Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/28/1994 W (Utility Billing Consultants' Report)Naples, Florida, September 28, 1994 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 P.M. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ABSENT CHAIRMAN: Timothy J. Constantine VICE-CHAIRMAN: Betrye J. Matthews John C. Norris Michael J. Volpe Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: Marllyn Fernley, Deputy Clerk; Nell Dotrill, County Manager; John Yonkosky, Assistant to the County Manager; Mike McNees, Acting Utillttes Administrator; and Ron Cook, Utilities Finance Director. Page September 28, 1994 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on September 25, 1994, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, a workshop was held to discuss the Utility Billing Consultants Report and the Solid Waste Mandatory Trash Collection Assessment. Tape #1 (34)~ REPORT BY UTILITY BILLING CONSULTANTS, VACCARO CONSULTING, INC. AND THE ACCORD GROUP - PRESENTED Mike McNees, Acting Utilities Administrator, stated that approxi- mately one (1) year ago, the Board commissioned Coopers & Lybrand to conduct a performance review of the operations of the Utilities Division. He pointed out that the predominant weakness Identified was in the data processing area involving billing, inventory control, work orders and all daily business processes. Mr. McNees indicated that in March 1994 the Board approved the hiring of a consultant to review the issue and make final recommendations which the consultants, Vaccaro Consulting, Inc. and The Accord Group, are ready to present to the Board. Mr. McNees compllmented Vaccaro Consulting, Inc., The Accord Group and Staff on the effort expended on this pro3ect. Gary Vaccaro, Vaccaro Consulting, Inc., stated that a large a~ount of time was spent conducting Interviews, reviewing question- naires and observing work tasks being performed within the Utilities Division. He explained that three or four (3-4) status meetings were conducted throughout the process to clarify points and update Staff on progress. Mr. Vaccaro mentioned that the data processing environment and capability were evaluated, a number of issues were identified as a result of the questionnaires, Interviews and work steps were performed and a list composed of outstanding issues needing to be addressed by the utility billing software was developed. Mr. Vaccaro stated that a meeting was held with Sandpiper Page 2 September 28, 1994 Systems, Inc. personnel to discuss issues relative to their ability to provide support; Sandpiper being a group of people providing support for former Network Computing Corporation (NCC) customers. He explained that the list of issues were reviewed to ascertain what it would take to correct same. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that on July 23, 1991, Collier County entered into a contract with NCC to provide the utility billing system currently being utilized but approximately one (1) year ago, NCC announced that they were not able to continue to support or market the software. He explained that NCC entered into an agreement with Sandpiper wherein Sandpiper obtained the rights to the software and the capability to support the former NCC customers. Mr. Vaccaro men- tioned that at the present time, Collier County has an outstanding invoice from NCC in the amount of $25,207. Mr. Vaccaro explained that Sandpiper is comprised of former NCC employees although no longer affiliated with NCC; Sandpiper is a small division of Heron, Inc. in North Carolina. He indicated that Sandpiper currently supports ll former NCC customers and they have expressed an interest in providing support to Collier County and corrections to outstanding problems. Mr. Vaccaro stated that meter reading was an outstanding issue within the Finance Department. He explained that data is downloaded from the main computer with the NCC software into hand held devices which are used by the meter reader to enter readings and upon returning from routes, the information is uploaded from the hand held devices to the main computer. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the issues involved are: uploading and downloading of the devices is extremely slow; the high and low reading verification on the devices does not work properly and each meter reading must be entered at least twice; and work orders for meter shut-oils, locks, turn-one and initial and final meter readings are prepared manually which is inefficient. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that Utility Billing and Customer Service are performed using the DEC VAX 76~0 main computer utilizing NCC soft- Page 3 September 28, 1994 ware and the office automation functions also utilizes the main com- puter using the DEC product All-In-One. He stated that the basic functions are operating adequately; however, there are several areas that contain problems or are not automated that require a significant amount of manual effort. Mr. Vaccaro explained that there are ten (10) issues involved with the Utility Billing and Customer Service are the most critical being that financed impact fees are tracked and maintained manually which creates a large amount of work for many departments. He indi- cated that all the issues cause manual processing to be performed but all could be fixed if a software vendor is able to provide support for same. Commissioner Norris pointed out that the SaDdpiper employees, who are former NCC employees, have assured that the problems in the County's software can be corrected. He questioned why the same people were unable to correct the problems when they were NCC employees? Mr. Vaccaro explained that an extensive list of items needing correcting which was composed during the investigation was probably never supplied to NCC plus due to the financial problems being experienced by NCO, the resources to address the issues was not available. Mr. Dotrill mentioned that the outstanding invoice due NCC was withheld due to their failure to expend the necessary time to imp/e- ment the final elements of the software system and to make the corrections. Commissioner Matthews questioned how much of the original contract with NCC has never been fulfilled? Mr. Dotrill explained that separate elements in the work order process have not been completed. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the work order applications were not Included In the original contract. Ron Cook, Utilities Finance Director, stated that the system as a whole is functioning satisfactorily but requires manual effort. He Page 4 i September 28, 1994 indicated that the Finance impact fee issue was not part of the origi- na~ contract but NCC had assured the County that in the next up-date of the software package, an application to address the issue would be tncldded. In response to Mr. Dotrill, Mr. Cook informed that all elements of the contract that the County paid for were received. Mr. Vaccaro stated that technical issues have been identified under Information Systems regarding the DEC VAX 7610 computer. He indicated that the telephone line capabilities from the VAX computer to the utilities location and customer service location will allow for additional transmission because only 50 percent to 60 percent of the Utility Divtsion's line capacity is being utilized. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that all Utility Division locations use CRT"s as input devices on the system and word processing, E-mail and spreadsheet functions are performed using the A/l-In-One application on the VAX. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the issues relative to the Information Systems are that no documentation for the NCC software exists which is needed for a software vendor to utilize support for the system, and support is being provided by/n-house MIS personnel who do not possess the working technical knowledge to adequately support the system at a high level. Mr. Vaccaro stated that in the Utility Accounting area there is an interface between the accounting Information entered into the NCC system and the FMS accounting system. He Indicated that recon- ciliation of the subsidiary accounts on the NCC system are being per- formed by the Clerk's department and not all the NCC applications are interfaced. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the issues include that there is no general ledger on the NCC system which makes it impossible to see all transactions in one location to effect balancing and timing differen- ces between poerings made to the FMS system and transactions generated by the NCC system which results in substantial manual effort to recon- Page 5 September 28, 1994 cile. He indicated that certain types of cash receipt transactions cannot be entered into the NCC system and are not integrated with the FMS system plus financed impact fees are being manually tracked by the Clerk's accounting personnel as well as Utility Billing. Chip Collins, The Accord Group, stated that he will address the Water Department, Wastewater Department and specific areas such as work orders, purchasing, inventory control and office automat/on which are all closely related. Mr. Collins explained that both the Water and Wastewater Departments have very little interface with the NCC software but have significant needs. He indicated that PC's are utilized for inventory control, tracking and word processing and no equipment maintenance system exists. Mr. Collins pointed out that major issues are: no centralized purchasing exists and supervisors spend excessive time performing purchasing procedures: the work order system is manual and significant time is spent preparing work orders, entering data into several logs and trying to track status: no project management system exists: a meter inventory system is maintained on a PC which is not interfaced with the NCC utility billing system: and a major need exists for an integrated billing, work management, inventory control, cost manage- ment and purchasing system in the Water Department. Mr. Collins indicated that the Wastewater Department has no interaction with the NCC software with numerous stand-a/one pC~e, each plant maintains their own inventory, and work order processing tracking is performed manually. Mr. Collins stated that major issues include the manual prepara- tion, management and tracking of work orders: lack of a integrated stand-alone, centralized Inventory system: close interaction with the FMS system is required: and no equipment maintenance system exists. Mr. Collins informed that the work order process is performed manually and a substantial duplication of effort exists. Mr. Collins mentioned that issues involved with the work order Page 6 September 28, 1994 process are: all work orders are manually prepared, logged, maintained and tracked in numerous locations; extensive duplication of effort exists that result in inefficiencies; response to customer Inquiries and complaints is a slow and time consuming process; and Invoicing for chargeable items and efforts is time consuming because of the manual processes. Mr. Collins stated that an Inventory system does not exist within the Water or Wastewater Departments and they make do with the PC~s being utilized. He explained that an integrate inventory system for tracking is needed. Mr. Collins indicated that the purchase order process is extre- mely time consuming and although automated purchase order management is performed with the County~s FMS system, the users are not ade- quately trained to utilize the system. Mr. Collins stated that the All-In-0ne office automation software includes word processing, spreadsheet, E-mail and scheduling which operates on the DEC VAX 7610. He pointed out that five to ten (5-10} years ago the A/l-In-One was a popular approach to providing office automation on a centralized mini-computer with terminals but is no longer popular and has been replaced bv networking using PC's with more user oriented capabilities. Mr. Collins indicated that a fairly major issue is that every terminal/user is charged 8100 per month for access to All-In-One which equates to 846,800 per year for the Utilities D/vision. He pointed out that significant computer hardware resources are necessary to operate the A/l-In-One with many users are a/ready using other PC based products for word processing that are more user friendly. Mr. Vaccaro stated that a number of alternatives regarding system approaches available were addressed. He explained that Alternative A is to keep the status quo but the problem is that a number of correc- tions need to be made to the software to eliminate manual processes, including introduction of a work order management application. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that Alternative B is to continue to use the ,,oo. Page 7 September 28, 1994 NCC software with minor changes performed by a third party software firm and implement the NCC work order application which, as part of NCC's settlement, they have offered to give the County the Work Order Management and Inventory Control applications. He explained that the problems with Alternative B is finding a third party software vendor that knows the NCC software and the Work Order Management and Inventory Control applications have only been implemented three (3) or four (4) times and bugs may exist in the software package. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Alternative C ie to continue to use the NCC software with minor changes performed by a third party software firm to correct outstanding problems in the software and implement a non-NCC Work Order Management and Inventory Control application to run on a network of micro-computers or DEC. He explained that the problem is obtaining a third party vendor that does not know the soft- ware to provide long term support. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Alternative D is to continue to use the NCC software, contract with Sandpiper to provide on-going support and correct the existing problems as well as implement the NCC Work Order Management software. He indicated that it is not recommended to implement the NCC Work Order Management application because the package has not been used often enough. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Alternative E is to continue to use the NCC software and contract with Sandpiper to correct outstanding problems in the software and provide on-going support plus implement the non-NCC Work Order Management and Inventory Control applications. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Alternative F is the recommended alter- native which is to use the NCC software, obtain support from Sandpiper until a new system can be installed to replace the existing system. Commissioner Matthews questioned what the difficulty is with the County system that the recommendation is to cease utilizing same? Mr. Vaccaro explained that upon initial interviews of the users of the existing system prior to making a presentation to the Board, Vaccaro Consulting and the Accord Group felt confident that the Page 8 September 28, 1994 existing system could be utilized with Sandpiper providing support and a non-NOt Work Order Management system installed. He Indicated that a meeting in North Carolina with the seven people comprising Sandpiper was held and assurance was given that support for the NCC software would be provided with a total rewriting of the software to allow for flexibility in the package and would occur in 1995. Mr. Vaccaro stated that two (2) weeks later, a meeting was held with Sandpiper to review outstanding issues and a new president with a new direction for the organization was in charge who indicated that the software was not going to be written but support would be provided for the NCC soft- ware, which raised the question, for how long? Mr. Vaccaro stated that they are not recommending the continued use of NCC now because of the questionable long term support and uncertain plans for Sandpiper. He Indicated that Sandpiper ts capable of supplying short term support which they have indicated they are Interested in providing. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the process of changing computer systems takes approximately 12 to 18 months to effect because of the many varied elements involved, i.e. defining requirements, finding a soft- ware vendor, conducting demonstration, checking vendor backgrounds and references, receiving equipment and implementation. Commissioner Matthews voiced concern on the vtabtltty of Sandpiper based on this presentation because of their change in direc- tion and a work force of only six (6) people with the technical discipline for the NCC software. Mr. Vaccaro explained that the people working for Sandpiper are all former employees of NCC. Commissioner Norris questioned if Sandpiper performed any other services other than service to NCC systems? Mr. Vaccaro replied that both company presidents indicated that the only service Sandpiper provides Is to NCC systems. Commissioner Norris pointed out that the County cannot base a long term decision on staying with the NCC system because of the Page 9 September 28, 1994 uncertainty regarding support. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the new system should be a combination of a network of micro-computers and a mini-computer to provide additional capabilities to users of present PC"e. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the problem with the existing meter reading devices needs to be addressed immediately and recommended con- tacting Sandpiper and Datamatix to correct the problem. He mentioned that there was a problem in getting NCC to fix the meter reading devices but working with Sandpiper may be able to address the issue. Mr. Vaccaro explained that the hand held devices presently being used should be used until the new system is implemented assuming that the mallunctions can be corrected; if the problem cannot be corrected, the devices need to be replaced immediately. He advised that the vendor selected for the new system may recommend another hand held meter that works better with their system. Mr. Vaccaro stated that other recommendations include the imple- ment of a full miscellaneous receivable and budgetary accounting applications, with assistance from Sandpiper, due to problems with the cash receipts process and the software would add capabilities to eli- minate some of the manual work being performed. He indicated that the only part of budgetary accounting presently installed is the chart of accounts function which allows budgets to be entered into the system and the recommendation is to install the full general ledger to allow all financial transactions generated by the NCC software to flow right into the ledger. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that then the Utilities Division can balance the transactions, reconcile the transactions and then have the entries transferred to the FMS system. Mr. Vaccaro stated that additional training in certain areas of the purchasing element is needed because personnel do not have the knowledge of how to utilize all functions. Mr. Vaccaro mentioned that implementation of an equipment main- tenance and project management system is being recommended as well as integrating the meter ~nventory system with the utility billing Page 10 September 28, 1994 system. He indicated that all office automation applications should be on a network of micro-computers throughout the Utility Division. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the estimated cost for Sandpiper support is $73,207 to $88,207 to provide the corrections and modifications to the NCC software, obtain the budgetary accounting and miscellaneous receivables applications, the settlement with NCC and outside assistance for implementing modifications and negotiating with prospective vendors. He mentioned that Sandpiper indicated that they will provide the software free of charge if the County is able to reach a settlement with NCC and NCC has indicated that there is room for negotiations relative to the $25,000 outstanding invoice. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the cost estimate for replacing the NCC system, including work order management and inventory control applica- tions, is $292,000 to $355,000 for the hardware and the software cost is estimated at $209,000 to 8265,000. He explained that other costs include conversion, out of pocket expenses, outside assistance for project management, etc., and installation services which is estimated to cost between $124,O00 to 8160,000. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that the grand total for initial costs is $898,207 to $868,207. Mr. Vaccaro stated that the implementation plan calls for three (3) phases and Phase I is obtaining support from Sandpiper for the interim period before the new system is Implemented to immediately correct the outstanding problems and supply modifications. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the first thing that the Utilities Division needs to do is find a project manager to guide the County through the entire process and the person selected should be someone who has been through this type project before, has worked with designing, changes and modifications, and selection and implementation of systems. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that also included in Phase I is to nego- tiate a settlement ag=eement with NCC, negotiate a support agreement with Sandpiper, design, test and implement the corrections. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Phase II is the evaluation of systems to Page September 28, 1994 replace the NCC system, including work order management and inventory control applications. He explained that Phase II includes development and distribution of RFP documents, identifying the vendors qualified to bid the RFP, study of the impact of the new system on the Utility Division customers, develop procedures and contingency plans to mini- mize the impact on customers, and negotiate contract with the selected vendor. Mr. Vaccaro stated that Phase I is estimated to take three (S) months to complete and Phase II will require five to six (5-6) months to complete. Mr. Vaccaro indicated that Phase III is the implementation of the selected system and the estimated duration to complete is 13 to 14 months. He explained that the timeframe depends on how aggressively the County wants to implement the applications, which applications are implemented first and the scheduling involved. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the first thing is to develop a detailed implemen- tation plan then establish division wide standards for the use of the micro-computers and software which should be consistent with standards defined by the County. He mentioned that a study of the impact of the new system on customers is the next step followed by installing the recommended hardware configuration for the system, develop and docu- ment policy and procedures as required to accommodate the new applica- tions and new system, implement and train users on the network based office automation software applications, and implement and train users on the applications to replace the NCC system and on the work order management and inventory control applications. Commissioner Norris questioned if the present hardware is suitable for the direction the County is headed? Mr. Vaccaro explained that the hardware could be suitable but whatever system is selected should be based on how functional the software is and not on whether it can operate on the existing hardware. commissioner Matthews stated that the RFP for the software should September 28, 1994 not be limited to software that operates on the DEC VAX 7610 then. Mr. Vaccaro pointed out that the field will be narrowed too much to obtain a good cross section of software available if the RFP limits the software to function on the DEC VAX 7610. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Dorrill indicated that the County wide data processing needs workshop has been scheduled for October 12, 1994 and will appear on a regular agenda within a couple weeks thereafter. In response to Commissioner Matthews, Mr. Vaccaro explained that $10,000 to $15,000 has been Included for conversion of historical data to the new system. : (1888) PRESEITATION OF SOFTWAR~ FOR SOLID WASTE MANDATORY TRASH COLLECTION ASSESSMENT John Yonkosky, Assistant to the County Manager, stated that the proposed automation system for solid waste mandatory trash collection assessments will eventually lead to the automation of all special assessments which the Board is responsible for. Mr. Yonkosky pointed out that in the late 1980ts, the Board of County Commissioners became very much aware of concerns and problems associated with the collection of solid waste and prompted the adop- tion of Ordinance 90-30 which became effective in January 1991 but provided for billing on a calendar year basis. Be explained that in 1991 the Board revised the ordinance to allow for quarterly billing for mandatory solid waste collection assessments. Mr. Yonkosky indicated that negotiations were conducted with the Tax Collector to provide the vehicle for the billing and collection of the mandatory assessments, a contract entered into and revised in ]991 for the quarterly billing capability. He pointed out no contracts exist with the Property Appraiser or the Clerk of Courts for their elements in the collection and billing process. Mr. Yonkosky stated that contracts were entered into with two (2) service providers and were implemented on a fiscal year basis rather oo,, Page 13 September 28, 1994 than a calendar year basis which worked well the first year because the service proriders continued to bill for the last three (3) months of the year before the County started billing on a yearly basis in January. He pointed out that the problem which has arisen due to the difference between calendar year and fiscal year is an increase in fees which were granted to the service proriders recently but the increase in the flow of funds will not be effective until January under the current structure. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the recommendation is to effect a change in the contracts with the service proriders so that the County billing and their contracts are both on a calendar year basis. Mr. Yonkosky indicated that the billing process for the assessment roll is generated in October, certified in November, bills mailed in December, annual payers are due January 1 and quarterly payments are due January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the Property Appraiser has provided through his system a mirror image where the Solid Waste Staff can access and maintain the roll. Mr. Yonkosky pointed out that the bills are generated on December 1, thereby allowing 30 days before payment is due for yearly payers, and the bills become delinquent on February 1. He explained that the Tax Collector's Office will accept quarterly payments up to the 15th of the month they are due but a $5 late fee is applied thereafter; if the late fee is not included with a late payment, the entire pa~nnent is returned to the payee. Mr. Yonkosky stated that if a quarterly payer pays the entire yearly amount due between the first and second due dates, the bills are still sent out because the certified roll is what the Tax Collector works with until the next assessment roll is certified. Mr. Yonkosky stated that there are 50,000 residential units, re~idential units being up to four (4) units, on the annual assessment roll which the County bills but an additional 45,000 units are contractual/y set up with the s~U~Zr,,.' prorider who provides the Page 14 September 28, 1994 billing. He Indicated that the recommendation is that the contract be modified to allow for County Staff to provide billing for all 95,000 units. Mr. Yonkosky pointed out that approximately 8,000 of the 50,000 units should be making quarterly payments which Includes a $2 per payment service charge. Mr. Yonkosky stated that there are approximately 150 monthly additions to the assessment roll with approximately 260 monthly changes. He indicated that service calls for billing are 844 monthly and pick-up service calls total 601 monthly. Mr. Yonkosky pointed out that every service call Is tracked manually. Mr. Yonkosky Indicated that in 1993 the errors and Insolvency total 632 and in 1994 to date there are 203. He explained that these represent residences that cannot be serviced due to lack of access facilities. Mr. Yonkosky explained that if a property is sold during the year and is on a quarterly billing cycle, name changes are per- formed manually after the bills are generated because the certified rolls cannot be changed. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the budgeted amount for the Tax Collector's portion of the assessment billing Is $175,4OO which Inclu- des three percent (39&) of all monies collected plus $1 charge for each quarterly payment; the budget amount for the Property Appraiser is $72,100; the Clerk's budgeted amount for all special assessments totals $?4,000; Solid Waste Staff costs are budgeted In the amount of $138,690 for a total. He pointed out that $74,000 identified for the Clerk contained a portion that is not associated with solid waste spe- cial assessments, I.e. $14,000 is charged by the Clerk's Data Processing Department for the special assessment package which is billed to Utilities and $60,O00 is allocated for the two (2) full time equivalents but there might be three (3) full time equivalents. Mr. Yonkosky Informed that the money Is coming from the General Fund and transferred to the Clerk rather than from the specific function in which the service Is being provtdedf.,.~ Page 15 September 28, 1994 Mr. Yonkosky stated that major weaknesses with the current system include interagency coordination, i.e. three (3) separate Constitutional Officers and one (1) department handling the process; complaint tracking is performed manually, i.e. the current roll is on the Tax Collector's system, future roll is on the Property Appraiser's system and the prior delinquent rolls are on the C]erk's system, and none are integrated to make tracking easier. He explained that the automation system being recommended will allow a customer service representative to enter a complaint into the system with the time and nature of complaint which are compiled and downloaded several times a day and faxed automatically to the service prorider, a work order is generated and the complaint can be tracked from the point of receiving the telephone call. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the recommended automation system allows additions, deletions and changes to be made to the assessment roll directly from Community Development; the Clerk's deletion and changes can be made easily and economically by Staff and partial payments can be entered. Mr. Yonkosky stated that refunds can take up to six (6) months on the current system, past due billings are not included on the current statements and no method exists to track hardships. He explained that when letters or billings are sent, the Solid Waste Staff manually pull the hardship cases. Mr. Yonkosky indicated that the solution is to pin point the responsibility and integrate the existing three (3) software systems into one (1). He pointed out that complaint tracking is part of the new system as well as consolidation of annual bills. Mr. Yonkosky explained that the system will allow for other revenue enhancements such as a lock box to accelerate cash receipts and bank information will be immediately in the system. He stated that benefits will be realized in enhanced customer service and complaint tracking with the proposed system. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the recommendations are to sole source Page 16 September 28, 1994 the system because only this one system can handle the billing, collection and complaint tracking. He informed the Board that Palm Beach County with approximately 387,000 units, Monroe County with 72,000 units and Lake County with 30,000 units presently use the pro- posed system. Mr. Yonkosky explained that the Constitutional Officers will need to be notified if the Board approves the system, the ordinance will need amending to effect the fiscal year billing and amend the service prorider contracts so that the County services all 95,000 units available. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Yonkosky stated that the Constitutional Officers have been given all the information as supplied to the Board and have been contacted regarding this proposal. Mr. Yonkosky explained that approximately $38 million in special assessments exist with $20 million represented by Just two assessment rolls. He indicated that 13,023 active accounts existed as of June 1, 1994 with 5,176 of the accounts representing prior solid waste assessments. Mr. Yonkosky stated that the proposed system with future modifications will accommodate all the special assessments and presently the Tax Collector cannot handle any more assessment districts on the tax bill. He pointed out that the Tax Collector lost $15,000 as of October 1, 1993 on the mandatory solid waste assessment processing. Commissioner Saunders stated that collecting fees is easier when they appear on the tax bill and was under the impression that a pro- cess was underway to modify the Tax Collector's software system to increase the number of billings on the tax bill. Mr. Yonkosky replied that he is not aware of any plans to increase the capabilities of the Tax Collector's software. Commissioner Saunders recommended closer communications with the Constitutional Officers, ascertain where in the process the County is in updating the Tax Collector's software and factor into the savings, the difficulty in collecting the fees. Mr. Dotrill indicated that he is not aware that the Tax Collector Page 17 is attempting to make modifications to add further assessments and when approached about adding EMS costs to the tax bill, the Tax Collector adamantly objected. Mr. Yonkosky stated that if the entire collection process, including complaint tracking, was contracted to a Constitutional Officer to perform, basically the same thing which is being recom- mended will occur, i.e. pin pointing the function in one place. He pointed out that complaint tracking is a major portion of the proposed automation system. Commissioner Matthews stated that she does not see a need to sole source an item unless an emergency exists. Mr. Dorrtll Indicated that Staff Is not opposed to an RFP in order to establish that the ability to propose is limited. Mr. Dotrill stated that the County automation system Is poor and Is ten (10} years behind in the level of sophistication for automa- tion. He explained that the automated procedures are antiquated requiring redundant, numerous, manual effort to produce the simplest of management reports or to solve the day-to-day problems. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Workshop was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 5:15 P.M. Page 18