1. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare.Court Criminal & JP Implementation Dallas County June 2, 2015

2. Texas Conference of Urban Counties 29/2/2014 Established by the six most populous counties in Texas (Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant, El Paso, and Travis) in 1975, the Texas Conference of Urban Counties is a non-profit organization representing large urban county issues. Creating value for members through collaboration and innovation as the most knowledgeable and trusted resource on Texas county issues.

3. TechShare Mission 3 Established in 2004, TechShare is an innovative non-profit program of the Urban Counties providing collaborative, county-owned technology solutions for the counties, by the counties. As a participating county, you will: Control your own destiny Own intellectual property Leverage resources across counties Own a solution that meets your needs Provide continuous feedback throughout Texas Conference of Urban Counties TechShare Texas Indigent Health Care Association (TIHCA) Texas Clean Air Working Group (TCAWG)

4. Current Programs 4 Common Integrated Justice System Juvenile Case Management System ProsecutorCourt Indigent Defense Live in 18 counties Initiated by Dallas County with development of JIS, live in 233 counties and counting Live in Dallas and Midland counties; Tarrant, Travis and Potter implementing this year Dallas and Tarrant collaborating on development Live in 9 counties, 2 additional counties implementing

5. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare.Court Project Dallas County

6. Project Phases & Methodology 6

7. History of Development: then and now 7

8. History of Development: Reasons for Delay AMCAD resource constraints due to multiple projects Inexperienced AMCAD project manager, led to turnover Urban Counties project manager turnover Requirements more complex then initially understood Discovery of new requirements during design Waterfall methodology Complexity of multi-county collaboration Riverside acquisition (Sept ’13) Re-evaluated company priority and project resources Dallas disengaged from project (Aug ‘14 – Feb ‘15) 8

9. History of Implementation Planning 9

10. History of Implementation: reasons for delay Did not successfully conclude negotiation for implementation (Jun ‘14) Dallas disengaged from project (Aug ‘14 – Feb ‘15) Release 1 not sufficient for Go-Live Discovered In Court Processing and Location Issues Implementation plan currently not approved 10

11. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare.Court Project Dallas County Criminal Court Implementation

12. Guiding Principles Paper on Demand All documents should be electronic and moved through the system as such. We should minimize the need to print and scan documents through the business process. Minimize Data Entry Once data is entered in one time it should flow through the Justice systems and not be repeatedly entered. Single Application For each new system, we will seek to retire the existing corresponding legacy system. Standardized Process Prefer to standardize courts on common business processes and usage of the TechShare.Court software. 12

13. Milestones Release 1: February 2015 The scope of the release is to focus on minimum functionality necessary for a Texas criminal court to use the application Release 1.5: August 2015 Includes charging and sentencing, accounting, scheduling, judges portal, and interface enhancements Focus on the underlying requirement of jurisdiction required to implement a full set of county and district courts Release 2: December 2015 Includes administration, expanded case management, bond, collections, reports, defense attorney portal, and bondsman portal 13

14. 14

15. Criminal Courts: Recommended Work Plan: Key Dates 15 Project Start June 2015 Pilot Courts Go-Live April 2016 All County Courts Go-Live August 2016 All District Courts Go-Live February 2017 Support/Back Office Go-Live June 2017 Project Complete July 2017

16. Criminal Courts Recommended Approach Incremental Rollout – courts go live in phases Phase I – 2 County Courts and 2 District Courts: April 2016 Phase II – 11 County Courts: August 2016 Phase III – 5 District Courts: October 2016 Phase IV – 5 District Courts: December 2016 Phase V – 5 District Courts: February 2017 Phase VI – Support and Back Office Functions: May 2017 Convert Data as Necessary Ensure Historical Data Available Ensure Data In Sync with Forvus via Integrations 16

17. Criminal Courts: Recommended Work Plan 17

18. Big Bang Work Plan Project Start All Courts Go-Live Project Complete 18 June 2015 October 2016 December 2016

19. Big Bang Approach Big Bang Rollout – all courts and support/back office go live in one phase No Integrations with Forvus Convert Data as Necessary Ensure Historical Data Available Key Dates: Project Start: June 2015 All Courts Go Live: October 2016 Project Complete: December 2016 19

20. Big Bang Work Plan 20

21. Incremental (recommended) June 2015-July 2017 Rollout in phases Seven Teams by Project Function Temporary Integration with Forvus Lower Risk Safety Net Big Bang June 2015-December 2016 Rollout everything at once Seventeen Teams by Project Function and Court Group No integrations with Forvus High Risk No Safety Net Higher Cost Criminal Courts: Risk Comparison 21 FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017TOTAL Incremental Approach $ 635,089 $ 3,359,135 $ 1,569,728 $ 5,563,953 Big Bang Approach $ 2,807,200 $ 8,382,880 $ 484,000$ 11,093,280

22. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare.Court Project Dallas County JP Implementation

23. Incremental Roll Out June 2015-July 2016 Two Pilot Courts Establish Standard Configuration with Pilots Develop all integrations/improvements with Pilots Pilots “Go Live” February 2016 Roll Out Remaining Courts on Standard Configuration All Courts Live by July 2016 JP Courts: Implementation Approach 23 FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017TOTAL Incremental Approach $ 329,614 $ 1,050,218- $ 1,379,832

24. Work Plan: JP Courts 24 Project Start June 2015 Pilot Courts Go-Live February 2016 All Courts Go-Live May 2016 Project Complete July 2016

25. 25

26. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare Program Costs

27. TechShare Program Costs Both Urban Counties and Dallas County costs All TechShare Components: Juvenile (Live since March 2011) – Maintenance and Operations Prosecutor (Live since March 2014) –Maintenance and Operations Prosecutor LEA and Defense – Rollout Support Court Development Funding Approved by Commissioners Court -Scheduled Completion: December 2015 Criminal Court Implementation JP Court Implementation (funded by JP Technology Fund) Indigent Defense Implementation (software funded by State IDC) 27

28. TechShare Development and Implementation Costs Both Urban Counties and Dallas Cost, representing total implementation costs Criminal Court Development (Committed) Criminal Court Implementation – Incremental Rollout JP Court Implementation – Funded by JP Technology Fund Indigent Defense Implementation – Grant Funds Available from Texas Indigent Defense Commission Law Enforcement/Defense Portal Rollout Support 28

29. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 29

30. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 30

31. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 31

32. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 32

33. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 33

34. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 34

35. Forward Looking Costs: Development & Implementation 35

36. Current & Ongoing Program Costs 36 Urban Counties Maintenance and Operations TechShare.Juvenile (Committed for CY 2015) Shared with Collin, Denton, Tarrant Counties and Texas Juvenile Justice Department TechShare.Prosecutor Includes LEA Portal and Hosted Defense Portal Shared with Midland, Potter, Tarrant and Travis Counties TechShare.Court Includes Judicial Portal, Bond Portal and Updates to Defense Portal Shared with Potter and Tarrant Counties

37. Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations 37

38. Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations 38

39. Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations 39

40. Forward Looking Costs: Maintenance & Operations 40

41. Funding Model 41 As of May 2015 the Major Technology Fund has borrowed from the Major Capital Fund $14,316,871 and has repaid $2,525,777. So the remainder $11,791,090 is to be paid back over the next 10 years and would be $1,179,109/year. Assuming that the Major Technology Fund has to borrow the following funds from the Major Capital Fund in order to implement the various projects the pay back would be as follows for each year. -FY2016 borrow $10.5 million FY2016 payback $1.2 million -FY2017 borrow $3.7 million FY2017 payback $2.1 million -FY2018 borrow $0 FY2018 payback $2.3 million -Unless additional funds are borrowed for other projects the payback amount would stay at $2.3 million until FY2028. The.2 cents of tax rate and 7% property tax growth means the Major Technology Fund will have around $5 million more funds in FY2016 than in FY2015. This increase in funding should be enough to cover the Major Capital Fund payback and additional Operations and Maintenance for the new systems. Future years property tax growth will be able to be used for new projects.

42. Urban Counties TEXAS Conference of TechShare.Court Criminal & JP Implementation Discussion