Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It And Cyber topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County IT requests project manager, full-time security tech and education program amid rising contract costs
Summary
The county’s IT director asked for a third project manager to handle increasing modernization projects, conversion of a part-time security surveillance technician to full time to maintain a growing camera network (about 2,500 cameras), and a 'grow your own' IT tuition program. Officials warned software, hardware and contract costs are rising sharply.
Sedgwick County’s information-technology leadership on May 1 asked the commission for staffing and program investments to support an expanding modernization portfolio and county security systems.
Scott Wagner, the county chief information officer, said rising vendor contract prices and supply-chain issues are driving up IT contractuals and argued that greater project-management capacity is needed to keep major initiatives on schedule. "Adding a third project manager gives us the capacity we need to better manage our workload, identify risks earlier, and improve overall project delivery," Wagner said.
IT requested a full-time project manager position (to rebuild project leadership after prior downsizing), conversion of a part-time security/surveillance technician to full time to support roughly 2,500 cameras and badge/access systems across county facilities, and a "grow your own" education program to pay tuition (up to $15,000 annually per participant) tied to retention agreements. IT staff said the camera system workload will grow with new buildings and that internal coverage reduces vendor calls and costs.
Wagner and his deputies also described a pilot 'Gov AI' program to allow controlled employee use of productivity AI tools for research and drafting. They emphasized controls and training around AI use and noted the dual nature of AI as both opportunity and threat.
Estimated totals for IT decision packages were presented as modest relative to total county spending (IT showed roughly $200,000 in decision-package asks with some small reductions identified). Commissioners asked for comparisons to peer jurisdictions and for clarity on projected savings from internalizing surveillance and project-management work.
Next steps: staff to supply peer comparisons and refined cost estimates for decision packages and to present TRB items at the upcoming Technology Review Board review.
