Mathews County debates reinstating IT staff, weighing Alliance contract and Sensei work

Mathews County budget staff on March 26 presented a revised IT budget that would reinstate a single, on‑the‑ground IT technician while continuing a managed‑services contract and pursuing a formal procurement process.

The discussion focused on two outside vendors and overlapping payments: Alliance, described by staff as the county’s existing managed‑IT vendor, and Sensei (sometimes spelled “Scentsy” in the record), a firm hired last fall to perform a forensic evaluation. Budget presenter “Miss Wilson” said the county has been paying both firms for some of the same services and recommended continuing Alliance for administration and Liberty Square operations while excluding Sensei from county‑wide managed services. Wilson proposed issuing a request for proposals (RFP) before Alliance’s contract renewal in September so Mathews County can compare bids and clarify what boots‑on‑the‑ground support a vendor would include.

Why this matters: Supervisors said the county needs local, onsite technical capacity. During the discussion board members and staff repeatedly said Judy (Judy Green), who has taken on much of the IT workload since the department was dissolved, is overwhelmed; Wilson said Judy spends roughly two‑thirds of her time on IT tasks. Several supervisors said they want a full‑time county employee to handle daily help‑desk work and to manage an external vendor, not to immediately rely solely on contractors.

Key details and costs: Wilson said Alliance’s managed‑services contract includes about $112,000 a year for services and licensing; she identified roughly $126,818 in other annual software costs (civic/meeting software, scanning, work‑order software, FOIA software, Adobe licenses, backup systems, a budgeting package and timekeeping). She also noted a $120,000‑plus line for broadband and a separate roughly $84,600 for Internet service and tower leases; together those items account for a substantial share of technology spending. Wilson presented the IT total in the revised budget at about $729,047.76 (a reduction from a higher first draft). She recommended keeping Alliance as the county’s managed‑IT vendor while hiring one full‑time IT technician to prepare and administer an RFP and manage the vendor relationship.

Vendor overlap and next steps: Wilson said the county paid Sensei roughly $31,700 for managed IT work and continued to pay Alliance at roughly $32,958 for overlapping services in recent months; she proposed eliminating dual billing by retaining Alliance for routine administration and issuing an RFP to clarify requirements. Board members pressed staff to verify which licenses a vendor would include in its package to avoid double‑paying for software and asked staff to try to negotiate license transfers where possible.

Concerns and caveats: Supervisors expressed a mix of urgency and caution. Some said the county should act quickly to hire an in‑house technician and stop paying two vendors for the same work; others said they want Wilson and staff to complete vendor comparisons before committing to a new county position. Board members also pressed for clarity about which software and services are fixed costs that vendors cannot reduce (for example, third‑party hosted products) and which might be bundled into a managed‑service contract.

Ending note: Wilson told the board she would pursue vendor cost comparisons and suggested an RFP before Alliance’s September renewal; several supervisors said they would consider a short timetable (weeks to a month) to get initial information but wanted more detail before final hiring or contracting decisions.