funds. Project Change Orders: There was also some question about how the Commission should handle change orders within the project. On August 29, 2013 the JPSSPTC approved the following procedure for project expenditures and finances: “Motion was made by Hartwell, seconded by Ford to accept the following recommendations of the Finance Subcommittee: The annual budget will be prepared by the IT Exec. Dir. with project invoices to be sent to and reviewed by the IT Project Management Team. Invoices will be entered into the finance system by IT staff, with first approval by the Project Team upon verification by the elected official for which the invoice applies through a payout log, which second approval by the IT Exec. Dir. and final approval by the Finance Department/Auditor’s Office. A change order approval process will be initiated by the project management team with approval by the elected officials invoiced in the project. The project management team will provide a monthly IT Case Management Implementation Report to the Finance Committee. Motion to approve Finance Subcommittee’s recommendation as outlined above carried unanimously by voice vote.” The following more detailed discussion occurred at the JPSSPTC Finance Subcommittee meeting which are noted in the minutes of August 26, 2013: “Fahnestock also inquired about how change orders would be handled, and that some of the details for handling change orders will be clearer once the contracts are reviewed. Hartwell noted that this is an important issue because if a change order comes in that is not covered in the project and that cannot be covered within an office’s budget that will need to be resolved. In addition there are change orders for one office that may affect another so it will be important to monitor those closely. It was noted that there is the possibility that something could have easily not have been anticipated in the RFP that will need to be addressed. Hoscheit inquired about who would have the authority to dictate a change that affected someone else’s outcome. Fahnestock noted that this is a key role of project management in that consensus from the stakeholders is necessary. It will be crucial that change orders and issues are communicated to everyone involved including the elected officials, end users, IT, and the vendor. It was noted that the case management report called for regular meetings with the various groups and offices on a consistent basis. The change order approval process will also need to be communicated to the vendor so that it is clear when the contract is reviewed. Discussion was also held if there should be a specific dollar amount that needs to be handled through a formal approval process. Fahnestock commented that various cost performance functions were useful tools to handle these issues, and that they could be handled through the project team wherein change orders would go through the offices and be coordinated with Bob Enright and Barb Garza. It was the subcommittee’s recommendation to the Judicial and Public Safety Technology Commission that the

4 | P a g e

annual budget be prepared by the IT Executive Director with project invoices to be sent to and received by the IT Project Management Team, that invoices be entered into the finance system by the IT staff with first approval by the Project Management Team upon verification by the elected official for which the invoice applies through an invoice payout log, second approval by the IT Executive Director, and final approval by the Finance Department/Auditor’s Office. It was also the subcommittee’s recommendation that a change order approval process by initiated by the project management team with approval by the elected officials involved in the project. It was also the subcommittee’s recommendation that the project team provide a monthly IT Case Management Implementation Report to the Finance Committee. It was noted that the financial policies noted should be approved by the Judicial and Public Safety Technology Commission who will be meeting on August 29, 2013.” ITD and Finance Department Recommendations: 1. Additional funding requests outside of the CMS software RFP not be considered until execution the completion of a final contract. 2. Change orders within the scope of the project be handled as previously approved; 3. Technology-related expenses inside and/or outside the scope of the CMS project be handled primarily through the budget process starting in 2014 and that the ITD Department work with each office in the preparation of technology budgets which may or may not include Fund 127; and 4. Additional unanticipated expenses not related to the CMS project and not budgeted be reviewed and approved by the Commission upon recommendations from the County’s Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Officer and that said approval reflect the specific fund these expenses are to be paid from and be presented to the Finance Committee and the County Board in the form of a budget adjustment resolution. Respectfully submitted, Roger Fahnestock, CIO Joe Onzick, CFO Bob Enright, CMS Project Manager Barb Garza, ITD Project Manager May 7, 2014 May 29, 2014 - Changes approved by Judicial and Public Safety Strategic Planning and Technology Commission

From Fields to Facilities A History of Kane County Facility Planning May 2014

Think Big

From Fields to Facilities

From Fields to Facilities

145-acre Route 38 Parcel

Peck

Roa

d

Judicial Center Master Plan

Judicial Center

Kit-of-Parts Master Plan County Facilities Consolidation

Juvenile Justice Center

Adult Justice Center Planning

Strategic Plan 5-year Capital Plan

Adult Justice Center

Judicial Center Site Master Plan

Judicial Options Feasibility Study

Near-term Justice Projects

Court Case Management System Upgrades

Judicial Center Site Master Plan

Site Master Plan

Judicial Center Quadrant

Adult Justice Quadrant

Juvenile Justice Quadrant

Government Center Quadrant

Site Master Plan

Judicial Center Quadrant

Site Master Plan

Juvenile Justice Quadrant

Site Master Plan

Site Master Plan

Adult Justice Quadrant

Government Center Quadrant

Site Master Plan

Site Master Plan North Parcel

Judicial Center Expansion Planning

Existing Judicial Center

Lake Level

SHERIFF’S HOLDING

CLERK RECORDS CAFETERIA

LAKE LEVEL ENTRY

Lower Level

EXISTING COURTROOMS

CIRCUIT CLERK COURT SERVICES

SECURITY

NEW ENTRY

Second Level

EXISTING COURTROOMS

NEW COURTROOMS JURY ASSEMBLY

Third Level STATE’S ATTORNEY

EXISTING COURTROOMS

PUBLIC DEFENDER

Complete Phase II Expansion COMPLETED EXPANSION

EXISTING COURTHOUSE

Parking Needs

Complete Buildout FUTURE CIVIL

COURTS ADDITION

Discussion