Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Information Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Macomb County committee refers $2.92 million IT maintenance package amid budget-timing concerns
Summary
The Internal Services committee voted to refer a roughly $2.92 million information-technology maintenance package for 2026 to the full Macomb County Board, while several commissioners pressed staff on whether it is legally and fiscally appropriate to approve January-payable contracts before the 2026 budget is adopted.
The Macomb County Board's joint Internal Services and Health & Human Services committees on Nov. 5 referred an information-technology maintenance package totaling $2,920,008.80 to the full board for final approval.
The item, presented by the county's IT representative (identified in the record as Jayco), covers maintenance and licensing costs the department says are due as early as Jan. 1, 2026. "Our requested budget for 2026 is 11 and a half million," Jayco told the committee, characterizing the referral as part of the county's ramp-up for next year.
Several commissioners questioned whether the county should approve payments tied to the next fiscal year before the board adopts the 2026 budget. "How can we spend money for next year when we haven't passed the budget for next year yet?" Commissioner Goitke asked, expressing a legal and procedural concern about committing funds before the budget is finalized. Commissioner Howard echoed that concern, saying approval prior to a budget vote would be "right up against the line."
IT staff responded that many vendor agreements and license renewals require timely payment and that the department brings forward anticipated contracts in advance to avoid lapses. "It's a logistics problem for us because we have to pay by January 1," Jayco said, adding that some contracts are contracted out and have fixed schedules.
The committee's procedural action at the Nov. 5 meeting was to move the package to the full board for decision; the committee's referral does not itself obligate payment. Commissioners were advised they could raise the legal-timing question when the item reaches the full board. The motion to refer carried without recorded dissents at the committee level.
