ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES STUDY COMMITTEE
AVON TOWN HALL SELECTMEN’S CHAMBER BUILDING 1
MINUTES
JULY 20, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Acting Chairman William Stokesbury in the Avon Town Hall Selectmen’s Chamber Building I. Members present: Acting Chairman and Board of Education member William Stokesbury, Superintendent of Schools Gary Mala, Board of Finance member Thomas Gugliotti, Town Council member Douglas Evans and Town Manager Brandon Robertson. Member absent: Chairman Mark Zacchio. Also in attendance were Assistant to the Town Manager Steve Bartha, Board of Education Director of Finance Gary Franzi and Board of Education Chair Peggy Roell.
Acting Chairman Stokesbury introduced the members. Mr. Evans was present as a member of the Town Council in Mr. Zacchio’s absence.
Mr. Stokesbury requested a change to the agenda. Item IV. (Minutes of Preceding Meeting: June 10, 2010) was moved to the second item.
IV. MINUTES OF PRECEDING MEETING: June 10, 2010
VOTE: Mr. Gugliotti motioned and Mr. Robertson seconded to accept the June 10, 2010 minutes as presented. Mr. Stokesbury, Mr. Mala, and Mr. Evans abstained as they were absent from the meeting.
II. COMMUNICATION FROM AUDIENCE
None.
III. COMMUNICATION FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
None.
V. OLD Business 09/10-01 Review & Discussion – Implementation of Consultant’s Recommendations
Mr. Stokesbury suggested allowing the Town and the Board of Education to each give a presentation of progress to date and allow the BOE to discuss software needs under agenda item
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Robertson discussed the attached memo, dated July 18, 2011, outlining initiatives that were identified in the Matrix report. The two initiatives are the update of the ADMINS software and automating the time and attendance tracking with NOVATIME system. The enclosed spreadsheet lists many other consultant recommendations. Mr. Robertson reported that the town’s VMS system was purchased in 1981 and last updated in 1995 with the Matrix recommendation of upgrading to a new Windows based version. The upgrade is being done in two parts with funding spread over FY 11 and 12. The first phase concentrates on the finance and accounting parts with the second on human resources and accounts payable. Training began in April 2011 with the new system running parallel to the current one. Item 2.2C (implement the utilization of electronic
purchase orders) is a function of the first phase and is in use now. The second phase involves shifting some finance department responsibilities, such as personnel status changes, to the human resource department. He continued that part of the recommendations also included updating the Town and BOE’s purchasing policies. Mr. Robertson added that so far the ADMINS finance training is complete with the system up and running parallel to the one in use. He’d like the Phase II to run on a calendar year basis with a start of November or December with an implementation date sometime after the first of the year.
Mr. Robertson demonstrated the NOVATIME time keeping machine. Up to this point, time keeping was formally done with pencil and paper only with time cards and time away slips. The new tool is currently up and running in Public Works with roll outs scheduled for the Police Department, Sycamore Park and general government. The employee enters an access code on a keypad and then inserts a hand for a print. It does away with all the pieces of paper and allows management to run reports off of the data collected. Mr. Stokesbury questioned how hourly employees are dealt with when signing out for lunch. Mr. Robertson said they use it just like they would a time card. He added that management is the exception with the continued practice of the submittal of time slips and is something that will be considered later. Mr. Evans questioned if this was
directly connected to the payroll system. Mr. Robertson answered no that there was still a manual step in between that gets the information to payroll. Mr. Mala questioned if the supervisor had a chance to observe and approve the data before it was sent. Mr. Stokesbury asked if there were any challenges from the bargaining units adopting the system. Mr. Robertson said it was a cultural shift that had to be accepted and so far he hasn’t received any grievances on it. Mr. Robertson summed that it has addressed all the little papers issue and that it can show employee attendance trends easily. Mr. Mala suggested that persons who were already used to recording time would have the least difficulty with acceptance. Mr. Robertson agreed and added that he’s not sure that it’s appropriate to attempt to culture those exempted employees to the new system. Mr. Evans asked if people questioned the privacy issue. Mr. Robertson said it doesn’t take your finger print but an
outline of your hand. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if the information gathered from the equipment went to each department or to the finance department. Mr. Robertson said it currently goes over a DSL line and feeds into finance and said he could check further. Mr. Robertson added that we do not have a fiber line yet. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if this system took a lot of capital investment to install. The total cost was approximately $35,000.00 with no additional servers or computer power.
Mr. Stokesbury asked Mr. Franzi to explain the BOE’s use of NOVATIME. Mr. Franzi said the system was installed 6-7 years ago for the custodial maintenance staff. It improved the accuracy of time tracking and the rules of the collective bargaining contract are programmed into the system so it can do the internal quality control management of the hours as they come through. He said the information is fed to the director who can view it and then sign off and approve for payroll. The second phase will be to take the secretaries, paraprofessionals and summer hourly employees and integrate them into the same system. Mr. Evans questioned if the BOE outsourced payroll or did it internally. Mr. Franzi said it was done internally by staff. The town side does it internally as well. Mr. Stokesbury commented that this was a good example of both
sides benefitting from a technology based improvement that Matrix recommended. It hasn’t been integrated into one system but both adopted the same technology. Mr. Robertson concurred and added that the system was adopted because of the BOE’s experience.
Mr. Stokesbury discussed two items from the spreadsheet: combining IT support and grounds maintenance and asked Mr. Robertson for his input. Mr. Robertson said the IT support sharing would be complicated as the systems each side had were very specialized. The town side has the Finance Director as the overall coordinator of technology services. Fuss & O’Neill is paid on a retainer basis and paid extra when something extraordinary shows up. He felt it a tall order to consider. Mr. Stokesbury concurred that Matrix went a little further with recommending combining IT support on both sides. Mr. Evans suggested perhaps doubling the contract with Fuss & O’Neill and having different people come out for each side for support. Mr. Stokesbury said you’d need on site support on the school side daily to handle the volume.
Mr. Robertson continued with the ground maintenance item. The town was to continue to collect data and then compare notes with the BOE side and is ready to do so. He said the town and BOE maintenance teams meet informally. Mr. Franzi said they’ve done extensive studies to determine the most cost effective way to handle internal and grounds maintenance. With the transition of Mr. Paul to Mr. Gaski in charge, data is still being collected for quantitative analysis. Mr. Stokesbury suggested the two department heads meet in August – Mr. Williams and Mr. Gaski to compare their data.
Mr. Robertson discussed one other item of the report – sharing the human resource function. The town human resource director has met with the school side a few times to discuss but does not have a report yet.
Mr. Franzi discussed the BOE’s incorporated Matrix recommendations to date. Item 4.2.2 recommends the BOE implement a mix of in-house and contracted custodial services. He said they tried a small business model at the middle school using outside contracted services on second shift. He found that the skill base wasn’t equivalent to what they had for the night shift and that equipment was stolen. A better answer had to be found. Mr. Franzi said they came up with a hybrid model that took second shift retiring positions and filled them with part time. Cost savings is well over $250,000.00. They continue to fine tune the model. Full time day custodians are still utilized as Mr. Franzi says they are part of the eyes and ears of the schools. Mr. Evans questioned if the part timers are part of the bargaining unit. Mr. Stokesbury
responded yes and added that the employees like the arrangement of part time even given the reduced benefits and pay.
Mr. Franzi discussed the utility savings he’s managed to achieve by buying futures in electricity and natural gas. Combined he’s saved $300,000.00 from the operating budget. Roofing and HVAC replacements have resulted in added savings over the last couple of years as well.
Mr. Mala offered information on potential combined purchasing savings recommended by the Matrix report. He discussed “reverse auctions” which came out of the 2008 legislative session that allowed this type of procurement to be brought into the public sector. Reverse auctioning is similar to eBay but the price always goes down. He said a recent reverse auction purchase of technology resulted in a savings of $61,000.00 in a matter of an hour. Mr. Mala also said that past experience has shown an average savings of 20-30% off the State contract price for any item he’s ever purchased this way. The savings for using this type of procurement is significant and is driven lower through cooperative purchasing. There is no obligation to purchase either. He said the system is driven by a piece of software or a company is hired that
does the purchasing for you. You can lock in real time and watch companies compete against each other. Purchases are made directly with the vendor chosen. Mr. Mala said this has applied to goods purchased but has trouble with purchasing services because of the lobbying of service providers to prevent it into becoming the law. He added too that prices can be negotiated with the buying agent. Mr. Stokesbury asked what Mr. Robertson thought. He said that he typically purchased through CROG and would like to address this method with them Mr. Robertson said too that he’d like to examine the statutory language first as well. Mr. Mala invited Mr. Robertson to observe the next time an item was up for procurement.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Stokesbury introduced new business as really belonging to software issues on the school side. He asked Mr. Mala to explain. Mr. Mala began by telling of his former experience of coming to a system that used paper and pencil with no backup of the financial system. He recommended to the Board there to convert to a financial software system. He lamented that he’s inherited a similar situation in Avon that uses an antiquated financial system. The question was to invest in the current system or switch to a different one. Mr. Stokesbury asked how the system functioned when Mr. Mala left his former position. Mr. Mala said that integration with two towns was a consideration in the implementation of a new system and that it was functioning well when he left. Input was incorporated into the budget in real time. He said currently in Avon they
use 15 different excel spreadsheets for the management of human resources for 523 employees. Creating payroll engages countless effort on the part of overtaxed employees, the many that have left along the way who just grew frustrated. He has identified the problem and a possible solution that potentially can integrate well with the town’s. He will leave the specifics to Mr. Franzi to explain.
Mr. Evans asked if there was a way to quantify the savings with the new system. He said the vendor did that for him but that he did not have those numbers available to him at the moment. Mr. Evans questioned if there’d be a certain number of employees laid off because of the new system. Mr. Mala responded that he didn’t know that yet but that he’d have to spend even more money for the current system to keep it functioning and still not meet our needs. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if the new system has been purchased. Mr. Stokesbury said no that it will require supplemental appropriation based on close out for the year. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if the expenditure for this new “mousetrap” would require expenditure for the town side. Mr. Robertson said the ADMINS system would work well for the town side but that it has
shown “user” problems in the school application. Mr. Mala agreed with Mr. Robertson that researching ADMINS himself with their own references showed that it didn’t necessarily work well in the school environment. The payroll module worked poorly for the school side. Mr. Stokesbury reiterated the Matrix findings that we needed timely information and to share that information. He’d also like to see a system that is widely used in the State of CT to which Mr. Mala said the system he’s recommending is used in 37 school districts. The system is called “Budget Sense” or “Unifund”. Mr. Gugliotti questioned the cost to install the system. Mr. Mala said it would be $300,000 for the software and servers for a five year rollout. Mr. Robertson said to install a new system on the town side would roughly cost the same. Mr. Gugliotti asked if the town was staying with the ADMINS with subsequent upgrades to which Mr. Robertson said yes. Mr.
Gugliotti questioned if there was a better “fruit” for both. Mr. Stokesbury said the last five years have shown both sides looking for a better solution to integrate. He said too that he felt the Budget Sense offered a better way to bridge the data the town required the BOE to provide. Mr. Gugliotti questioned if this is as good as it’s going to get with what is available. Mr. Mala asked Mr. Franzi to explain why the ADMINS system does not work well for the school side. Mr. Franzi said the payroll set up is different for the town and school and requires more structured screens to incorporate the collective bargaining units. Mr. Robertson countered that the town also has multi employee tiers. Mr. Gugliotti clarified that the transaction screens wouldn’t work as well on the school side as the town. Mr. Franzi said the town’s Finance Director Peggy Colligan participated in the technology feasibility study and also concurred that Budget Sense would best
serve the needs of the Board of Education. Mr. Gugliotti questioned how soon the BOE was to purchasing the software program. Mr. Stokesbury answered that it was not in the budget. Mr. Evans added that the cost issue would be there no matter what was decided. Mr. Gugliotti reminded that this committee did not have the power to tell anyone what to do but just to “look over the shoulder” and added that we were doing the taxpayers a service by discussing these difficult issues. Mr. Franzi said we were accountable to the town but also to the State of CT in providing information.
Mr. Franzi explained the need to search for a workable system. Prior to 2007, Phoenix Financial System served the Board of Education for a number of years. Turmoil at the company resulted in searching for a new provider or sustaining the current version. They looked at a developing new Phoenix version and an untried Budget Sense system. Great Plains offered an automated set up and file feed to the Phoenix system they already had which would minimize the conversion process in changing one to the other. It also had the basic processes they were already using and modules that could be purchased to increase the capabilities. Great Plains was chosen but problems developed in payroll and purchasing. Operations were labor intensive. Time and attendance is still being tracked manually. Mr. Mala said budgets are still being produced manually. Mr.
Evans posed how the BOE purchased a system of this kind that lost its utility in a very short period of time. Mr. Franzi blamed it on the initial programming and its inability to realize the scope of the needs of the BOE. He does, however, see that functionality in the Budget Sense system to meet the needs. Mr. Stokesbury questioned if the purchase of the Budget Sense package back in 2007 would have made a difference. Mr. Gugliotti added that technology changes so fast that who knew. Mr. Stokesbury admitted that they made a mistake and the right decision now would be to go with the better program. Mr. Mala said the real issue was that it never had the utility it needed upon arrival. Mr. Franzi concluded that we stabilized the basic function of the system but still have the labor intensity that we discussed.
Mr. Stokesbury reminded that the next two scheduled meetings are September 21st and November 16th at 7:00 PM in the Selectmen’s Chamber Town Hall.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
VOTE: Mr. Stokesbury motioned, Mr. Gugliotti seconded and all agreed to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 PM. None opposed.
Respectfully submitted:
Acting Chairman William Stokesbury
Attest: Susan Gatcomb, Clerk
| 
