September 15, 2020 Special Called Commissioners' Court

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Hood County Commissioners' Court held a special called meeting on September 15, 2020, to address the fiscal year 2020–2021 budget and related operational matters. The court approved line item transfers, a 1.2 percent tax revenue increase of approximately $250,000, the proposed budget, a property tax rate of 0.423777 per $100 valuation, a two percent salary increase for county employees, and a new I.T. Department assistant position. Significant discussion centered on a proposed conversion from Net Data to Tyler Odyssey software systems, with testimony from county departments, elected officials, auditors, and both vendors regarding system capabilities, costs, and operational efficiency; the court ultimately voted to table the decision pending a facilitated workshop within 30 days with both vendors present. Additional agenda items included addressing open records request staffing needs and reviewing timekeeping and payroll system challenges.

• Call to order and meeting locationThe special called commissioners' court meeting was opened at 9 a.m. on September 15, 2020, in the Hood County Justice Center.
• Line item transfers – Facility Maintenance and Sheriff's DepartmentThe court approved line item transfers to allow departments to use existing funds for purchases instead of capital projects funds.
• Proposed increase in tax revenuesThe court voted to approve a proposed 1.2 percent increase in tax revenues (approximately $250,000) per Government Code §111.008(c).
• Proposed budget for fiscal year 2020–2021The court considered and voted on the proposed Hood County fiscal year 2020–2021 budget following two prior public hearings.
• Public comment – Precinct 2 Constable budget requestConstable of Precinct 2 addressed the court regarding non-funding of an administrative assistant position promised in the prior budget cycle.
• I.T. Department Open Records staffing discussionCommissioners discussed the need for a dedicated assistant in the I.T. Department to handle a surge in open records requests that has overwhelmed existing staff.
• Open records process and cost burdensMultiple county officials described the cascading time and expense involved in handling open records requests, including consultation among department heads, the county attorney, and H.R.
• Legal background requirement and salary discussionCommissioners and legal staff discussed qualifications and compensation for a person to review open records requests with legal or regulatory expertise.
• Elected officials' statutory obligations vs. delegation debateA constable raised concerns about the county delegating open records duties to H.R. when state law makes each elected official responsible for responding to requests.
• I.T. assistant position voteThe commissioners voted on including a new I.T. Department assistant position in the budget without approving an immediate hire.
• Property tax rate adoptionThe court adopted Hood County's property tax rate at 0.423777 per $100 valuation for fiscal year 2020–2021, below the no-new-revenue rate and lower than the prior year's rate.
• 2021 salary matrix approvalThe court approved a two percent salary increase across all county employee pay categories in the 2021 salary matrix, with no elected officials receiving raises.
• Net Data to Tyler Odyssey software conversionThe court considered converting county departments from Net Data software to Tyler Odyssey, weighing cost, security, hosting options, and operational benefits including timekeeping integration.
• Timekeeping system and payroll efficiency concernsThe treasurer's office described manual timekeeping processes that waste staff hours and create error risk, and estimated dramatic time savings if Tyler's Execute Time module were implemented.
• Net Data server upgrade option and five-year contract clarificationA commissioner discovered that Net Data does not require a five-year contract and that a server upgrade would cost approximately $40,000 and provide three to five years of capability.
• Commissioner position on decision timing and information gatheringA commissioner expressed concern about insufficient information and insufficient time and proposed scheduling workshops with both vendors before making a final decision.
• Historical context of hosting versus on-site optionsA commissioner recalled that the court initially faced two options a year ago—hosting or on-site—and chose hosting because capital was unavailable at that time.
• Commissioner interest in decision clarity and vendor recommendationsMultiple commissioners expressed readiness to decide and noted prior recommendations had been made by staff.
• Dual system challenges and cost of maintaining two platformsThe staff explained that dual-system operation forces departments to enter data twice, and consolidating to one platform would save time and money.
• History of requests to Net Data for Spillman interfaceStaff described years of requesting the Spillman interface capability from Net Data, which was repeatedly denied before a recent reversal.
• Public testimony: Development Department permit and net data data loss incidentA county employee testified that Net Data completely deleted a permit receipt in April 2019 with no recovery option, creating an audit trail gap.
• Permitting software options and InterGov interfaceIntergGov permitting interface can merge with Tyler's financial system but is a separate purchase and represents new functionality.
• Finance Department permitting account separation costsA finance department employee reported Net Data charges a reprogramming fee to move a revenue register from one account to another.
• Public testimony: Auditor office experience with both systemsAn auditor with nine years of experience and involvement in a prior 2014 Tyler migration testified that Tyler is more user-friendly and offers faster reporting.
• Data deletion incidents in Net Data and accountability concernsMultiple departments have experienced Net Data records being deleted by Net Data support staff, and the auditor identified this as a major vulnerability.
• Auditor recommendation for single-system consolidationThe auditor recommended consolidating to one system county-wide to improve consistency, reduce manual workarounds, and eliminate dual reporting.
• Net Data vendor response and proposal summaryNet Data representative Dallas Osborne argued the court should save $1.45 million by keeping Net Data, maintaining end-user satisfaction, and proposed a workshop instead of an immediate decision.
• Net Data capabilities and development roadmapNet Data acknowledged reporting challenges and offered to develop improved reports or interfaces; the company is developing new case management systems for county and district courts.
• Net Data interface limitations and lack of vendor proactivityNet Data representative acknowledged the company does not have a Spillman interface and cannot guarantee one without Spillman's agreement; he noted the company did not proactively inform the county of new capabilities.
• NetData server infrastructure cost proposalA NetData representative advocated for retaining the current system, citing lower costs than the proposed Tyler alternative.
• JP Clerk perspective on system requirements and NetData capabilitiesA JP clerk representing the absent county judge submitted remarks on behalf of Judge Tuggle, advocating to table the Tyler proposal.
• Incoming Justice perspective and request for additional timeAn incoming justice in January requested a workshop and more time to gather information on both systems before a decision.
• Tyler representative market and integration benefitsTyler Technologies sales representative addressed the county's need for unified systems across multiple offices.
• District Attorney intake and systems integration needsThe District Attorney's intake coordinator detailed operational inefficiencies from using two separate systems.
• District Attorney general assessment and comparative analysisThe District Attorney confirmed that the District Clerk and DA's office operate independently of the JP courts, and that both vendors have been evaluated.
• Justice Court Judge efficiency concerns and analogyA Justice Court Judge expressed skepticism about the proposed system change, using a vehicle analogy to illustrate his position.
• County Attorney office efficiency analysisCounty Attorney staff member presented efficiency gains that could result from unified Tyler implementation across multiple county offices.
• JP office manager assessment and cross-office coordinationAn JP office manager who has worked in both NetData (as JP clerk) and Tyler (as district clerk) advocated for the Tyler system based on experience and observed efficiency.
• NetData e-filing and comparative vendor assessmentJP office staff reported recent outreach to other counties regarding vendor transitions and feedback on training requirements.
• Tyler implementation support and training plansTyler representatives outlined onsite support and training resources for the proposed system transition.
• NetData e-filing portal comparisonA NetData representative addressed capability differences regarding public portal access and e-filing functions.
• Final JP judge perspective and system satisfactionA Justice Court Judge restated satisfaction with the current NetData system and requested a workshop for detailed comparison.
• County official concerns about system implementationA county official expressed concerns about how a new system would function for their specific office and constituency.
• Request for vendor capabilities workshopCommissioners requested a joint workshop with both vendors present to clarify system capabilities and limitations.
• Employee satisfaction and integration considerationsCommissioners discussed importance of employee morale alongside system decisions and potential hybrid implementation approaches.
• Workshop scheduling and decision rationaleCommissioners decided to table the matter pending a workshop to explore cost-effective solutions and prevent rushed implementation.
• Motion to table with workshop conditionsCommissioners voted to table the matter pending a facilitated workshop within 30 days with both vendors and IT representatives present.