Snohomish County Council Operations Committee Jackson Board Room August 2, :30 p.m. MINUTES

Transcription

1 PRESENT: Committee Chair Koster Committee Member Sullivan Committee Member Gossett (not present) Committee Member Somers Marcia Isenberg, Chief of Staff Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst Barbara Chapman, Legislative Aide Brian Goodnight, Sr. Legislative Analyst John Amos, Sr. Legislative Analyst Tom Teigen, Parks Director Mark Campbell, Fairgrounds Director Larry Calter, Information Services Director Pat Scattaregia, Information Services Matt Ballou, Information Services Denise Ohlfs, Information Services Dave Waggoner, Airport Director Bill Dolan, Airport Connie Barndt, Auditor s Office Cherie Hutchins, Facilities Management Will Rugg, Planning & Development Services Barb Mock, Planning & Development Services Ellene Kearney, Citizen Patricia Manning, Citizen Debbie Parris, Asst. Clerk of the Council Snohomish County Council Operations Committee Jackson Board Room August 2, :30 p.m. MINUTES Committee Chair Koster called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ECAF #5511: (Proposed Motion #10-369) Master information technology software and services contract for web-based geobrowser software and service for AMANDA GIS integration Originator: Pat Scattaregia, Information Services Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided an overview. He stated that funding for the first year will come from the 3% technology fee revenue and funding for subsequent years will come from revenue collected from Information Services' rate model [Fund 505]. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session August 4 th for action. Finance& Economic Development Committee Meeting, August 3, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Minutes

2 2. ECAF #5504: (Proposed Ordinance #10-069) Relating to potentially dangerous and dangerous dogs amending Chapter 9.10 Snohomish County Code Originator: Vicki Lubrin, Licensing Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. ACTION: Move to Administrative Matters, General Legislative Session August 11 th to set time and date for a public hearing. 3. ECAF #5505: (Proposed Ordinance #10-070) Relating to Animal Control, revising dog leash laws, and amending Snohomish County Code Originator: Vicki Lubrin, Licensing Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided an overview. ACTION: Move to Administrative Matters, General Legislative Session August 11 th to set time and date for a public hearing. 4. ECAF #5548: (Proposed Motion #10-368) Naming the dairy barn at the Snohomish County Evergreen State Fair "The Don Steffen Dairy Barn" Originator: Marc Krandel, Parks Department Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session August 4 th for action. 5. ECAF #5554: (Proposed Motion #10-367) Sponsorship Contract for Sound Publishing, Inc. dba Little Nickel at the 2010 Evergreen State Fair Originator: Mark Campbell, Fairgrounds Manager Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. Responding to Committee Chair Koster, Mark Campbell, Fairgrounds Manager, eplained that this ECAF is before Council because the code allows the Eecutive to sign contracts up to $25,000 and this particular contract is above that amount. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session August 11 th for action. Finance& Economic Development Committee Meeting, August 3, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Minutes

3 6. ECAF #5523: (Proposed Motion #10-366) Entertainment Contract for International Lumberjack Shows at the 2010 Snohomish County Evergreen State Fair Originator: Mark Campbell, Fairgrounds Manager Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session August 11 th for action. 7. ECAF #5562: (Proposed Motion #10-376) License Agreement with Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Re: Paine Field Airport Property. Originator: Cherie Hutchins, Property Management Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. Bill Dolan, Airport, described the location of the project and eplained that it is to replace cables that have been problematic over the last few years. He responded to questions from committee members. ACTION: Move to Consent Agenda, General Legislative Session August 4 th for action. 8. ECAF #5430: (Proposed Motion #10-370) Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the City of Everett for the acquisition of the Deckmann property with Conservation Futures funding Originator: Marc Krandel, Parks Department Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a brief overview. Responding to Committee Chair Koster, Tom Teigen, Parks Director, confirmed that the City of Everett will be maintaining the property. ACTION: Move to Regular Agenda, General Legislative Session August 11 th for action. Finance& Economic Development Committee Meeting, August 3, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Minutes

4 9. ECAFs #5603: (Proposed Motion #10-377), #5604: (Proposed Motion #10-378), #5605: (Proposed Motion #10-379), #5606: (Proposed Motion #10-380), #5607: (Proposed Motion #10-381), #5608: (Proposed Motion #10-382), and #5609: (Proposed Motion #10-383) Approving the return of a portion of Conservation Futures resources previously allocated for the purchase of properties and allocating a portion of the Conservation Futures Property Ta Fund for the purchase of properties Originator: Marc Krandel, Parks Department Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided an overview (see attached staff report for detail). Tom Teigen, Parks Director, responded to questions and concerns of committee members and discussion ensued. ACTION: Move all to Regular Agenda, General Legislative Session August 4 th for action. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Airport - Upcoming Change Order Request Dave Waggoner, Airport Director, provided an introduction and eplained why the runway failing is a comple issue. Bill Dolan, Airport, provided detailed information. 2. DIS Performance Audit/Department Action Plan John Amos, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided background information and eplained that an audit by Moss Adams was performed on the Department of Information Services (DIS). He spoke about the action plan that DIS has developed in response to that audit, specifically the rate model (See attached staff report for detail). Larry Calter, DIS Director, responded to questions from Committee Member Somers. 3. DIS Governance Options Geoffrey Thomas, Sr. Legislative Analyst, provided a detailed report regarding the consideration of moving DIS from the Eecutive s Office oversight to the Auditor s Office. (See attached staff report for detail) Finance& Economic Development Committee Meeting, August 3, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Minutes

5 Mr. Thomas eplained that Larry Calter, Information Services Director, is working on a charter for the Information Technology Advisory Board (ITAB) to review and would like to present that to the Operations Committee in two weeks. He suggested that committee members review this further and discuss in further detail at the net Operations Committee meeting. Committee Member Somers agreed and said he would like to get feedback from the ITAB regarding the charter. Committee Members concurred. Meeting adjourned at 2:07 p.m. Finance& Economic Development Committee Meeting, August 3, 2010 Page 5 of 5 Minutes

6 Snohomish County Council Committee: Operations ECAF: 5603 through 5609 Motion: 10- through 10- Analyst: Geoffrey Thomas Date: August 2, 2010 SUMMARY The Parks and Recreation Department submitted seven proposed motions that would reallocate $1,440,000 in conservation futures fund from three eisting projects to four proposed property acquisitions. NOTE: This is a consolidated report of seven ECAFs numbered Background The Parks and Recreation Department (department) administers the county s conservation futures fund (fund). The department proposes the distribution of conservation future fund ta revenues through the Snohomish County Conservation Futures Program Advisory Board (board). In July 2010, the department presented a reallocation of conservation futures funds to the board. The board voted to recommend that council would reallocate the funds. Current Proposal The department requests council would approve seven motions that would reallocate conservation futures funds. The following summarizes the proposal. I. Reductions to Eisting Acquisitions Property Current Funding Proposed Reduction Remaining Description Lake Serene $1,520,000 $1,120,000 $400,000 Fire District 1 has decided to acquire the majority of this property. The County will acquire approimately 1.5 acres of the original proposal for open space. Skyview Tracts $640,000 $200,000 $440,000 Most of the properties have been acquired. Inde Town Wall $120,000 $120,000 $0 An interest group involved in climbing raised the required funds and purchased the property. Totals: $2,280,000 $1,440,000 $840,000 Page 1 of 2

7 II. Proposed New Acquisitions Property Proposed Funding Description Hansen $500,000 Fairgrounds Area. Supplements RZ- Dev bond funds for purchase of Hansen Property on the east side of the Fairgrounds. Lawson $390,000 Reiter Area. Property would be used to provide parking for individuals to use the Reiter Foothill DNR property for recreational uses. Cutter $320,000 Lord Hill Area. Property would resolve issues presented by current property owner and add open space to the park. Dashiell $230,000 Darrington Area. Property would be used to provide parking for access to Whitehorse Trail and the Stillaguamish River and for additional open space. Total: $1,440,000 Approval to Form: N/A. Action Requested: Move the proposed motions to the August 4 th General Legislative Session for consideration for action. Council Options: Council may: (1) Approve the proposed motion; (2) Request additional information; (3) Modify the motion; or (3) Not approve the proposal by a moving to not approve the proposal or by not making a motion. C:\Documents and Settings\scodlp\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\RETMNVEL\ Consolidated Staff Briefing Conservation Futures Reallocation of funds.doc Page 2 of 2

8 Snohomish County Council Committee: Operations Committee Analyst: John Amos ECAF: n/a Date: 8/2/2010 Summary Review of Action Plan prepared by Department of Information Services (DIS) to implement the recommendations included in the Performance Audit of the DIS Rate Model, Governance Process, and Communications. The plan identifies tasks to be accomplished over the net two years to address each of the recommendations. Background & Discussion: The Action Plan accepts the findings in the report and states that DIS intends to vigorously pursue implementation of all MA (Moss Adams) recommendations. The Action Plan is divided into three sections that parallel the Audit Report: Rate Model; 9 Recommendations; Governance Process, 18 Recommendations; and Communications 14 Recommendations. The Action Plan then identifies tasks to be completed over the net year and half. DIS started responding to some areas of the report before the audit was completed and continues to work on the tasks. The remainder of this staff report will discuss the three report areas and summarize the DIS planned tasks to implement the recommendations. The report will also discuss the significant responsibilities that the Information Technology Advisory Committee (ITAC) will undertake in insuring that many of the recommendations are implemented. Finally, the report will conclude with a discussion of the planned audit follow-up to assess DIS s success in implementing this Action Plan. Rate Model The task of improving the flow of information about IT budgets and rates, as well as evaluating and making changes to the rate model is an ongoing work item with significant milestones during the first quarter of Significant areas of work include:

9 2010 Performance Audit of DIS Rate Model, Governance and Communications August 2, 2010 Page 2 The ITAC will form a Rate Model Evaluation Team (RMET) during the third quarter of The Team will be provided training on rate model functions and the Snohomish County rate model specifically. The principal responsibility of the RMET will be development of a new or reworked rate model by the end The RMET will also be involved in the development of the training materials used to eplain the rate model to interested county staff. Key Milestones: The revised rate model must be in place by early in the first quarter of 2011 to insure availability for implementation during 2012 budget process. The department will develop materials to promote a better understanding of the funds available for technology maintenance and development. The work will include: o Preparation of an overview of the operational and capital funds including a quarterly analysis of the DIS operating and capital fund balances and comparison of actual ependitures to budget; o On an annual basis, ITAC will review an analysis of prior years actual ependitures compared to the budget that includes an eplanation of funds available in the operating and capital funds for the coming year; Key Milestones: Work Proceeds through 2010 ITAC must be in a position to make a rate model recommendation to the Council by first quarter DIS will develop training materials and conduct sessions that help county staff understand rate model and opportunities to impact IT rates. Key Milestones: Training materials need to be completed during third quarter and training occurs in the Q3 and Q Governance Process Most of the recommendations in the governance section address improving the processes that identify, evaluate, select and monitor projects and other DIS services so they are more streamlined and transparent to all involved. The key tasks include: Establish as part of the 30 Month Business Plan the need for a unified project management methodology (PMM) that addresses not only the questions of status reports, but the entirety of a full project management system. DIS will work with the ITAC to establish the process by which a unified project management methodology will be defined. Key Milestones: Business Plan has been completed and includes definition of need. ITAC will begin discussions surrounding use of PMM in

10 2010 Performance Audit of DIS Rate Model, Governance and Communications August 2, 2010 Page 3 Q Development of team and work program to develop PMM begins in Q Open Issue: When will functioning PMM be in place? DIS will establish clear a process that permits departments and offices to present potential projects and vie for resources. ITAC will be responsible for establishing prioritized project lists and assessing the effectiveness of the overall process to balance the needs and resources of the departments. Key Milestones: Processes to be established Q Develop workshops and related materials that: o Support Service Level Agreement (SLA) process implementation; o Provide and understanding of the value SLA s offer to organizations and the parameters that are measured; and o Review Infrastructure architecture, strategic direction of the departments and offices to align with scalable infrastructure. Key Milestones: SLA workshops Q Workshops to review infrastructure architecture Q Revise and adapt the current SLA to reflect the recommended system. Conduct a trial run of that process for 3-6 months. Key Milestone: Complete trial run by Q Establish and implement governance committees according to ITAC charter. Key Milestone: Ratify ITAC charter and develop enabling legislation to create the ITAC and related governance structure. Open Issue: ITAC charter has been completed and reviewed with ITAC members. Enabling legislation of ITAC is under development, however, legislation will need to address overall IT governance issues. This issue is currently under consideration by Council. Communications The Performance Audit report identified communication between DIS and customers and between DIS management and DIS rank and file as areas that require significant attention. The report characterizes the communications issues as the most important theme of the study and goes on to say that if communications are improved, the rate model and other processes will likely improve also...

11 2010 Performance Audit of DIS Rate Model, Governance and Communications August 2, 2010 Page 4 Key tasks include: Take steps to improve communications and morale with department employees: o Establish a series of regular meetings and opportunities for one-onone meetings with DIS department employees to ensure that policies, goals and other messages are clearly eplained; o DIS will establish appropriate training programs to improve departmental knowledge of agreed upon topics; o Utilize more two way communication methods to encourage feedback and improve cooperation and morale; and o Establish clear DIS goals and objectives which will be used to drive the business and provide direction within the entire DIS team. Key Milestones: Meetings and opportunities for one-on-one interactions to begin Q Training programs to be in place by Q Take steps to improve communication and flow of information with department users: o Establish a series of regular meetings and one-on-one interactions with departmental personnel and separately elected officials; o Assure that the ITAC provides ample opportunities for departments and offices to provided input on DIS services and present their project proposals; and o Develop an escalation procedures to insure that unresolved issues are elevated to the appropriate levels. Key Milestones: Begin ITAC meetings and other contacts with department during Q Develop escalation procedures by Q Establish clear process and well-documented systems that permit departments and offices to present potential projects and compete for resources and priority. Key Milestone: Q Etensive Role of ITAC in Accomplishing Tasks to Implement Recommendations in Performance Audit Report The ITAC is responsible for accomplishing many of the tasks set forth in the DIS Action Plan. Attachment A provides a listing of the ITAC roles in implementing the tasks. The ITAC is responsible for reviewing the work of others as the tasks are completed to implement the Action Plan. In addition, the ITAC is responsible to complete work products in order to accomplish tasks and also for making decisions related to the Action Plan.

12 2010 Performance Audit of DIS Rate Model, Governance and Communications August 2, 2010 Page 5 The current ITAC charter addresses the decision making process. However, it does not appear to have an overall governance hierarchy that can take responsibility for completing the work items and insuring that the reviews and decisions are accomplished in a timely manner. Open Issues: Who will be accountable for completion of the tasks that the ITAC is responsible for? The ITAC needs a work program to insure that members are aware of the responsibilities of the committee both as they relate to the Action Plan and the committee s other responsibilities. Impact of 2010 Staffing and Budget Challenges DIS began addressing budget issues that have developed over the last two years as their revenues have declined. In July the Department laid off about 15 FTE s. The layoffs affected nearly all of the service areas of the department. After the layoffs were completed management and remaining department staff began working to realign service requirements to eisting staffing levels. Open Issue: What impacts will the reduced staffing levels have on implementing the Action Plan tasks? Plans for Monitoring the Action Plan Implementation The Office of the Performance Auditor will engage the firm of Moss Adams to do follow up work in the DIS to assess the department s response to the recommendations. Their first review will be conducted this year at the end of the third quarter or early in the fourth quarter and will include the following: Review of the Action Plan including an assessment of the compliance with the schedule and the effectiveness of the work accomplished to resolve the recommendations; Follow-up interviews with elected officials and department staffs; and A follow-up DIS employee survey. See Attachment A In Attendance: Larry Calter

13 Attachment A ITAC Tasks Included In the DIS Action Plan to Address Performance Audit A##-#(C=Communications, G= Governance or R= Rate Model);Recommendation Number;Task Number followed by Task Description Charter Req Review C04-2 Establish clear processes and well documented systems that permit departments and offices to present potential projects and vie for resources and priority through a ratified ITAC charter, and adopted project selection processes and systems. (See G3) C03-2 Establish the ITAC system. First meeting by.? C02-2 Assure that the ITAC provide ample opportunity for departments and offices to provide input and present their project proposals. C08-2. C09-2 DIS to work with ITAC to establish additional preferred methods of communication between DIS and other departments and incorporate new processes C08-1 DIS is holding regularly scheduled meetings with the ITAC committees to improve communication and collaboration. Work Item Decision DIS will hold additional meetings with elected officials and department heads to foster communication. C03-1 Complete and ratify the ITAC Charter. C09-1 DIS is holding regularly scheduled meetings with the ITAC committees to improve communication and collaboration. All subcommittees and ITAC meetings are public with all related documentation appearing on the ITAC SharePoint site. G09-1 The ITAC Charter provides for DIS to produce quarterly reports to the Eecutive and Council summarize any recommendations and major accomplishments of the team. These reports are reviewed and approved by the ITAC prior to submission. The first of these has occurred. The Q ITAC briefing to the Eecutive and Council was held on April 1, The Q briefing is being scheduled for July C05-2 Assure that the ITAC provide ample opportunity for departments and offices to provide input and present their project proposals. G01-2, G06-2, G08-2, Present the problems set to the ITAC and solicit initial response. Seek agreement that a unified process will be best for the county. Establish the process by which such a unified process will be defined and implemented (task force, subcommittee, etc.) on how we can set up a standard. (See G1.) R03-3 Include an analysis, each quarter, of the DIS operating and capital fund balances and actual ependitures to budget. Presentation to ITAC. R08-1 DIS and RMET will prepare training material for use at ITAC, subcommittees and at Departmental/Office Holder organizational training sessions. Training will be geared toward helping non-technical staff understand the DIS rate model.

14 A##-#(C=Communications, G= Governance or R= Rate Model);Recommendation Number;Task Number followed by Task Description Charter Req Review Work Item G05-1 Establish a set of governance committees as outlined in the ITAC charter. Assure all departments and offices have a voice in these committees where project proposals are heard and adopting for eecution. Establish clear processes and well documented systems that permit departments and offices to present potential projects and vie for resources and priority through a ratified ITAC charter, and adopted project selection processes and systems. The needs and resources of all departments and offices need to be balanced. Clearly identify the ranking criteria, and include in that criteria that provide fleibility and objective metrics. G15-1 Establish clear processes and well documented systems that permit departments and offices to present potential projects and vie for resources and priority through a ratified ITAC charter, and adopted project selection processes and systems. The needs and resources of all departments and offices need to be balanced. Clearly identify the ranking criteria, and include in that criteria that provide fleibility and objective metrics. (See G4.) G16-2 Present the problems set to the ITAC and solicit initial response. Seek agreement that a unified process will be best for the county. Establish the process by which such a unified process will be defined and implemented (task force, subcommittee, etc.) on how we can set up a standard. (See G1.) R01-4 Report back to the ITAC and subcommittees on selected projects and their relationship to our published goals. R02-1 Form an ITAC subcommittee tentatively titled: Rate Model Evaluation Team (RMET). R02-2 Charter the RMET to prepare an agenda for creating the new rate model. R03-2 Present prepared presentation (RMET) to the subcommittees and ITAC. G17-1 Complete and ratify the ITAC Charter. G08-3 Present the problems set to the ITAC and solicit initial response. Seek agreement that a unified process will be best for the county. Establish the process by which such a unified process will be defined and implemented (task force, subcommittee, etc.) on how we can set up a standard. (See G6.) R04-2 Present the training material as a workshop to ITAC members. C10-2 DIS will develop with ITAC high level goals and objectives to enhance interdepartmental cooperation. R05-2 The ITAC to make quarterly recommendations to the Eecutive and Council on rate adjustments. G05-2 Assess the effectiveness of the ITAC project selection process through formal and informal systems. Publish the results in the quarterly ITAC report. Conduct these assessments at regular intervals. Complete the first assessment and report. Decision

15 A##-#(C=Communications, G= Governance or R= Rate Model);Recommendation Number;Task Number followed by Task Description R03-4 Yearly, at the beginning of the DIS budget process, present to ITAC the prior years actual to budget and an eplanation of funds available in operating and capital funds for the coming year. R05-1 Concurrent with presenting the operating and capital fund balance reviews, DIS will present to the ITAC any under or over spending that could affect immediate rate adjustments. R07-3 RMET and ITAC to make specific recommendation to the Eecutive and Council on the viability of direct billing in the County (for 2012 budget). C10-3 ITAC to adopt the goals and objectives and amend the charter. Charter Req Review Work Item Decision

16 Snohomish County Council Committee: Operations Analyst: Geoffrey Thomas ECAF: N/A; Motion: N/A Date: August 2, 2010 SUMMARY Budget note (b) (6) of the 2010 Budget epressed council s intent to consider moving the Department of Information Services (DIS) from the Eecutive Office s oversight to the Auditor s Office. The intent of this staff briefing is to provide a broad evaluation of three governance structures, one of which includes assigning the Auditor s Office with DIS s oversight authority. General, DIS The Eecutive s Office is empowered with oversight authority for the Department of Information Services (DIS). DIS, a department of approimately 99 FTEs, primarily provides services to county departments and offices of independently elected officials. DIS s 2010 Budget consists of $20 million in revenues mostly from technology interfund rates that county departments and offices pay. DIS provides services and manages vendor contracts related to information technologies (IT) and telecommunications (including landline and wireless devices). DIS further provides services related to public disclosure, archival records, print shop and imaging. Approimately three-quarters of the department s employees work with IT and telecommunications. Approimately 85% of DIS s employees are represented. Represented DIS employees are members of one AFSCME collective bargaining unit. Background Budget note (b) (6) of the 2010 Budget epressed council s intent to consider moving the DIS from the Eecutive Office s oversight to the Auditor s Office. 1 The budget note indicates council s epectation that a decision regarding the DIS s oversight would follow the completion of a performance audit. Moss Adams released its final 1 Budget Note (b) (6): Department of Information Services. In order to improve county-wide delivery of information technology and related services, it is the Council s intent to move oversight authority from the Eecutive to the Auditor and to eliminate the Department of Information Services (DIS). The Council recently selected the consulting firm of Moss Adams LLP to conduct a performance audit of DIS which will focus attention on three areas: the rate model for allocating costs, governance structure, and communication. The Council anticipates that legislation to implement the change may be adopted to take effect no later than March 31, (Snohomish County Ordinance , 2010 Budget Ordinance, p 24). 1

17 performance audit 2 in April 2010 and presented to council s Operations and Performance Audit Committee on April 19 th. The performance audit provided an assessment of DIS s rate model, governance process and communications. The reader is referred to the assessment for additional information regarding findings and recommendations related to these topics. Moss Adams acknowledged budget note (b) (6) in Communications Finding 13. Moss Adams recommended: Wherever DIS is organizationally located, an alternative structure should be considered to establish some type of broader-based County technology oversight committee. The purpose would be to guide technology oversight and decision making. This committee could be comprised of Elected Offices and/or Directors. This structure would provide some level of compromise and allow for direction and input over DIS operations, decisions, etc. We believe that a high level technology governance structure would be useful to the County to provide oversight for technology policy, strategy, budgets, planning, and major decisions. This body would provide for proper decision making, and align County government at appropriate levels. (Moss Adams, 35). Scope of this Current Briefing The intent of this staff briefing is to provide a broad evaluation of different DIS governance structures. Additional analysis and/or drafting of legislation will be required to implement the alternatives (one alternative would require a charter amendment). This brief assumes that the county would not privatize the IT function. Two of the alternatives consider moving oversight authority from the Eecutive s Office to another body and one considers a more active IT oversight committee while retaining the Eecutive s Office in an oversight capacity. The alternatives are not necessarily mutually eclusive, that is, council could consider incorporating aspects of one alternative with another. Summary of Alternatives The briefing provides a broad evaluation of three alternatives. alternatives are discussed in this briefing: The following 1. Change Oversight Authority to Auditor s Office. The council would modify county code to change DIS s oversight authority from the Eecutive to the Auditor. The Auditor is a non-partisan elected official 3 within the eecutive branch of Snohomish County. This alternative reflects considerations in 2 Moss Adams, LLP, Department of Information Services, Rate Model, Governance Process and Communications Performance Audit, April 9, Snohomish County Charter, Article 4, Section 4.15: The offices of county treasurer, county auditor, county assessor, county sheriff, and county clerk shall be non-partisan offices. (Added during General Election, Nov. 5, 1996, Eff date Nov. 30, 1996). 2

18 budget note (b) (6). 2. Information Technology Management Board (ITMB). The council would authorize a vote on a charter amendment that would move DIS s oversight authority would change from an elected eecutive to an IT management board. This alternative is a hybrid of budget note (b) (6) and the recommendation following Communications Finding 13 (Moss Adams, 35). 3. Information Technology Advisory Board (ITAB): The council would modify county code to require DIS present defined categories of IT proposals to an advisory board for formal recommendations. A dispute resolution process would allow the advisory board to request council s review of a DIS decision when it is inconsistent with the advisory board s recommendation. This alternative is intended to be consistent Communications Finding 13 (Moss Adams, 35) and retains the County Eecutive as the oversight authority. Evaluation of Alternatives I. CHANGE OVERSIGHT AUTHORITY TO AUDITOR S OFFICE. Description In this alternative, council would move DIS s oversight authority from the Eecutive s Office to the Auditor s Office. DIS s management would be subject to the Auditor s oversight and approval, including, but not limited to: policies, procedures, IT solution acquisition, personnel, stakeholder coordination, and service delivery. Analysis Management Responsibilities. Moving DIS under the Auditor s Office significantly increases the Auditor s management responsibilities. The number of personnel in the Auditor s Office would grow from approimately 51 FTEs to 152 FTEs and the number of collective bargaining units would increase from two to three. The Auditor s budget would grow from approimately $9.57 million in predominantly general fund revenues to approimately $30 million in predominantly interfund revenues. 4 Service Delivery. The move would significantly diversify the services the Auditor s Office provides. Currently, the Auditor s Office has four distinct functions (elections and voting, licensing, animal control, and recording). Moving DIS under the Auditor s Office would add approimately nine distinct functions including: public disclosure, archival records, print shop, imaging, telecommunications, application development, GIS, systems engineering, and client services (Help Desk). Of the nine functions listed, approimately three-quarters of DIS s personnel are involved with IT (systems engineering, application development, and GIS) and telecommunications. In addition to diversifying the Auditor s Office s functional areas of work, the Auditor s Office and DIS have different service delivery orientations. The Office s service delivery is oriented primarily to eternal customers (such as county residents and businesses), while DIS is oriented primarily to internal customers (county employees). Governance. The alternative would shift financial and resource allocation needs 4 FTE and budget represent both general fund and non-general fund. Year 2010 Budget Summary, November 23, 2009, Ehibit 10/page 10 and Ehibit 11/page 11. 3

19 specifically from the Eecutive s to the Auditor s Office. While the shift would reduce resource needs in the Eecutive s Office, it would impact resources in the Auditor s Office. At the management level, moving DIS to the Auditor s oversight authority would entail a necessary growth in the Office s IT knowledge base, involve a significant growth in the oversight personnel and budget-related responsibilities, and necessitate developing different relationships with county departments and offices that would become the Auditor s clients and customers. While there would be short-term impacts in growing the Auditor s Office s knowledge base and re-structuring to manage new personnel and budgetary responsibilities, there would long-term considerations that could impact the Office s mission, priorities, and culture. A key to these considerations would involve the Office s leadership s ability to maintain a balance among distinctly different functions, for eample: ensuring that elections are properly held for the public while simultaneously ensuring that IT projects are completed within scope, schedule, and budget for county departments. Collective Bargaining. The entire collective bargaining unit would move from one supervising entity to another. The move in and of itself would not be epected to necessitate revisions to the eisting bargaining agreement. Amendments Required. The Snohomish County Charter Article 3, Section provides that the County Auditor shall have the powers and duties established by ordinance. 5 By adopting an ordinance assigning the Auditor with the powers and duties associated with DIS, council can move DIS from the Eecutive s oversight to the Auditor s. To implement this alternative, council would adopt an ordinance amending Snohomish County Code. The amendments would epressly identify the Auditor s Office as the oversight authority. Further amendments to county code may be required to ensure that all instances of code reflecting the Eecutive s Office in oversight authority to DIS are revised. II. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT BOARD Description DIS s oversight authority would be moved under an Information Technology Management Board (management board) composed of the county s independently elected officials (assessor, auditor, clerk, prosecutor, treasurer, and sheriff), a district court judge, a superior court judge, the eecutive, and a councilmember. These individuals represent the stakeholders. In addition to the county s independently elected officials, the management board s membership could include eternal members of the public with both private and public sector eperience in IT. The management board s oversight and approval, including, but not limited to: 5 Section Powers and Duties: The county assessor, auditor, clerk, treasurer and sheriff established under this charter shall have the powers and duties established by ordinance. All eecutive departments and elected officers shall be subject to the personnel, budgeting, ependiture and any other policies established by the county council. (Snohomish County Charter, Article 3) 4

20 policies, procedures, IT solution acquisition, personnel, stakeholder coordination, and service delivery. Management board decisions would be by majority vote; however, decision thresholds could be established so that ministerial and defined classifications of decisions could be made without the management board s vote. Analysis Management Responsibilities. As the management board would provide oversight authority for DIS, the board members would take a significant role in understanding DIS. This level of understanding would require management board members to become as familiar with DIS as they are with their own offices. This would be a time impact to board members and could be a time impact to their respective staff members should they delegate authority for reviewing materials. Service Delivery. By way of the stakeholder groups providing oversight authority through a management board, DIS s customers would have better control over IT services that affect their offices. While providing direct management over their own services, using a Board as an oversight authority could complicate various aspects of managing DIS. For eample, meeting with a Board on short notice would appear to be more onerous than meeting with an individual on short notice. Governance. Financial and resource allocation needs would shift specifically from the Eecutive s to the management board. While the shift would reduce resource needs in the Eecutive s Office, it would impact resources in other ways throughout the county. An eample would be the time spent by board members and their respective staff members. Collective Bargaining. The entire collective bargaining unit would move from one supervising entity to another, here a management board. The move in and of itself would not be epected to necessitate revisions to the eisting bargaining agreement. Amendments Required: This alternative would require revisions to the county charter, which would include a vote in a General Election. The 2010 General Election is November 2. To place a proposed charter amendment on the ballot would require a proposed charter amendment and a resolution placing the amendment on the ballot by August 10 th. III. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY BOARD Description In this alternative, an Information Technology Advisory Board (ITAB) would propose, consider, and vote on IT proposals. The ITAB could be composed of the county s independently elected officials (assessor, auditor, clerk, prosecutor, treasurer, and sheriff), a district court judge, a superior court judge, the eecutive, and a councilmember. ITAB membership could include eternal members of the public with both private and public sector eperience in IT. The Board s scope of review is intended to be broad in its approach. Generally, the ITAB could consider and vote on recommendations related to those proposals that must be submitted to council for consideration. Additionally, the ITAB could consider other IT proposals that affect more than one department/office s customer service delivery, business operations, and compliance with federal, state, and local laws. 5

21 The following is a summary of the types of proposals ITAB could consider: 1. The 3-year technology plan, 2. The methodology for and subsequent approval of the annual technology replacement plan, 3. Policy and budgetary implications associated with changes to the rate model, 4. Acquisition of services and products eceeding a defined ependiture amount or involving IT systems countywide, 5. IT policies, procedures, or solutions that involve county customer service delivery, business practices or compliance with federal, state, or local laws, and 6. Revisions to code related to IT. ITAB recommendations could be by majority vote. For proposals requiring council approval, ITAB recommendations could be forwarded to council for consideration and DIS could present alternatives to ITAB s recommendation. For proposals meeting a defined threshold, but which are not forwarded to council for approval, ITAB could be given an option in code for dispute resolution through Council in the event that DIS decides not to follow ITAB s recommendation. This alternative would maintain technical working groups, similar to those groups used today (Law and Justice Integration, Land Technology, and Administration). These groups, which would consist of DIS and department/office staff, would evaluate a proposal s technical merits. The groups recommendations could be forwarded to ITAB as part of the department s presentation to ITAB. Changes in Financial and Resource Allocation: This alternative is epected to use the eisting ITAC and technical work groups. The department currently staffs these groups. This alternative is not anticipated to result in significant increases in costs or resource allocation. However, delivering some IT solutions may take longer than under eisting conditions as an ITAB recommendation will be required where it is not currently required. While the process may take longer, though, the process would ensure that affected departments/offices have been a material part of decisionmaking. Changes in Eisting Governance Structure: N/A; the Eecutive s Office continues oversight authority. Collective Bargaining: This alternative does not make any modifications to eisting supervision for represented employees. The alternative is not anticipated to necessitate revisions to eisting bargaining agreements. Amendments Required: This alternative would require revisions to County Code, SCC Required revisions would include: creating the ITAB, establishing technical workgroups, requiring the director to seek recommendations from the ITAB for defined types of decisions, and providing for a dispute resolution process in the event that the majority of ITAB is aggrieved by the director s decision to not follow ITAB s recommendation. 6

22 IV. OTHER Council could consider a combination of options as well. For eample, 1. Requiring ITAB approval could be required whether DIS is under the Eecutive s Office or under the Auditor s Office. 2. Modifying DIS s scope to focus on computer information systems. Functions that are less IT-intensive could be moved to other elected offices. Functions that appear to be less IT-intensive constitute approimately one-quarter of DIS s functions and include: the print shop, the mail room, public disclosure, archival records, and imaging. Requested Action: The requested action is that council to consider directing council staff to perform additional research and/or draft legislation. 7