My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2016 3:26:11 PM
Creation date
7/26/2016 10:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/18/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, July 18, 2016 <br />Page 24 <br />departments were ready to joint into the system. Mr. Koepp advised that he <br />would suggest at a minimum having the Engineering and Fire Departments have <br />at least one user to be able to participate in interdepartmental reviews for larger <br />proj ects. <br />At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Koepp advised that Accela worked <br />with a third party implementation partner to convert tables and numbers of stand- <br />ard permit and license type templates to the greatest extent possible and included <br />in the initial cost. After that, Mr. Koepp advised there were different tiers of im- <br />plementation available and related costs depending on the number of departures <br />from that standard template. Mr. Koepp clarified that the proposal received earli- <br />er today was approximately $40,000 plus for that implementation that could take <br />from 4 to 6 months. Mr. Koepp stated the intent was to use the remainder of 2016 <br />to load and update those forms and data; and then go live at the beginning of 2017 <br />and modify city fees accordingly to recoup costs. <br />Mr. Collins advised that $20,000 had been set aside in 2016 for e-government ef- <br />forts; and noted the request is for an additional $50,000 in 2017 with the remain- <br />der of the cost made up through a proposed 1% technology fee applied to com- <br />mercial fees, a typical practice for communities using this type of software. <br />Mr. Koepp noted that staff had calculated a revenue source of approximately <br />$15,000 in using that 1% technology fee based on permits issued to-date in 2016. <br />Mr. Koepp clarified that the intent was to structure any fees to apply to commer- <br />cial licenses and permits and shield residential permits and fees to recoup as much <br />of that annual cost for the software as possible. <br />At the request of Councilmember Etten as it related to implementation, Ms. Col- <br />lins projected that the fees could be absorbed from each department as applicable <br />when coming on as a user of the software with their licenses at the 1% technology <br />fee, anticipating that would make the cost neutral. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the cost of legacy data transfer and ongoing annual <br />maintenance available through the technology fee; blending of the systems within <br />the department and reality to do so; and options available to download paper ap- <br />plications or electronically as per preferred customer choice. <br />Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for their research, information provided <br />and presentation. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt this <br />came out of nowhere, but then heard staff had been researching it over the last <br />two years, which had been new information for her. Councilmember Laliberte <br />stated staffls presentation made sense, but she wanted to ensure face to face cus- <br />tomer was available for those seeking that, noting it was not only important to the <br />City Council, but also Department Heads in making that part of the streamlining <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.