Legislative council staff presented a revised template and new processes to the Joint Technology Committee on June 11, saying the changes are meant to give the committee clearer, IT-focused information when it reviews state IT capital budget requests.

Samantha Falco, legislative council staff, told the committee, “We tried breaking it down… to include information on the project description, information about each phase of the project, new functionality that's expected, time or cost savings expected, any stakeholder relationships that were used.” She said the goal was to reduce what staff called “fluff” and to focus submissions on why an IT system is insufficient and how the proposed IT solution was chosen.

The revisions aim to improve the committee’s review steps under Joint Rule 45, which the staff cited when explaining the committee’s responsibility to review IT capital requests with total project costs above $500,000. Falco walked members through the life cycle of a typical IT capital request: agencies submit project lists October 1 to the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB), OSPB returns a prioritized list by November 1, agencies present in December, and by Feb. 15 the JTC must send a prioritized list to the Joint Budget Committee.

Why this matters: committee members said prior submissions often mixed program narrative with technical detail, making it hard to evaluate procurement, architecture and phase-by-phase functionality. Representative Pascal said multiple applicants often “vomited out industry buzzwords” rather than providing architecture diagrams or modular phase descriptions. Senator Marshman and others pressed staff to require clearer phase definitions (what functionality each phase delivers), architecture sketches, and better certainty indicators for labor and cost estimates.

Staff changes and next steps: Falco said JTC staff will add an explicit “staff questions and issues” section in their write‑ups and include a staff commentary field that flags concerns. The committee also expects new internal help: Clayton Mayfield joins as a fiscal analyst and Glenda McCarroll will expand technical project-review work, focusing on procurement and market research. Staff proposed optional in‑person quarterly updates for projects the committee wants more oversight on; the committee asked staff to pilot that during the next quarter.

Committee guidance and constraints: members asked staff to require agencies to answer structured questions rather than paste block text. Representative Pascal suggested rejecting submissions that reuse the same generic paragraphs across multiple fields. Several members recommended agencies provide a certainty estimate (how confident they are in counts and cost estimates) and to document whether FTE estimates are temporary, contract, or permanent positions.

What staff will produce: Falco said the new packet will be shorter—about four pages—with standardized tables for prior appropriations and a clearer phase-by-phase project schedule. Staff intends to include market research and procurement documentation (contract length, warranties, decommissioning plans) as attachments for members who want to drill down. The committee’s staff also said it will coordinate with Joint Budget Committee procurement experts when more in‑depth review is needed.

Ending note: Falco asked members for ongoing feedback before agencies begin their formal submissions this fall. Multiple members urged that committees use the next months to pilot the revised template, require agencies to answer discrete questions, and restore more in‑person oversight where projects show signs of schedule or budget risk.