Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs warn of unplanned ADS storage bills, seek BAA relief and IT project funding
Summary
Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs told the Appropriations Committee it received an unexpected $225,000 ADS bill and may face ongoing $15,000–$18,000 monthly storage costs tied to body-cam and media storage; the office is also implementing a new Matrix case-management system funded with ARPA dollars.
The Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs told the House Appropriations Committee on Jan. 15 that it has received an unexpected invoice from the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) and warned of substantial additional storage charges related to body-camera and evidentiary media.
Annie Noonan, labor relations and operations director for the department, told the committee that ADS billed the department $225,000 on Dec. 16 for SharePoint/storage use and that a continuing monthly charge in the range of roughly $15,000 to $18,000 per month is likely. “On December 16th, I got a bill for $225,000 for our ADS fee, which I didn’t anticipate, and it’s not in our budget for FY25,” Noonan said. She said the department had not budgeted those additional storage costs and that the combined effect could amount to roughly $405,000 in unplanned charges.
The department explained the cause: prosecutors and law enforcement generate large volumes of media — body-worn camera footage, cruiser video, and other digital evidence — and those files accumulate as cases progress. ADS informed the department that its SharePoint usage was disproportionately large compared with overall state usage, and ADS is seeking storage solutions. Noonan said ADS is evaluating alternatives and running pilot work with the Vermont State Police as a possible model.
The department also described a simultaneous IT modernization effort: it is replacing an aging Justware case-management product with Matrix Prosecutor, a vendor selected through procurement and supported in part by $1,700,000 in ARPA funds. The department said faster, integrated case management should improve interoperability with courts and partners and could reduce some duplication over time.
Budget requests in the department’s memo to the committee included:
- Additional funding to cover the ADS invoice and anticipated monthly storage charges (Noonan described the immediate invoice and monthly carry costs but asked for committee guidance on treatment in the BAA). - Approximately $60,000 for project-management support to complete the Matrix implementation. - Additional funds for competency and mental-health evaluations (the department cited a FY25 budgeted line of $140,000; $94,730 has been spent so far and the office anticipates needing more). - Additional funds for transcription services: the office budgeted $58,200, has spent $43,200 to date, and is requesting roughly $28,000 more to meet demand for non-English transcription and other services.
The department also reported a procurement change for required audits of sheriffs: a single bid from CLA replaced prior audit vendors at a higher price, prompting a likely budget shortfall; the office estimated it may need about $41,300 more for sheriff-audit costs, subject to confirmation that the CLA bid satisfies federal single-audit requirements.
Committee members asked whether alternative storage architectures or ADS solutions could reduce recurring costs and whether the Matrix deployment would improve data-sharing and lower duplication. Department staff said Matrix should smooth integrations and that ADS is actively reviewing storage options, but the costs are not yet resolved. No formal vote or committee action occurred; staff said they would provide follow-up detail for appropriations staff and that this material will be considered in the BAA process.
