Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2001.05.10 - 26522REPORT (misc. #01127) May 10, 2001 BY: Public Services Committee, David Moffitt, Chairperson IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CIRCUIT COURT/FRIEND OF THE COURT — IMPLEMENTATION OF MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Public Services Committee, having reviewed the above-referenced Resolution on May 10, 2001, reports with a recommendation that the resolution be adopted. Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Committee, I move acceptance of the foregoing report. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE Public Services Committee Vote: Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with McPherson voting no. MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #01127 May 10, 2001 BY: General Government Lommittee, William R. Patterson, Chairperson IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CIRCUIT COURT/FRIEND OF THE COURT- IMPLEMENTATION OF MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the State of Michigan's Family Independence Agency (FIA) is faced with continuing multi-million dollar federal penalties for failing to implement a statewide Child Support Enforcement System (CSES); and WHEREAS the State has mandated that a county shall be required to pay a penalty due to the state's failure to be in compliance with federal child support system requirements unless the county, friend of the court, and the FIA have a written agreement that outlines the county's commitment to participate in the federally required child support enforcement system and the county complies with the timelines for completion established by the FIA; and WHEREAS the Oakland County Circuit Court is committed to proceeding with the FIA/SCAO in the implementation and operation of a MICSES for the Oakland County Friend of the Court; and WHEREAS Oakland County's proposed plan of implementation envisions a direct communications link between the State and Friend of the Court, enabling independent operation and support of MICSES by the State; and WHEREAS under the proposed plan, operation and support of interrelated local systems will be provided by the Oakland County Department of Information Technology (IT) through the use of a Citrix application host and associated browser based applications, which also would operate independently from the State CSES, but with a loss of current imaging workflow functionality at the FOC; and WHEREAS the estimated cost of the foregoing proposal is $1,225,000, including $525,000 for Filenet Imaging Internet/Intranet Server, $250,000 for Citrix equipment, and $250,000 for Friend of the Court manhours and $200,000 for Information Technology manhours; and WHEREAS the costs associated with the implementation of MICSES are anticipated to be allowable under the Friend of the Court Cooperative Reimbursement Program, which shares costs proportionately between the State and counties(2/3 State and 1/3 County); and WHEREAS, having reviewed the foregoing resolution, the Public Services Committee and the General Government Committee recommends approval of this resolution by the Board of Commissioners. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners authorizes implementation of the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MICSES) in Oakland County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of implementing this federally mandated program be borne by the Friend of the Court Cooperative Reimbursement Program, which shares costs proportionately between the State and counties (2/3 State and 1/3 County). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Oakland County delegation to the State Legislature. Chairperson, on behalf of the General Government Committee, I move adoption of the foregoing resolution. GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Webster absent. PROPOSAL FOR MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN April 17, 2001 Prepared by — Oakland County Department of Information Technology 1200 North Telegraph Rd. Pontiac, Michigan 48341 Contact — Robert Daddow Asst. Deputy County Executive 248 / 858-1650 COAKRND* COUNTY MICHIGAN L. BROOKS PATTERSON, OAKLAND COUNTY EXECUTIVE Robert J. Daddow Assistant Deputy County Executive April 18, 2001 Ms. Virginia Hambric CSES Project Director 1000 Long Blvd. Suite 20 Lansing, Michigan 48913 And Mr. Wallace Dutkowski Director — Office of Child Support Family Independence Agency 235 South Grand Ave. P.O. Box 30037 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7978 RE: Executive Summary - Proposal for MICSES Implementation in Oakland County Dear Ms. Hambric and Mr. Dutkowslci Enclosed is a detailed document entitled "Proposal for Michigan Child Support Enforcement System Implementation in Oakland County". This document outlines a viable plan to help ensure that the State can avoid an estimated $38 million in penalties due on September 30, 2001 to be imposed by the federal government. The County has been and remains supportive of the State's efforts in complying with this federal mandate. Key to the State's successful accomplishment of goal is the timely completion of the implementation of CSES in Oakland County. The County, the Sixth Circuit Court and its Friend of the Court stand ready to implement the CSES project immediately. A simplified CSES implementation plan is a requisite to accomplishment of the State's goal. The salient points of the County's simplified CSES implementation plan are as follows: • The State must immediately acquire and install direct connection (likely a Ti line) from Lansing to the Sixth Circuit Friend of the Court. The State must then install connections from the Friend of the Court to other departments involved in Title IV enforcement, i.e. Prosecutor and Courts. 1 DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUILDING 49W • 1200 N TELEGRAPH RD DEPT 421 • PONTIAC MI 48341-0421 • (248) 858-1650 • FAX (248) 858-5130 • Once the State's direct CSES connection is installed, the State will then be able to install its personal computers, along with the requisite CSES software, on the FIA-FOC network. • Data cleansing can and should begin immediately. The County has already begun providing data tapes to the State. • FIA analysis of the current Sixth Circuit FOC workflow procedures must be restricted in favor of an expanded training of County staff. There is no need to exhaustively study procedures that will, by definition, be displaced by new procedures necessary under the MICSES. • The County will concurrently develop a Citrix client / browser solution for its FOC to provide access to the County hosted FOC applications that are not included in CSES. The County believes that this simplified implementation plan provides the best way to achieve the State's goal of avoiding the significant penalties. We strongly encourage that the State adopt this plan. The County stands ready to support this simplified implementation plan and commits to partnering with the State in providing resources necessary for successful implementation of CSES by September 30, 2001 in Oakland County. Very truly yours, R44411- i9—eaeithi Robert J. Daddow, Assistant Deputy County Executive Copy to: Joan Young, Chief Judge, Sixth Circuit Court Board of Commissioners Gerald Poisson, Asst. Deputy County Executive Phillip Bertolini, Dir. — Dept. of Information Technology Joseph Salamone, FOC Administrator 2 PROPOSAL FOR MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN April 16, 2001 BUSINESS GOALS AND ISSUES In a Detroit Free Press article dated April 2, 2001, Mr. Douglas Howard, Family Independence Agency (FIA) Director acknowledges that its system (that is, the Child Support Enforcement System, or CSES) may not have all the functions counties have come to depend on, but the time to stall has stopped. He further went on to state: "We need to get this done. We need to get out from under the penalties." Avoiding stiff federal penalties for the State's inability to deploy a statewide CSES in over 12 years is the principal, short-term State goal for Oakland County, as well as all other counties. During the summer of 1999, the State intended on creating a new 'high volume assessment' (HVA) child support enforcement system to accommodate the operating needs of larger counties. This HVA system was intended to eventually replace the CSES in other counties as well. As part of Oakland County's involvement in the development of the HVA system, the FIA Director committed that the new system would improve Friend of the Court productivity, would not increase labor requirements and use the County's computer standards, among other commitments. In December 2000, the cost of the proposed HVA system was determined to approach $180 million (BEFORE the substantial penalties to be imposed while this new system was being developed and deployed). The time frame for the HVA system deployment was estimated at roughly 56 months. Penalties could have approached another $250 million or so as the HVA system was developed and deployed. The combination of extended time frame (all the while incurring multi-million dollar penalties) and the exorbitant cost led the State of Michigan to abandon the HVA system in December 2000 in favor of deploying the 'old' CSES to the remaining 10 or so counties not on CSES. Oakland County was informed of the decision to abandon the HVA system in January 2001. With the abandonment of the HVA system, the June 1999 commitments noted above have been rescinded by the State. These commitments are not presently part of the March 2, 2001 Memorandum of Understanding with the State. Over the past several years, the County has appropriated significant County funds to address federal mandates (approaching $800,000) in its current Friend of the Court mainframe system. While roughly two-thirds of these costs were borne by the federal government, the remaining funds were covered through Oakland County's General Fund. Other performance modifications to the County's Friend of the Court system were funded through the Cooperative Reimbursement Program as well (that is, two-thirds funded by federal government / one-third funded by the General Fund). The County was constantly 1 improving the productivity of the Friend of the Court personnel throughout the entire 1990s. In addition, the County has actively participated in the joint application development sessions called by the CSES staff in order to create a 'high volume assessment' system (now abandoned effective December 2000). Finally, the County participated in the development and implementation of the State Disbursements Unit application. The State Disbursements Unit in Oakland County was operational in mid-January 2001. Over the past seven years, Oakland County has actively participated in each request for assistance by State vendors and staff supporting the CSES implementation. County personnel assisted in the development of numerous plans and approaches and many were subsequently discarded. The State has reviewed and evaluated Oakland County's Friend of the Court system no less than three times over these past seven years in anticipation of the CSES implementation in Oakland County. The County has and continues to be an active participant in the solution required by the State for the statewide child support enforcement system. Any and all accusations as to Oakland County 'stalling' in the implementation of CSES have been and continue to be false. It is clear that Mr. Howard's comments noted above must be referring to a county other than Oakland. The County's Circuit Court, Board of Commissioners, and County Executive offices have been and are currently committed to the conversion of CSES under the parameters established by the State of Michigan. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on March 2, 2001 endorsing the County's continued participation in the implementation efforts in accordance with the State's parameters. The State of Michigan faces a penalty of approximately $38 million should it fail to have a fully functioning CSES on September 30, 2001. Another $49 million in penalties would be imposed should the State not have a fully functioning system on September 30, 2002. The State's fiscal 2001 operating budget failed to appropriate any amounts for a penalty that might be imposed due to the State's inability to deploy a statewide CSES by September 30, 2001. Mr. Howard informed the counties that he intended on securing an appropriation from the State Legislature for the amounts necessary to cover the 2001 federal penalty. At this writing, the Senate has approved the appropriation, but the House has not. As such, no appropriation for the federal penalty has been consummated as of the date of this proposal. As noted in a meeting held between the State Court Administrators Office (SCAO) and FIA on April 16, 2001, the State currently intends on converting all other counties to CSES no later than September 30, 2001 to avoid the penalty this year. The State intends on converting two of the three modules necessary to bring Oakland County fully compliant with the federal mandates by no later than September 30, 2001. This is unacceptable. The County is requesting that all modules be converted by September 30, 2001 and has prepared this viable plan to do so. 2 Up until the April 16, 2001 meeting date, the County was informed, both verbally and in writing, that the final conversion date would be September 30, 2002. The significant reduction of the time for CSES conversion places many conversion steps that might have otherwise been performed in a thoughtful manner in jeopardy. The County is prepared for this challenge and would hope that the State accepts this proposal that the County believes is the sole way in which a CSES conversion for Oakland County can be accomplished by September 30, 2001. The County has held several meetings over the last 90 days or so with the State FIA, CSES and SCAO representatives. The State goals and conversion requirements have been expressed during these meetings and to a large extent have been codified in the Memorandum of Understanding follow: • Any and all activities that would divert State or County financial or personnel resources away from the State successfully avoiding the federal penalties will not be tolerated by the State. Should local county functions be 'lost' in the conversion efforts (see Mr. Howard's comments noted above), counties will have to somehow compensate for the lost functionality under CSES in order to ensure that the Friend of the Court's recipients are not adversely affected. Likely, counties would be required to hire additional personnel to ensure that the Friend of the Court recipients still receive their support in a reasonably timely manner. The State has repeatedly assured the County that no expanded staff requirements were required in several recently converted counties. • The State has no intention on changing any components of the CSES in order to accommodate unique local county functions or applications — lest it jeopardize the timely CSES implementation. Essentially, the CSES is a "turnkey" system in its purest sense of that concept. The CSES application to be installed in Oakland County will be that application presently operational in approximately 74 other counties. The State has repeatedly assured Oakland County that CSES has been successfully installed in other counties and therefore it should work well in Oakland County's Friend of the Court operations. • Should local county software reside on the State computers, the State will require the local county to live within its technical standards for hardware, software, networking and data purposes. All contemplated changes to CSES hardware and software will require approval by the State of Michigan before counties perform these changes. Over the past quarter, Oakland County representatives have continually attempted to secure State commitments in time and personnel resources in order to ensure that the County's Friend of the Court, Prosecutor, Circuit Court and others who depend on the present mainframe system might not lose functionality. State commitments of continued functionality no longer are possible with the new time constraints of September 30, 2001. Clearly, the County will have to compensate for the loss of computer functionality through increased labor until such time (if ever) that the CSES will address the concerns. 3 The County is prepared to do so in order to ensure that the State achieves its goal of avoiding the federal penalties. The most significant set of issues facing the County in the loss of functionality (that is, employee productivity) over the present mainframe system has been defined as the 'access / interface / integration' issue herein. First, a definition of these terms: • Access. Access to a computer application is simply that — access. Common data (for example, names, addresses, income levels, etc.) must be input into several computer applications on an application by application basis. Searching for common data in more than one application is also cumbersome. Allowing access, however, does not require any particular efforts in programming to ensure that the data is standardized and transmitted between disparate computer applications. Simply put, the applications reside independent of one another. Interface. The term interface is essentially a 'bridge' from one application to another for common data. A computer program is developed that would allow the transfer of common data from one application to another application. Frequently, the data is transferred in mass through 'batch' loads of the data. Obviously, depending upon the nature of the applications involved, the development of the computer program can be easy or difficult. According to the County's research through the Internet, one of the significant concerns in the use of Corvision (see subsequent comments on this programming and development system as well) is that it did not interface well with other applications. Portions of the County's existing Friend of the Court system are presently interfaced. • Integration. The term integration is essentially when two or more applications pass common data to one another as the data is being input. Ultimately, integration of applications minimizes the subsequent handling of the data more than once in order to populate data fields. However, because of the 'seamless' nature of the data being transferred, it also requires the greatest level of programming efforts. Portions of the County's existing Friend of the Court system are integrated (namely, the imaging components). Over the past quarter, the State of Michigan has encouraged the County to accept only access from the CSES to any other County supported applications. The Memorandum of Understanding between the County and State indicates that the State will only make technical CSES documentation available to the County. The County would then be required to determine how it can interface (integration is clearly out of the question as this effort would require some changes to the CSES program which will not be considered by the State), if at all. As the County will only have 'access' between the CSES and County applications, the Friend of the Court employee productivity gained through the interface and integration of the County's current systems will be lost. As described by Mr. Howard, the loss in functionality must be sacrificed in order to achieve the primary goal of avoiding 4 significant federal penalties. The County is prepared to support Mr. Howard's requirements. Even still, the significant programming efforts required, however, to achieve interface or integration faces the following barriers: • The implementation time frame of no later than September 30, 2001 prevents the County from considering any interfaces between CSES and other County supported applications. Resources will be devoted to the CSES conversion efforts in an 'access' forum only. Resources are very scarce at the Department of Information Technology due to its outstanding commitments to County departments and cities, villages and townships (see subsequent discussions). But, the County is prepared to allocate whatever is required to accommodate the State's goal of September 30, 2001 — even to the adverse impact of other critical programs underway at the Department of Information Technology. • The State has indicated that no changes would be permitted to the CSES application. The CSES is a "turnkey" solution for the Friend of the Court operations (thus, limiting the interface option anyway). • The County and State have several versions of programs currently under development that would cause the immediate financial investment in an interface (let alone a more complex integration) to be lost. The County is implementing a new court system in the summer of 2002 — which system should be interfaced — old or new court system? On the other hand, the State intends on using the Wayne County CSES system for CSES longer term. Also, the State needs to address the Corvision conversion efforts as well. Which CSES does the County interface to — present CSES, Wayne County CSES and / or the future system replacing Corvision? Neither the County's systems, nor the State's CSES, are stable and mature platforms. Thus, investments in interfacing one to the other would have a limited life expectancy anyway. In short, County departments who will be dependent upon the State's CSES must be willing to sacrifice the present employee productivity in order to achieve the State's primary objective of avoiding federal penalties. The Circuit Court and Friend of the Court recognize the employee productivity concerns. The County has clearly articulated these matters to the State, Board of Commissioners and public over the past several years and most recently, since the abandonment of the HVA system by the State. However, given the State's directive, the County is fully prepared to ensure that the State is successful in its primary mission of avoiding the federal penalty. The County has held two recent meetings with CSES representatives and has obtained a small amount of information on the CSES implementation. Based on the limited contact with the State and the County's knowledge of the County's complex computer programs, networks and available resources, the County has prepared this proposal. The County is concerned that the State's goal of securing a CSES implementation date no later than 5 September 30, 2001 cannot be met without sacrificing several State-proposed steps described in recent meetings with CSES representatives. As an example, the County was provided an implementation work plan for Clinton County that indicates it would take 202 business days to implement CSES under the current approach in Clinton County. Simply put, Clinton County is smaller than Oaldand County, has a less complex computer system and finally, as of mid-April 2001 there are only approximately 120 business days left in the 2001 fiscal year. Clearly, if the State intends on successfully avoiding the penalty, certain implementation steps must be sacrificed. The time frame is critical — the County and State must start immediately in the CSES conversion efforts. Towards that end, the County has provided an approach to allow the State to be successful. Finally, the County has continually indicated that several of the key Information Technology divisions are over-committed — particularly the Technical Systems and Networking Division. Without considering three major projects about to get underway (Internet web page revisions, conversion to Microsoft 2000 from NT, and video arraignment), this Division's personnel shortfall exceeds 9,000 hours (between 6 to 9 full time equivalents) through September 30, 2002 — assuming no unexpected events or delays in the projects underway. Certainly, the CSES implementation will exacerbate the commitments of this Division. Notwithstanding these sizable commitments, the County has re-prioritized all Division projects with the CSES project now ranking as the highest project in all commitments. Effective with the quarter beginning April 1, 2001, the County will have a project management system in Information Technology that reconciles to the financial and budgeting systems in the Department of Management and Budget. At present, the CSES project is not reflected as a project within the project management system (and thereby, not within the Information Technology revenue / expense operating budget, nor the Friend of the Court's or General Fund's expenditure budget). In addition, the recent preparation of the fiscal 2002-operating budget has highlighted a need to reduce the actual number of outside consulting hours to live within available resources even without the CSES project. The over-commitment of projects and financial considerations over the next year and a half will create a situation requiring either additional technology resources and / or extension of project commitments for many of the Information Technology projects. CSES will exacerbate this problem. The County still ranks CSES as the highest priority project underway. Accordingly, the County is presently preparing a Board of Commissioners' resolution seeking funding to accommodate the needs necessary to ensure first and foremost that the CSES is functional in Oakland County no later than September 30, 2001. Funding should be made available at a May 10, 2001 Board of Commissioners meeting. Even without the Board approval, the Department of Information Technology is aggressively moving ahead in support of the September 30, 2001 deadline. Other County applications will have to be sacrificed to meet the State's goal of avoiding a federal penalty. The County 6 has initiated a prioritization process to temporarily defer or to eliminate certain discretionary technology projects in order to secure sufficient technology resources to accommodate the time frames now mandated by the State. OAKLAND COUNTY PROPOSAL In January 2001, the County was informed of the abandonment of the HVA project by the State — a project in which Oakland County personnel actively participated since the summer of 1999. The State has now proposed that the CSES system, which was insufficiently sized for high volume counties and previously abandoned, is now fully functional for Oakland County's Friend of the Court operations. Significant technical issues abound with this approach and requirements. But, the State continues to remain confident that the CSES will work in Oakland County. Other counties do not have the sophisticated computer and networking systems presently in place in Oakland County. The 'traditional' CSES implementation process and technical architecture in the face of the State's critical time constraints must be modified. The County's proposal accomplishes the CSES implementation within the time frames outlined by the State — namely September 30, 2001. Any approach undertaken in the implementation of CSES in Oakland County will require a substantial resource commitment by the State of Michigan. The State is under a federal mandate to implement its statewide "turnkey" CSES system by September 30, 2001 or face substantial penalties from the Federal government. Oakland County, as one of the remaining counties to be converted, has constructed a viable plan by which the County can convert to the Michigan CSES program within the time frame mandated by the State. This Oakland County document outlines a recommended course of action for the Oakland County Department of Information Technology and State of Michigan. Both must work cooperatively to ensure that the State does not inhibit the County from facilitating the achievement of this critical State goal. The diagram of the County proposed CSES architecture with notes is contained in Exhibit A to this proposal. The goals set forth in the technical proposal by Oakland County, which are consistent with the State's directive to avoid the federal penalties by September 30, 2001, follow — • Eliminate the possibility of Information Technology being perceived as a "road block" to the implementation of the CSES program in meeting the State's September 30, 2001 deadline. The processes outlined herein and in Exhibit A can be performed concurrently by the State and County and are not directly dependent upon one another. Thus, the County would help to ensure that the State's goal of avoiding a federal penalty would be achieved. The technical project can be worked on independently by the State and County personnel helping to provide for concurrent implementation steps. The County will commit to completing its browser connections to County 7 applications no later than Labor Day of 2001 as herein described. Providing that the State can install the CSES network and personal computers, the CSES system should be able to be functional by the September 30, 2001 deadline (see comments on workflow analysis and data cleansing / creation as well). • Minimize the expenditures and time incurred by Information Technology in converting to CSES in order to have the least amount of disruption of in-progress and planned projects of Information Technology for the benefit of Oakland County constituents and departments. • Minimize the impact of future support of the CSES project by limiting Oakland County's scope of support efforts in recognition of the fact that CSES is a federal mandated and State-supported system. • Streamline the reporting responsibilities between the State and Oakland County. The County has prepared a resolution for the Board of Commissioners' consideration on May 10, 2001 seeking the transfer of the Banking and Accounting Unit of the Reimbursement Division to the Circuit Court. In this way (and through the technical architecture noted herein and in Exhibit A), little or no direct CSES implementation support and subsequent maintenance is required by a County Executive department. The State's personal computers must be operated and maintained within the State requirements. These requirements could become cumbersome to administer for those departments who would in any way be involved in access to the Friend of the Court information. The State requirements include compatibility testing of any software to be deployed on the personal computer for County applications on State computers. Updates and configuration changes must receive prior written approval and undergo compatibility testing prior to deployment on the personal computers. Coupled by the time constraints, this stringent mandate by the State would become difficult to administer, as CSES is located in several County departments. Failure to receive approval prior to deployment of any such software or changes makes the County liable for any costs associated with correcting compatibility and operational problems. Physical modification of the personal computer by the addition, removal, or substitution of hardware components is also restricted. The installation and testing of Oakland County software on State owned personal computers is yet another potential "road block". The requirement to do compatibility testing, which would ensure that neither software package would adversely impact the other's package, will consume additional scarce Oakland County, CSES, Circuit Court and other staff resources. As Oakland County continues to upgrade and improve its standard software offerings, the compatibility tests will need to be repeated during the course of the project and then, many times thereafter as a normal course of business. 8 Technical Proposal Oakland County proposes to use a Citrix application host and browser based applications to provide office productivity products and other County hosted applications to the Friend of the Court. This will reduce the "foot print" of Oakland County software on the State personal computers and reduce the complexity of the local (personal computer) application environment. Deployment of CSES on State personal computers is simplified. The standard "ghost" for State personal computers to be used by the State hardware maintenance provider will also be more stable. The State's plan for CSES implementation and technical architecture could adversely impact the employee productivity of the Friend of the Court office and those other departments in County government that rely upon the CSES — regardless of approach. Clearly, the movement away from integrated and interfaced systems at Oakland County in the face of critical time constraints must be sacrificed. Only access to the County's office productivity products and other County hosted applications can be provided under the circumstances. However, a principal advantage to this proposed approach would be a reduction in the implementation time frames otherwise required by the State approach. In doing so, the State will save not only the $49 million federal penalty applicable to fiscal 2002, but the $38 million penalty relating to fiscal 2001 as well. Despite the Friend of the Court functional losses from the present mainframe solution, Oakland County will not be the county that causes the State to have this penalty imposed, regardless of the impact on the County's operations. The Friend of the Court and other departments impacted by CSES will simply have to compensate for the loss of employee productivity. Yet, the State must consider several technical realities imposed on the County by the State that give rise to the County's plan. First, the State has maintained the control over the CSES personal computers, the related software and network connectivity. Clearly, any actual or perceived productivity losses arising from CSES must be able to be identified as to the cause of the problem. With two sets of software residing on a single computer over the County's network, complexities will occur in identifying the productivity causes and future maintenance issues. The State proposed plan could create significant compatibility issues and assumes that the County would be interfacing with other County applications. At a minimum, the State's approach would require substantial additional testing unnecessary in the circumstances. It also introduces additional business risk of complexity and time requirements that could adversely affect the timing of implementation. The County will therefore request that the State's personal computers contain only the CSES software connected to a separate line (likely a T1 line — a connection from Lansing directly to the Friend of the Court that provides a moderate amount of bandwidth). Access to the County's applications (imaging, financial, payroll, personnel, purchasing, budgeting, courts, etc.) can be provided via a Citrix client, terminal emulator or a browser. In this way, there can be little doubt as any issues surrounding the effectiveness of each application. Maintenance of the Friend of the Court personal computers 9 containing CSES can be supported by the State independent of the County's Information Technology Department. One of the most significant benefits of this approach is that the State's Ti and personal computers can be installed at the State's discretion once the County's infrastructure is in place. The State can be building its infrastructure independent of the County. The connection is direct to Lansing and would not require any significant coordination between the County's network representatives and / or special firewalls. Any incompatibility issues of software residing on local personal computers would be minimized. The requisite service level agreement for maintenance is minimized as to roles and responsibilities of the State and County. The connections that the County has to Lansing for other functions — such as law enforcement and public health — would be undisturbed. The voice response unit and Formscape (printing software with standardized Macomb County forms for processing cases) servers can be located at the Friend of the Court. At a recent meeting, CSES representatives indicated that there would be no environmental concerns (heating / power / cooling) requiring the location of these two devices at the Information Technology Department. Thus, these devices can easily be supported by the State from the Friend of the Court offices. The timetable to accomplish the inter-network connection (that is, 'interface' or 'integration' of County hosted applications) could have been a potential "road block" to the CSES implementation efforts. Oakland County proposes removing this "road block" by having the State connect directly to the State-provided Friend of the Court CSES personal computers. The network infrastructure at Oakland County Friend of the Court would have to be extended to the Prosecuting Attorney and Circuit Court offices. The State will then have full control and maintenance responsibility for these network connections, allowing it to assure the operational integrity and performance of the CSES application within Oakland County. Connections from the State's network in the Courts and Prosecutor's offices would be necessary. The connection contemplated would be a Ti. The computers in the Courts and Prosecutor's offices could take on two approaches — County computers and software with a terminal emulation connection to the CSES application or the State's computers with CSES on the desktop and a browser to the County's application similar to the Friend of the Court. The specific approach associated with these departments will be finalized based on discussions with the State. Regardless, the respective departments will need to be prepared for the impact of CSES being installed in lieu of the County's present Friend of the Court system. Several County hosted functions will require the use of 'pooled' computers because they will require County software. These computers would be in areas generally away from the employees' desks in a 'pooled' computer room. These computers supporting the input to imaging and HR/FIS (that is, payroll, personnel, and the financial functions sans the case collections and disbursements recorded in CSES) would be County owned and 1 0 would not have CSES on them. They would be connected to the County's internal network. The County's strategy to meet the State's primary goal is to give the State free reign in designing, installing, and operating the Friend of the Court CSES network, which will consist of all State supplied network equipment, servers, and personal computers. In supplying additional functionality not supplied by the State for the Friend of the Court, Oakland County will minimize the impact on the State's efforts in integration testing on the personal computer by limiting the "foot print" of Oakland County software. Oakland County (as herein described) will address functionality lacking in the State's CSES system. The omitted functionality would be required for normal operations of the Friend of the Court, including but not limited to - office productivity software for word processing and spreadsheets, electronic mail service, network storage, mainframe terminal emulation, Internet access, administrative applications of Performance Accounting and PeopleSoft (that is, HRJFIS), and the existing Circuit Court and Clerk Document Imaging system. The estimated cost of the Citrix solution for the Friend of the Court is approximately $250,000 (including a provision for contingency of $50,000). The County has a firm commitment for the acquisition of this equipment and can process the order immediately upon the acceptance of this proposal by the State. The Citrix solution will take approximately 60 calendar days from order to delivery and an additional 45 to 60 calendar days to install. The Citrix solution will be up and operational prior to September 30, 2001. The estimated cost of the Filenet Imaging Internet/Intranet server solution is $525,000 (including a provision of $35,000 for contingency) and completed within the same time frame under the read-only access scenario. Other Information Technology labor relating to issues surrounding the implementation would approximate $200,000 over the next several months. The total cost of this equipment and services would be $975,000— a far distance away from the risk of losing $38 million in penalties should the federal government not provide a waiver. Workflow Proposal The State has proposed that it will perform a complete workflow analysis of the present Friend of the Court system and provide recommendations for its improvement. The State has not provided a clear definition of whether this workflow analysis would include all departments and functions (Circuit Court, Probate Court, Prosecutor, etc.) that would rely on the future CSES. The County has assumed that the State fully intends on documenting the entire County workflow, otherwise the State would clearly have an incomplete understanding of the County operational implications of the conversion to CSES. The State proposed that training occur in various phases from the use of a kiosk, to classroom training, and then, to live monitoring of Friend of the Court personnel. After the workflow recommendations would be prepared, the State would begin deploying the CSES already installed in over 74 other counties. CSES is a "turnkey" 11 solution. The State does not intend on modifying the CSES for any reason as it might serve to cause the State's primary goal of avoiding the federal penalty. Thus, any productivity improvements learned from this proposed review of the County's existing Friend of the Court system would be lost upon the CSES conversion anyway. As noted previously, the State's time requirements to deploy CSES effectively prevent many of these more methodical steps to be considered. The State has repeatedly stated that they will tolerate no additional steps (namely, interfacing or integration) that would serve to cause the State to miss the deadlines. There will be no changes made to the CSES system — it is a "turnkey" system. It has been successfully deployed in 74 other counties. The State is strongly encouraging that only access to other County applications be provided in the State's recommended solution (and as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding). Therefore, expending scarce time and personnel resources in evaluating the County's current Friend of the Court (and other) application is certainly irrelevant or would provide a minimal benefit to the CSES implementation anyway. In order to avoid the federal penalties, the County would strongly encourage the State to concentrate its efforts in the deployment of the CSES as is — this is the State's "turnkey" requirement anyway. The time that would have otherwise been expended on analyzing, documenting and evaluating the County's existing system (only to discard it anyway) should be expended towards direct training of the CSES application in County departments now required to use it. The State has proposed that the Friend of the Court module (actually, this is the principal CSES module) be installed in the spring of 2002. This later module has been developed for Wayne County, but is not presently functional. A significant risk is involved in relying on any software package not in production. The County would strongly encourage the State to reconsider this approach as it introduces substantial potential risk into the project should the federal government fail to accept the waiver request. Should the federal government reject the request, the State would be liable for a substantial penalty. The workflow and training efforts would largely involve the Friend of the Court, Prosecutor's office, Courts and other departments that may use the CSES. The principal cost of the disruption during the implementation would be borne by the Friend of the Court. The 2001 operating budget for overtime was approximately $61,000. A portion of the operating budget has been expended through March 31, 2001 (although at the time of this proposal's issuance, the amount was not known). The Friend of the Court must estimate the additional costs necessary for this effort through the completion. However, under the circumstances, an initial additional $250,000 has been requested for overtime in the remaining fiscal year pending a more thorough analysis. The appropriation will be considered at the May 10, 2001 Board of Commissioners meeting. 12 Data Cleansing / Preparation Proposal Over the past several years, the County's Friend of the Court has been purging older, inactive cases. This purging process was a time-consuming effort contemplated by the State. Over the next several months, the County's Friend of the Court should accelerate this purging process. Obviously, the State would prefer to convert only those cases that are currently active to minimize the additional data capture needs, future data maintenance and finally, the storage needs. To the extent that these purging efforts can continue to a point that does not jeopardize the new State time commitments, the County's Friend of the Court should continue this effort. The Friend of the Court will be required to improve the data presently captured. Likely, there will be additional pieces of data required in the CSES not presently captured in the County's Friend of the Court system. Computer tapes of the data in the County's Friend of the Court system are now being prepared to allow the State to analyze the extent of missing data that should be captured prior to CSES implementation. By the end of April 2001, the County will have provided the State a complete set of these tapes for the State's evaluation of their use in the CSES conversion. The County encourages the State to swiftly analyze any deficiencies in the data in order to provide the maximum amount of time for its upgrade prior to CSES implementation. It is the County's understanding that the data in the County's Friend of the Court system must be compared to other data in the CSES system throughout the State. Duplicate records and date must be reconciled and adjusted for consistency. This is a labor- intensive process. This procedure represents a significant commitment of personnel resources to research the 'correct facts' about each case before modifying the final data. The County's Friend of the Court stands ready to assist in this reconciliation effort (as well as other data cleansing efforts) once the State finalizes its review of the computer tapes (to be provided no later than April 30, 2001). In other counties' CSES implementation and in the one proposed for Oakland County, the State has indicated that a tape will be produced, data researched and input into the system, and another tape produced — only to start the process over and over again. This interative process would occur over weeks or months until such time as all data that could be captured is in the system to be transferred to CSES in a fiscal data transfer. Yet, even after the research is exhausted, missing data elements will still exist in the case files. It is the County's understanding that the federal requirements cite the need for a statewide child support enforcement system. Certainly, this contemplates that the CSES system should be populated with all of the requisite data. And, to the extent possible under difficult time constraints, the County should do so. To do otherwise would be inappropriate. But, data capture and cleansing does not have to occur BEFORE the CSES is in place. Frankly, the CSES could be installed and tapes produced for omitted data after CSES installation. Should there be critical data fields necessary to enable CSES' operation, this data must be captured prior to the CSES deployment. 13 With the possible exception of potentially critical fields in CSES, it would seem that the data capture and / or cleansing could occur AFTER the CSES is actually implemented in the County. In doing so, the time frame for implementation could be shortened significantly. Once implemented, the State has a functioning system for child support enforcement and thereby would be compliant. Data capture would continue up to the point in which the federal government actually performs the compliance review and beyond. The County strongly encourages the acceleration of the deployment of the CSES system after the capture of any critical data elements. The data cleansing efforts would largely involve the Friend of the Court, Prosecutor's office, and other departments that may use the CSES. The principal cost of the disruption during the implementation would be borne by the Friend of the Court. The 2001 operating budget for overtime was approximately $61,000. A portion of the operating budget has been expended through March 31,2001 (although at the time of this proposal's issuance, the amount was not known). The Friend of the Court must estimate the additional costs necessary for this effort through the completion. See Workflow Analysis for comment on the interim financial support necessary to accomplish the tasks contemplated by the State involving data cleansing. STATE OF MICHIGAN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL The State's proposed technical architecture is outlined in Exhibit B. In addition, the State intends on performing a review and evaluation of the County's existing operating procedures in the Friend of the Court and all other County operations dependent upon it. Once the review is performed, the benefits will largely be discarded, as the State has no intention on modifying the "turnkey" CSES solution. The data cleansing and creation efforts could require substantial time and efforts to be conducted entirely before CSES cutover. The present time requirements now established by the State likely would negate this approach. Much of the detailed concerns in the State's proposed solution have been outlined in the County's proposal. Simply put, the County would welcome the full review of the Friend of the Court procedures and computer system, but the benefits of this review must be weighed against the costs in personnel and time to perform it. Should the State insist on this approach, the County would strongly encourage that a significant commitment of resources be provided by the State and codified as an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding. The County must receive State assurances that it will supply all necessary resources to accomplish a task unnecessary in today's environment. OTHER CONCERNS Over the past several months, the County's Information Technology Department has become aware of certain other issues giving rise to increased business risk in the implementation of the CSES in Oakland County. Oakland County has no control over 14 many of these matters. Given the State's primary goal of securing a functioning system in order to avoid significant federal penalties, the State may not be able to mitigate potential adverse consequences as well. Nevertheless, Oakland County Friend of the Court recipients may experience service level denigration, depending upon the outcome of the following matters: • Corvision. The State's CSES servers for all Friend of the Court operations use a programming and development system called `Corvision'. Based on discussions with representatives of the licensor (Attunity, Ltd.), no new Corvision licenses have been sold since the mid-1990s. Attunity's principal consulting services for Corvision product is to migrate existing customers off of the Corvision product. Michigan represents one of the largest users of Corvision in the world today (as many former Corvision product users took the opportunity to convert to another product as part of the Y2K problem roughly 18 months ago). The CSES representatives from the State have indicated that they have no intention of moving from Corvision to another programming and development system until such time as all of the counties are operational and the federal government provides certification of the statewide system. • Attunity, Ltd. In reviewing the Attunity financial operations and position, this company posted a $31.3 million loss on approximately $18.7 million in sales (down from sales of $20.5 million the year before). While approximately $19.5 million of the loss arose from the abandonment of product lines, the remaining loss is still quite substantial. The ending equity as of December 31, 2000 was $24.0 million. Several other interesting observations from the financial statements follow: • The selling and marketing costs increased from $8.5 million to $12.0 million from 1999 to 2000 at the same time the revenues declined by $1.9 million. • Since the investment in sales and marketing alone of the Attunity product line represents $12 million of the $18 million in sales, the amounts invested in new and / or improved products could be necessarily limited. • The stock price has fallen from a spring 2000 high of $37 per share to between $.75 to $1.25 per share or so presently. The common stock's total value is presently half the net book value of the company. In fact, had Attunity not sold roughly 2 million additional shares of stock at approximately $17 per share (while the stock was declining throughout 2000), the cash position and equity would have essentially placed this company in serious financial jeopardy. The ability to raise similar cash through stock sales is effectively prevented by its present low value. • There are approximately 10 consultants in Attunity that have Corvision knowledge. Certainly, should Attunity not retain these individuals or other adverse financial matters befall this company, future support of the Corvision 15 product could be in jeopardy as the individuals find new positions with companies disinterested in maintaining this product. • VAX Equipment. The State's servers used in the CSES program to store the Friend of the Court information are located on equipment that is no longer in production by the manufacturer. The State has had to secure parts and replacement equipment from the used equipment market. • Disaster Recover Plan. The State has no functioning disaster recovery plan for the CSES operations. • Point of Presence (POP). The State is contemplating moving counties' connectivity from various types of lines to a single POP within each county. Likely, in Oakland County's case, the Department of Information of Technology could be the POP for all of Oakland County. Funding problems remain an unanswered significant barrier for the actual deployment of this new State initiative. Given the complexity of the County's operations and relationships with the cities, villages and townships in Oakland County and throughout the region, the size, type and nature of the connectivity between Lansing and Oaldand County must be carefully considered. Should the bandwidth (that is, the size of the connectivity) be insufficient between the County and Lansing, system performance would suffer. And, one of the more critical functions relying on this connectivity is law enforcement — E9-1-1 emergency services. The POP issue cannot be resolved prior to the implementation of CSES in Oakland County. • Voice Response Unit (VRU) Sizing. The timing and other factors involving the CSES implementation will cause the County to have to abandon any hope of interfacing from existing County applications to CSES. Should insufficient labor be secured to compensate for the loss in functionality, the number of phone calls (and requisite personnel support) may overwhelm the VRU unit. Proper sizing of this equipment is critical. Additional personnel would have to be hired to address the telephone inquiries of Friend of the Court recipients should the VRU be overwhelmed. The Friend of the Court acquired the current VRU to minimize the number of telephone operators. Two VRUs were acquired at a cost of $233,600 or so, with a present net book value of roughly $141,000 (estimated value at September 30, 2001). The State will not reimburse the County for the remaining costs associated with this equipment. As such, the County's General Fund will sustain a loss arising from the write off of the equipment upon CSES conversion. • Reimbursement Division. The County has undertaken steps to transfer the Banking and Accounting Unit of the Reimbursement Division to the County's Circuit Court — Friend of the Court Division. In doing so, the Circuit Court can 16 become fully responsible for all aspects of the Friend of the Court prior to the implementation of CSES. Communication from the State can thus be provided directly to the Circuit Court without any perceived disruption from the County Executive's area. • Wayne County — Second Generation CSES. On April 16, 2001, the Circuit Court and Board of Commissioners met with the State to discuss the most recent direction of CSES. The State is now proposing that the County convert to the Wayne County — Second Generation CSES in the spring of 2002. Unfortunately, this creates substantial risk that the State is successful in securing a waiver to allow Oakland's Friend of the Court to wait until this time. In addition, the Wayne County — Second Generation CSES system is presently not operational. Thus, the State's proposal is highly dependent upon a system that is not yet proven — unlike its present CSES system. Should the State be unsuccessful in securing the waiver, the risk to Oakland County be blamed for the State's failure to convert to CSES is too great for Oakland County. The County cannot accept this as a viable alternative and strongly believes that the State must take action immediately to prepare Oakland County for full conversion no later than September 30, 2001. FINAL RECOMMENDATION BY OAKLAND COUNTY The County's proposal as herein described provides a viable plan to accelerate the implementation of CSES in the County's Friend of the Court operations. The roles and responsibilities for implementation and subsequent maintenance are clearly defined with minimal, if any, overlap. Compatibility issues that could have become burdensome on the operations of the County's network are likewise minimized. The plan also provides for concurrent implementation efforts — helping to ensure that the implementation can be successfully completed by the September 30, 2001 deadline. Of course, the plan assumes that there will be immediate actions taken by the State to build out the infrastructure, address workflow and training needs, and evaluate the data tapes to be provided by the County no later than April 30, 2001. The County is committed to address the sections of the network and browser applications (behind a Citrix solution) that would enable access to the present County applications by Friend of the Court personnel. The County will be completed no later than Labor Day, 2001, earlier if necessary. Funding will be sought immediately through the County's Board of Commissioners for the equipment and personnel resources necessary to convert to CSES. The County is prepared to move ahead with this proposal even before a resolution is secured from the Board of Commissioners — which, is anticipated on May 10, 2001. Finally, any final agreement with the State involving this proposal should be codified as an amendment to the existing Memorandum of Understanding dated March 2, 2001. 17 EXHIBIT A OAKALND COUNTY - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL FOR MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN April 17, 2001 Oakland County PCs and Printers Prosecutor State CSES PCs and Printers Oakland County PCs and Printers Circuit Court State CSES PCs and Printers Oakland County PCs and Printers Clerk-Register of Deed: State CSES PCs and Printers NEM% Ilin=11 Rig J7F7111 111 11111111 Oakland County Fiber 1=Ell State Network State CSES Network Extension (1-1 or Oakland County Fiber) -- Oakland County 0 Friend of the Court (OakPointe Buildia,q) 11111111 &Li& 1111111111Y. Rai& Oakland County PCs and Printers Kinn C=1ECI 17=E17 Diagram State CSES PCs, Printers, Formscape Server, Voice Response Unit, Router \ &RR Oakland County CSES Network State Data Center 0 CSES Servers, Router Oakland County Information Technolgy Citrix, Imaging, Accounting, Payroll, Personnel, Internet Intranet and Network Stor_age Servers Oakland County Court House@ Notes on diagram 1: A. The Oakland County CSES system is provided by a VAX server located in the State data center in Lansing. The Oakland County server is one of a group of VAX servers providing the CSES system to all Michigan counties. Other Michigan counties may share the VAX server with Oakland County. The VAX system is serviced using replacement parts from the secondary / used market (the VAX is no longer manufactured). The availability of a full replacement of the VAX in the event of a disaster has not been is communicated by the State. The State data center utilizes a T-1 (1536K) to connect to Oakland County Friend of the Court at Oakpointe through the State data network. The T-1 may be upgraded to a fractional T-3 depending data traffic volume and the State's Point of Presence (POP) initiative. An ISDN backup (128K) is provided by the State in case of a T-1 failure (ISDN backup not shown on diagram). B. The CSES network located at the Friend of the Court connects to the Oakland County firewall through a fiber connection from Information Technology to the Friend of the Court. Citrix servers for thin client access to Oakland County office and application services for Friend of the Court devices, as well as the Document Imaging, Accounting, Payroll, Personnel, Internet, Intranet, Network Storage servers, Mainframe, and other servers reside at Information Technology. Services provided to devices connected to the State CSES network at Friend of the Court are limited to those hosted on the Citrix servers or accessed through an Internet browser. C. The CSES network located at the Friend of the Court is State supplied, operated, and maintained allowing the State to control the performance characteristics of the network. The Formscape and Voice Response Units are located on this network providing unhindered access to the CSES servers in Lansing. State PCs and printers located at the Friend of the Court office will reside on the State managed CSES network and County applications are accessed utilizing the Citrix thin client software and the Internet browser supplied as part of the base State PCs software. Maintenance of hardware and software is done by the State under the State guidelines. A small number of Oakland County PCs and printers reside on the Oakland County network allowing Friend of the Court staff to have access Oakland County applications that cannot be delivered using the Citrix or Internet browser services. The Oakland County PCs do not have access to the CSES system D. The CSES network located at the Courthouse is an extension of the CSES network at the Friend of the Court. Like the Friend of the Court CSES network, the Courthouse CSES network is State supplied, operated, and maintained allowing the State to control the performance characteristics of the network. The connection between the CSES network at the Friend of the Court and CSES network at the Courthouse is a State provided T-1. Optionally, the State may decide to lease fiber from Oakland County. The limited number of State PCs and printers located at the Courthouse reside on the State managed CSES network. High volume data entry and pooled access to the CSES system for Prosecutor, Circuit Court, or Clerks-Register of Deeds, if needed, can be obtained through State PCs connected to the CSES network. Selected Oakland County PCs located in the Prosecutors office are provided access to the CSES network by installing the required terminal emulation software on the PCs. The software and access requirements of the Prosecutor PCs are sufficiently unique as to warrant Oakland County assuming the support and maintenance burden of these PCs. The connection to the CSES network is accomplished at the firewall in Information Technology with Network Address Translation and security enforcement. EXHIBIT B STATE OF MICHIGAN - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL FOR MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION IN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN April 17, 2001 Oakland County Court House State Data Center (--) CSES Servers, Router 1.11 Prosecutor Oakland County PCs and Printers with State CSES PCs and Printers Circuit Court Oakland County PCs and Printers with State CSES PCs and Printers 1171 0 0 0 0 CIMI1 0 0 CTEIEI = 0 0 0 flgrl CEI71 IIIJIII1 0 0 = E9, 0 flErl 0 1=1.- CI 0 0 71ErlEI= 0 1471 Clerk-Register of Deed; Oakland County PCs and Printers with State CSES PCs and Printers Oakland County PCs and Printers with State CSES PCs and Printers 60! Oakland County Information Technolgy ® Imaging, Accounting, Payroll, Personnel, Internet, Intranet, and Network Storage Servers CSES Formscape, Voice Response Unit, Router rr T ti 11111111 ----"Oakland County Fiber (Oakland County and CSES network traffic share bandwidth) Oakland County 0 Friend of the Court (OakPointe Buildir_22) 11111111 Diagram 2 - State CSES Network Notes on Diagram 2: A. The Oakland County CSES system is provided by a VAX server located in the State data center in Lansing. The Oakland County server is one of a group of VAX servers providing the CSES system to all Michigan counties. Other Michigan counties may share the VAX server with Oakland County. The VAX system is serviced using replacement parts from the secondary / used market (the VAX is no longer manufactured). The availability of a full replacement of the VAX in the event of a disaster has not been is communicated by the State. The State data center utilizes a T-1 (1536K) to connect to Oakland County Information Technology through the State data network. The T-1 may be upgraded to a fractional T-3 depending data traffic volume and the State's Point of Presence (POP) initiative. An ISDN backup (128K) will be provided in case of T-1 failure (not shown on diagram). B. The T-1 connection terminates on a State supplied router at Oakland County Information Technology. The State router connects to a firewall supplied by Oakland County. The delivery of all CSES data traffic is the responsibility of Oakland County once it is delivered to the firewall. Oakland County data traffic and CSES data traffic share the network beyond this point. The CSES Formscape and Voice Response Unit(s) reside at Information Technology and utilize the Oakland County network to communicate with CSES in Lansing. The existing Document Imaging, Accounting, Payroll, Personnel, Internet, Intranet, Network Storage servers, Mainframe, and other servers utilize the same network. C. The State supplied CSES devices at Friend of the Court (Oakpointe) are connected to the Oakland County network. The data traffic of the State devices to or from the Formscape or CSES server traverses the fiber connection between Information Technology and the Friend of the Court. The fiber connection is shared with the other departments occupying offices at the Oakpointe location. The State devices have both the required CSES software and Oakland County supplied software installed to the local disk drive (thick client). All hardware and software maintenance on these devices must be conducted under guidelines for State PCs requiring State approval and compatibility testing. D. The State supplied CSES devices at Prosecutor, Circuit Court, and Clerks-Register of Deeds offices are connected to the Oakland County network. The data traffic of the State devices to or from the Formscape or CSES server traverses the fiber connection between Information Technology and the Courthouse. The fiber connection is shared with the other departments occupying offices in the Courthouse. The State devices have both the required CSES software and Oakland County supplied software installed to the local disk drive (thick client). All hardware and software maintenance on these devices must be conducted under guidelines for State PCs requiring State approval and compatibility testing. FISCAL NOTE (MISC. #01127)1 May 10, 2001 * BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, SUE ANN DOUGLAS, CHAIRPERSON IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND CIRCUIT COURT/FRIEND OF THE COURT - IMPLEMENTATION OF MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule XII-C of this Board, the Finance Committee has reviewed the above referenced resolution and finds: 1. The State of Michigan's Family Independence Agency (FIA) is faced with continuing multi-million dollar federal penalties for failing to implement a statewide Child Support Enforcement System. 2. The FIA, in partnership with the Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrator's Office, has mandated that the Oakland County Circuit Court Friend of the Court division (FOC) install and utilize the FIA's version of the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MICSES). The MICSES system will be operated and supported by the State of Michigan. 3. Operation and support of separate local systems will be provided by Oakland County Department of Information Technology through the use of a Citrix application host and associated browser based applications, which would operate independently from the State system. 4. The estimated cost of the foregoing proposal is $1,225,000, including $525,000 for Filenet Imaging Internet/Intranet Server, $250,000 for Citrix equipment, $250,000 for manhours at Friend of the Court, and $200,000 for manhours at Information Technology. 5. The costs associated with the implementation of MICSES are anticipated to be allowable under the Friend of the Court Cooperative Reimbursement Program, which shares costs proportionately between the State and counties (2/3 State and 1/3 County). 6. Funds are available in the State Court Fund (#269), which was one- time Public Act 189 money from 1996, to cover the County's 1/3 share of this cost. 7. The following amendment should be made to the Fiscal Year 2001 budget: FOC Revenue: 35-141215-71000-0367 Cooperative Reimbursement Contract $ 808,500 35-341215-71000-1701 Transfer from State Court Fund $ 416,500 $1,225,000 FOC Expenditures: 35-241215-71000-2002 FOC Overtime $ 250,000 35-241215-71000-8001 Transfer to Information Technology $ 975,000 $1,225,000 IT Revenue: 18-636113-10000-1701 Transfer from Friend of Court $ 975,000 IT Expenditure: 18-636122-15000-3348 Professional Services $ 200,000 18-636142-15000-3900 Depreciation $ 65,000 18-636142-15000-8005 Changes in Fund Equity $ 710,000 $ 975,000 FINANCE COMMITTEE , FINANCE COMMITTEE : Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote with Causey-Mitchell absent. HE FOREGOING RESOLUTION SI)/ /0 tterso,I. County Executive Date I 0, Resolution #01127 May 10, 2001 Moved by Patterson supported by Webster the Public Services Committee Report be accepted. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the report was accepted. Moved by Patterson supported by Gregory the resolution be adopted. Moved by Douglas supported by Crawford the resolution be amended to add the following: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Department of Management and Budget - Fiscal Services Division periodically (but no less than quarterly) report the financial progress of the appropriation provided herein to the Finance Committee of the Board of Commissioners. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Vote on resolution, as amended: AYES: Causey-Mitchell, Coleman, Crawford, Dingeldey, Douglas, Galloway, Garfield, Gregory, Law, McPherson, Millard, Moss, Obrecht, Palmer, Patterson, Sever, Suarez, Taub, Webster, Amos, Appel, Brian, Buckley. (23) NAYS: None. (0) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted. STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, G. William Caddell, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on May 10, 2001 with the original record thereof now remaining in my office. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 10'h day of 1,3ay, 2001. G. Wtlliam Caddell, County Clerk