Madison County department heads agree auditor will manage IT budget as county moves to managed-services support

Madison County department heads spent a session reviewing an onboarding checklist from Solutions, the county—s new managed-services IT vendor, and agreed that hardware ordering will be routed through the auditor—s office for budget oversight while individual departments will receive delivered equipment.

The meeting opened with Speaker 1 outlining the remote-support liaison requirement from Solutions: the vendor needs an on-site contact who can perform simple physical tasks —plugging in devices, power-cycling equipment, or attaching USB drives—but not necessarily any technical repair. Departments were offered three models: a dedicated liaison per building, a liaison per department or one countywide contact. "This person should be willing to work with us when you have needs for hands on piece of equipment," Speaker 1 said during the briefing.

After discussion, department heads generally preferred that hardware be shipped directly to department heads and that ordering still flow through the auditor—s office so purchases are checked against budget. "The ordering will be done through the auditor's office," Speaker 2 said; Speaker 1 confirmed the county will keep a single IT budget for management purposes and not create separate IT line items for each department. "Starting July 1, the budget's gonna be maintained by the auditor's office," Speaker 1 said.

The board and staff also agreed the auditor's office will maintain an inventory and track checkouts. Departments requested a modest hot-spare inventory (several participants suggested keeping two to three ready-to-go replacements) so critical work can continue while Solutions backfills replacements.

Departments raised operational needs that shape the liaison design. The road and engineering offices described early-morning shifts and tight deadlines for DOT submissions that require quick password resets or on-site intervention; Speaker 6 asked for multiple authorized contacts to ensure coverage during absences and for 24/7 remote support from Solutions for critical incidents.

Several participants reported delays on support tickets with the vendor under the prior arrangement. "It took them three weeks to get back to me" for VPN access was one example offered, and another participant said the vendor had sometimes taken as long as "five weeks" to resolve issues. Speaker 1 asked departments to forward ticket examples so the county can escalate response problems with Solutions and, if necessary, revisit the contract during its short initial term.

The vendor—s managed-services plan was described as unlimited for remote calls and emails and to include eight hours per month of on-site work; the on-site hours are intended for tasks that must be done physically. Solutions will also inventory network hardware (MAC/IP addresses) and key software, and the vendor plans a site visit in June after receiving the requested inventories.

The meeting closed with Speaker 1 promising to send departments a copy of the Solutions contract, a template contact/authorization list and the inventory for cross-checking. "If it's not working out, and it's not worth the savings, then we can revisit this situation," Speaker 1 said.

Votes at a glance: the meeting was adjourned on a motion and voice vote; no roll-call or tally was recorded in the transcript.

The next procedural steps are for Solutions to receive the completed inventories and contact lists by the vendor—s requested date, schedule a June site visit, and for departments to forward examples of slow ticket responses to county staff for possible escalation.