Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJustice Court-Software implementationJustice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Justice Court – Software implementation To request this information in an alternate format, please call (541) 330-4674 or send email to David.Givans@Deschutes.org Deschutes County, Oregon David Givans, CPA, CIA Deschutes County Internal Auditor PO Box 6005 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200 Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 330-4674 David.Givans@Deschutes.org Audit committee: Gayle McConnell, Chair - Public member Chris Earnest - Public member Jean Pedelty - Public member Greg Quesnel - Public member Michael Shadrach - Public member Jennifer Welander - Public member Anthony DeBone, County Commissioner Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Director Scot Langton, County Assessor Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 {This page left blank} Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS: HIGHLIGHTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background on Audit …………..………………………………………...…… 1 1.2. Objectives and Scope ………………….……………………………..……… 1 1.3. Methodology …………………………………….……………………...…… 1-2 2. FINDINGS Software implementation observations …...……………..………….............. 2-5 Fiscal and budgeting observations ………………………………………….… 5-8 3. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Justice Court ……......…..………………………………….…………………. 9-13 County Administration ………………………………………………………. 14-16 Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 HIGHLIGHTS What is recommended Recommendations include: developing a team of stakeholders that should be involved from planning through implementation; utilizing a test environment to assure reports and activity are sustained; completing research and reconciliation of the identified variances in opening customer account balances; continuing with written documentation for their systems; budgeting and accounting for capital outlays in the associated operating department; implementing additional procedures to identify non-recurring capital expenditures; and utilizing analyses to highlight activity and contribution from the general fund. Justice Court – Software implementation Why this audit was performed: The Justice Court has been working to complete the conversion from their County developed system to a vendor developed system. The internal audit focused on selected controls and carryover of prior customer balances. What was found The overall conversion did not go as planned. Difficulties with vendor support, reports, conversion of data and operation of the software contributed to the difficult transition. Staff did not have experience in implementing software systems. Key staff involved in the transition left before the system could be fully implemented. The County did not provide a way to assist the department and staff through this process. One of the main audit goals was to confirm that $5.7 million in customer balances was successfully converted over to the new system. Ninety six percent (96%) of the balances appear to have been successfully brought over to the new system. Justice Court staff could not identify and did not have a plan or the technological wherewithal to identify the differences. The software did appear to have many of the selected general and application level controls that would be expected of a packaged software system. The department's many operational controls appear to be sufficient and appropriate given their small office configuration. They do have some areas to work on documentation as they move forward. Budgeting for their software purchase was complicated by the County’s choice to budget the purchase of the operational software through the general fund as opposed to the Justice Court’s fund. This contributed to problems with budgeting for the multi-year acquisition. The budget process failed to identify this ongoing project in two subsequent years. Justice Court staff were no longer part of the process of budgeting and payment of the software system. Ticketing activity coming to the Justice Court has declined significantly. Most of this decline is attributed to the Sheriff’s Office and to some extent the Redmond Police department. Starting in 2011 and going through 2012, the general fund picked up the software costs amounting to $240 thousand. In 2012, operational revenues no longer covered operational expenditures due primarily to a declining trend in revenues. Budgets and fund accounting do not provide an accurate view of the fiscal activity for the Justice Court. This makes observing these trends difficult. Deschutes County Internal Audit Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 1 of 16 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND ON AUDIT Audit Authority: The Deschutes County Audit Committee authorized the audit of the Justice Court’s new software implementation in the Internal Audit Program Work Plan for 11/13. 1.2 OBJECTIVES and SCOPE Objectives: The objectives are focused around the impacts the new software system might have on operations. Are fiscal controls still effective under the new software? Is there adequate segregation of duties? Are selected software and general and application controls in place? These would include user security settings. Was the data conversion of customer balances complete? Scope and timing: The audit reviewed customer balances at conversion on April 30, 2012 and performed fieldwork from May through October 2012. Audit work was suspended in May, due to problems in rolling out the software with the software vendor. In the midst of the started conversion, the vendor pulled out of the field. The sof tware was not fully operational and the old system was no longer available. Audit work re-commenced in July to find that reports were not available to account for current customer balances. Internal Audit worked with the Justice Court, vendor and information technology to get a report that would provide customer balances. In September, audit work could continue on reconciling balances between systems. The scope of the audit did not include all aspects of internal controls employed. 1.3 METHODOLOGY Audit procedures included:  Observing and interviewing staff on the new software capabilities.  Analyzing user security rights and comparing to prior system.  Reviewing written procedures and documents provided,  Reviewing and analyzing revenue and expenditures data for Justice Court activities,  Assisting with development of customer balance report by vendor,  Computerized analyses of old and new system customer balances. Internal audit was able to develop DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT DESCHUTES COUNTY INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 2 of 16 a report identifying the differences between the systems for the Justice Court to investigate. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evi dence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. (2011 Revision of Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.) 2. Findings The audit included procedures to assess selected controls and to assess the completeness of the conversion. Audit findings result from incidents of non-compliance with stated procedures and/or departures from prudent operation. The findings are, by nature, subjective. The audit disclosed certain policies, procedures and practices that could be improved. The audit was neither designed nor intended to be a detailed study of every relevant system, procedure or transaction. Accordingly, the opportunities for improvement presented in the report may not be all-inclusive of areas where improvement may be needed and does not replace efforts needed to design an effective system of internal control. A significant deficiency is defined as an internal control deficiency that could adversely affect the entity’s ability to initiate, record, process, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of manageme nt in the financial statements. The findings noted were not considered significant deficiencies. SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION OBSERVATIONS Implementation efforts failed to ensure smooth software transition. The implementation of Justice Court’s software experienced a number of difficulties. These included: • Software vendor pulled out mid-conversion leaving staff with little support. • Software did not operate as expected and had not been fully tested before putting into use. • Responsible staff failed to pull in together a team to support the implementation effort. It is not clear that they had sufficient background in this kind of implementation. The responsible Justice Court staff left during the implementation. • Sufficient accounting reports were not developed to identify that customer balances had been transitioned. Staff did not reconcile customer balances through conversion. Standard practices for project management of this type would include appropriate planning for data Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 3 of 16 conversion, report development and testing. The software implementation should result in a software platform that meets their requirements when it was turned on. Data completeness standards would anticipate managing the data conversion between the systems. In the absence of proper planning, staff had to work through the completion of the software implementation as they worked on the system. This required, at times, reentry of data and work arounds. As indicated in the finding below, staff were unaware that $219 thousand in customer balances were no longer in the system. Well-meaning staff did not have experience in this kind of implementation nor were they ultimately responsible for operating the software. The County and staff did not assemble an appropriate team to support the department in these efforts. The County does not dictate to departments the handling of these projects, nor does the IT department. The testing of the software was not complete prior to implementation as evidenced by the myriad of issues that showed up on conversion. It is recommended that County operations going through a software implementation have a mandatory team of stakeholders that should be involved from planning through implementation. These stakeholders would likely include operational staff, information technology staff, and finance staff (and might include internal audit). It is recommended, when possible, a test environment be employed and run parallel to assure the system is ready for operation and has all of the controls and reporting developed. Justice Court lacked a plan to reconcile customer balances to new software system. There was no indication that staff in-charge of the transition had run summary level reports for customer balances in the old and new software systems to ensure the proper conversion of the customer balances. Staff indicated random tests of balances only and was aware differences existed. Management and staff failed to proactively identify how this reconciliation would or could occur. There were insufficient reports in the new system to provide an accounting of the customer balances. It is generally expected that assets such as customer balances be tracked and safeguarded. During conversions, a strategy should be identified to provide for the integrity of data being moved. This usually occurs through input from staff with experience in accounting, operational and technology disciplines. The department failed to perform reconciliation on the $5.7 million in customer balances, which existed as of April 30, 2012. At the time of the audit, the County Internal Auditor determined there were $219 thousand in Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 4 of 16 customer balances (over 759 items) not adequately accounted for in the new system. Internal audit provided a report to staff to research and fix those differences. Staff did not involve the information technology staff and finance staff in a proactive manner to assure proper transition of customer accounts. Justice Court staff were not technologically able with the available reports, programming and support to identify the differences that existed over the system. It is recommended for the department, with the provided variance report, complete the research and reconciliation of the opening customer account balances. This should result in most, if not all, of the balances being accounted for. {The Justice Court is currently in the process of going through the report and fixing the identified variances.} Other general and application controls implemented. A number of selected software application and general controls, not previously discussed, appear to have been implemented. These include: o security settings for user rights and process for setting permissions, o audit trails within system, o daily closing reports and process, o reports for handling monies held in trust, o interfaces to transfer collections to collection agent , and o data validation checks performed for appropriateness of amounts and dates. Some areas were not fully addressed at the time of this report. Those included o a written business continuity plan, o documentation of pertinent user settings for software and the software’s operation, and o an interface from the collection agent for efficiently posting of payments. The associated controls reviewed for could be important to the department as it operationalize the software system. If deficiencies exist with some of these controls, they could limit the effectiveness and efficiencies of the system and hamper operations. Justice Court is still working through the implementati on and it is understandable that some of these may not yet be addressed. It is recommended for Justice Court to work on addressing the areas noted above for improvement. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 5 of 16 FISCAL AND BUDGETING OBSERVATIONS Table I – Justice Court Fiscal activity trend Declining Justice Court trends may impact fiscal sustainability. The Justice Court’s fiscal 2012 operations were sustained through support of the general fund to the extent of $55 thousand (See Table I below for trend). This analysis takes into account the fine revenue posted to the general fund. This is the first year, in some time, where the Justice Court did not provide monies to the general fund. Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 REVENUES Deschutes County - receipts from Justice Court $ 734,021 $ 616,193 $ 627,349 $ 574,123 $ 478,972 Justice Court 7,355 4,502 2,529 2,101 1,525 Total Revenues 741,377 620,695 629,877 576,224 480,497 EXPENDITURES Justice Court (557,627) (578,356) (541,892) (518,001) (535,581) Net of Revenues over expenditures $ 183,749 $ 42,339 $ 87,985 $ 58,223 $ (55,083) Note: County financial information This analysis does not include the $200 thousand in capitalized software costs paid in FY 2011and FY 2012 and the $40 thousand in training and maintenance to be paid for the software system in FY 2013. These are being paid through the general fund, as noted previously. Trends in the driver offenses received by agencies have been on the decline (See Graph I below). Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 6 of 16 Graph I – Trend in Sheriff and Redmond Police violations filed with Justice Court by fiscal year The Sheriff’s tickets passing through to the Justice Court are down 70% from where they were in FY 2008. Redmond police department tickets have been more consistent but are down 44% from levels in FY 2008. These downward trends are similar in revenue terms by fiscal year. Collections as a percent appear to be relatively consistent over this period. The ability of the Justice Court to sustain operations is based upon certain levels of tickets being processed in order to cover the overhead for operations. When trends like this are identified, County and Justice Court management need to work to determine whether the trends will continue, what can be done to improve the trends, and potential impacts to operations. The fiscal outlook is not as apparent when looking at the County financial and budgetary schedules. Currently, the apparent downward trend in filings would suggest that there would need to be further general fund support unless there are additional revenues (through additional filings) or reductions in expenditures. The current financial reporting does not highlight the operational sustainabilit y issue. This is because a large portion of the revenues is accounted for in the general fund. It is recommended the County utilize the presented financial reporting analyses (or something similar) to better highlight the Justice Court activity and whether it contributes or requires Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 7 of 16 contributions from the general fund. It is recommended for County management to investigate whether there are opportunities to get more filings through to the Justice Court system. Capital budgeting for Justice Court software could be improved. The Justice Court software had been budgeted in FY 2011 capital outlays from the General fund (non- departmental). Budgeting this expenditure in the general fund separates the expenditure from the accounting for the operational unit. In FY 2012, the County failed to identify the need to budget for the remaining expenditures for the software. There was $100 budgeted even though there had only been about 29% paid on the $240 thousand Justice Court software package. These exp enditures should have been anticipated. There were insufficient details in the various published budget documents of the nature of these capital improvements amounting to $240,000 except for a little used capital expenditure report that is available for the budget committee’s review. It also appears this occurred again in FY 2013 for the remainder of expenses. Accounting practices would suggest these Justice Court costs would have been better placed with the associated program as opposed to where the fu nds were coming from. For expenditures amounting to nearly $240,000, it seems these would be called out specifically in capital outlay documents. It would have been expected that during the following budget year preparation someone would have determined if the capital outlay was completed and any additional appropriation requirements. Multi-year capital projects should be scheduled and tracked. The County’s capital outlay expenditure form process triggered the need for adding FY 2012 appropriations but failed to identify the item during the budgetary process. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) provides best practices in their "Recommended Budget Practices: A Framework For lmproved State and Local Government Budgeting". lf the entity has any significant, nonrecurring capital expenditures, the document should describe these items (i.e. indicate the project's purpose and funding sources) and indicate the amount appropriated for the project during the budget year(s). In addition, the document should include the amount appropriated for significant, nonrecurring capital expenditures in the budget year. The County participates in the GFOA’s distinguished budget presentation awards program, which has similar criteria. The deficiency in planning for appropriations highlights the deficiencies in current capital planning documents and process. Having the expenditure accounted for in the General Fund (with funding) detracts from proper accounting of the Justice Court departmental activities (Justice Court). Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 8 of 16 Having the capital expenditures handled in the general fund likely made it more difficult for Justice Court management to follow-up on the budgeting for the capital item. Administration staff responsible for general fund budgeting were disconnected from the project. It is recommended for the County to consider budgeting and accounting for capital outlays in the associated operating department. This might require general fund support coming through a transfer instead of an expenditure. It is recommended for the County to implement additional procedures to identify and budget non- recurring capital expenditures. It is recommended the County review the current capital outlay form to see if the process is needed or could be improved. This might require reconciling capital projects between periods to assure sufficient resources are maintained through their acquisition. It is recommended the County consider improving the County’s process for capital budgeting of projects by utilizing the guidance provided by GFOA. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 9 of 16 3. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Justice Court – Charles Fadeley, Justice of the Peace and Jodi Stacy, Court Coordinator Deschutes County Justice Court 737 SW Cascade Ave. Redmond, OR 97756 (541)617-4758 Office Hours: 8:00am – 12:00pm & 1:00pm-4:00pm, Monday-Friday To: David Givans From: Charles Fadeley, Justice of the Peace and Jodi Stacy, Justice Court Coordinator Subject: Management’s response to October 25, 2012 Audit Report “Implementation efforts failed to ensure smooth software transition” Recommendation: It is recommended that County operations going through a software implementation have a mandatory team of stakeholders that should be involved from planning through implementation. These stakeholders would likely include operational staff, information technology staff, and finance staff (and might include internal audit). Response: We agree with the auditor’s comments. It would be a good idea to have a group of individuals with varying priorities, areas of expertise and viewpoints to give input prior to and during design and implementation of new software. Perhaps fewer items of concern would have been overlooked with a wider audience viewing software before it was put into production. Recommendation: It is recommended, when possible, a test environment be employed and run parallel to assure the system is ready for operation and has all of the controls and reporting developed. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 10 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued Response: We agree with this recommendation. A test environment known as ‘Showcase Stage’ actually was created sometime prior to implementation. The idea was to use Stage to test new builds and hot fixes prior to installation in the production environment. Unfortunately, for unknown reasons, Stage didn’t always perform in the same manner that Production did. Often, functions that had been tested and worked well in the Stage environment did not work in Production. This could have been due to differences in installation, settings or users. “Justice Court lacked a plan to reconcile customer balances to new software system” Recommendation: It is recommended for the department, with the provided variance report, complete the research and reconciliation of the opening customer account balances. This should result in mos t, if not all, of the balances being accounted for. Response: We agree with the auditor’s comments. We are grateful for the auditor’s help in obtaining a list of the accounts in which the balances varied between Accuterm and Showcase. As stated els ewhere in this report, Justice Court staff was aware of the discrepancy on some of the older accounts due to reports obtained from our collection agency, Alliance One. When research was done in the Accuterm system, it was noted that the fee balances on count 2 and count 3 of older cases occasionally did not transfer over to Showcase. All problem cases that were identified were fixed immediately. Unfortunately, Justice Court lacked the necessary reports and software necessary to compare the two systems on a large scale and identify differences in case totals. “Other general and application controls implemented” Recommendation: o a written business continuity plan o documentation of pertinent user settings for software and the software’s operation Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 11 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued o an interface from the collection agent for efficiently posting payments It is recommended for Justice Court to work on addressing the areas noted above for improvement. Response: We agree with the auditor’s recommendation of an interface from the collection agent for the efficient posting of payments. In fact, this interface is in the works with an estimated date of completion, December 31, 2012. We also agree with the recommendation to create documentation of pertinent user settings. When we have worked through current unresolved issues and have installed the latest version of the Showcase software, the Court Coordinator will work on a manual that shows pictures documenting correct settings and templates for optimal software operation. Although we agree that a written business continuity plan would be a good idea, it may be sometime before the Justice Court is able create a full blown business continuity plan. In the meantime, steps will be made to document an Emergency Preparedness plan for staff to refer to in the event of a disaster. This information will be kept in printed and electronic format for all staff to access. We estimate the date of completion of documentation for user setting and emergency preparedness to be July of 2013. It should be noted that all of Justice Court’s electronic records are backed up nightly by the IT department and are stored off -site at the Health Services building. Archive tapes are also kept in a fireproof safe at the IT department as well as being st ored at the Clerk’s archive warehouse. “Declining Justice Court trends may impact fiscal sustainability” Recommendation: It is recommended the County utilize the presented financial reporting analyses (or something similar) to better highlight the Justice Court activity and whether it contributes or requires contributions from the general fund. Response: Management neither concurs nor disagrees with the recommendation. Justice Court staff prepares a monthly summary of filings and revenues. Consequently, Justice Court has been aware of the decrease in filings and has been proactive (see response to recommendations below). Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 12 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued In FY 2012 Justice Court incurred non-recurring expenditures of $54,368. A retiring Justice Court coordinator stayed on payroll, after her replacement was hired, to train her replacement and help with the software implementation. Consequently, in FY 2012 the JC budget included salaries for two supervisors and three clerks. The FY 2013 budget has one supervisor and four clerks. The difference between a second coordinator at $35 per hour and a court assistant at $15 per hour on an annual basis is $37,987 in salary and an additional $3,143 in PERS contributions. Further, in FY 2012 the retiring court coordinator and a clerk received $13,238 (total) for vacation pay-off. Recommendation: It is recommended for County management to investigate whether there are opportunities to get more filings through to the Justice Court system. Response: Management concurs with the recommendation. In the last 18 months, Justice Court has met with Redmond PD, the Sheriff and OSP. Redmond PD Last year Redmond PD was down about six positions. It is our understanding those positions have been filled. Three of the officers have been certified, with the others still undergoing training. RPD advises the additional officers will allow more dedicated traffic enforcement resulting in a significant increase in filings. Deschutes Sheriff’s Office The Sheriff is encouraging deputies to cite into Justice Court where appropriate. By statute, citations for conduct within the Bend city limits are cited into Circuit Court. However, certain classes of violations (for example, animal violations) have been cited into Circuit Court regardless of where the violation allegedly occurred. The Sheriff’s position is those violations may be cited into Justice Court. Justice Court is starting to see an increase in Sheriff’s filings. For July, August and September of 2011 Justice Court received 246 citations from the Sheriff. In the same 2012 period, the Sheriff filed 303 citations. OSP Historically, Justice Court has processed minimal OSP filings. Justice Court has jurisdiction over OSP filings for citations issued for conduct occurring outside of Bend, and has approached OSP regarding the convenience to County citizens of filing with Justice Court. In FY 2011 -2012 Justice Court received 28 OSP citations. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 13 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued “Capital budgeting for Justice Court software could be improved” Recommendation: It is recommended for the County to consider budgeting and accounting for capital outlays in the associated operating department. This might require general fund support coming through a transfer instead of an expenditure. Response: Justice Court has no position. Recommendation: It is recommended for the County to implement additional procedures to identify and budget non-recurring capital expenditures. It is recommended the County review the current capital outlay form to see if the process is needed or could be improved. This might require reconciling capital projects between periods to assure sufficient resources are maintained through their acquisition. Response: Justice Court has no position. Recommendation: It is recommended the county consider improving the County’s process for capital budgeting of projects by utilizing the guidance provided by GFOA. Response: Justice Court has no position. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 14 of 16 County Administration appreciates the work of the County Internal Auditor on this report and agrees with the bulk of the recommendations. It should be noted that County Administration is currently undergoing a transition in the Interim County Administrator position. Therefore, the responses below are somewhat preliminary in scope. It is anticipated that more precise actions will be taken as the audit recommendations are more fully vetted with appropriate staff in Information Technology and Finance. These precise actions will be reported in the first Follow-Up Report. It is recommended that County operations going through a software implementation have a mandatory team of stakeholders that should be involved from planning through implementation. These stakeholders would likely include operational staff, information technology staff, and finance staff (and might include internal MANAGEMENT RESPONSE County Administration – Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 15 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued audit). It is recommended, when possible, a test environment be employed and run parallel to assure the system is ready for operation and has all of the controls and reporting developed. County Administration agrees with this recommendation. However, it is expected that the scope of the committee, committee actions and test environment will be commensurate with the use magnitude, complexity and risk factors associated with the software in quest ion. For instance, at one extreme there are complex software programs used by an entire department that include accounting for county revenues. At the other extreme are limited software programs associated with limited aspects of departmental operations which may not include financial transactions. In addition to the recommended stakeholder team, it is expected that an implementation plan be developed for each proposed software conversion. Further, the draft plan should be reviewed and accepted by relevant stakeholders in advance of the software purchase. It is recommended the County utilize the presented financial reporting analyses (or something similar) to better highlight the Justice Court activity and whether it contributes or requires contributions from the general fund. County Administration concurs that accurate financial reporting of expenses and revenues, along with the external factors which influence them, is a critical need for any county operation, including the Justice Court. It is anticipated that County Administration will work with Justice Court staff as the FY 13 -14 requested budget is developed to ensure that this reporting provides the required financial information necessary to make informed budget decisions. It is recommended for County management to investigate whether there are opportunities to get more filings through to the Justice Court system. No County Administration response at this time. We will discuss this in more depth with Justice Court and other appropriate parties over the coming months. Justice Court - Software implementation report #11/12-11 November 2012 Page 16 of 16 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE - Continued It is recommended for the County to consider budgeting and accounting for capital outlays in the associated operating department. This might require general fund support coming through a transfer instead of an expenditure. It is recommended for the County to implement additional procedures to identify and budget non-recurring capital expenditures. It is recommended the County review the current capital outlay form to see if the process is needed or could be improved. This might require reconciling capital projects between periods to assure sufficient resources are maintained through their acquisition. It is recommended the County consider improving the County’s process for capital budgeting of projects by utilizing the guidance provided by GFOA. County Administration agrees in principle with each of the recommendations associated with capital budgeting. However, no detailed response is offered at this juncture until additional investigation of current capital budgeting practices is complete, and consultation with County budget staff and capital budget departments is conducted. As stated earlier, it is expected that the first Follow-Up Report will describe more fully County Administration’s intended actions. {End of Report} Please take a survey on this report by clicking on the attached link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JC_Software_Implementation_Ext