CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 18, 2016 Page 24 departments were ready to joint into the system. Mr. Koepp advised that he would suggest at a minimum having the Engineering and Fire Departments have at least one user to be able to participate in interdepartmental reviews for larger proj ects. At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Koepp advised that Accela worked with a third party implementation partner to convert tables and numbers of stand- ard permit and license type templates to the greatest extent possible and included in the initial cost. After that, Mr. Koepp advised there were different tiers of im- plementation available and related costs depending on the number of departures from that standard template. Mr. Koepp clarified that the proposal received earli- er today was approximately $40,000 plus for that implementation that could take from 4 to 6 months. Mr. Koepp stated the intent was to use the remainder of 2016 to load and update those forms and data; and then go live at the beginning of 2017 and modify city fees accordingly to recoup costs. Mr. Collins advised that $20,000 had been set aside in 2016 for e-government ef- forts; and noted the request is for an additional $50,000 in 2017 with the remain- der of the cost made up through a proposed 1% technology fee applied to com- mercial fees, a typical practice for communities using this type of software. Mr. Koepp noted that staff had calculated a revenue source of approximately $15,000 in using that 1% technology fee based on permits issued to-date in 2016. Mr. Koepp clarified that the intent was to structure any fees to apply to commer- cial licenses and permits and shield residential permits and fees to recoup as much of that annual cost for the software as possible. At the request of Councilmember Etten as it related to implementation, Ms. Col- lins projected that the fees could be absorbed from each department as applicable when coming on as a user of the software with their licenses at the 1% technology fee, anticipating that would make the cost neutral. Discussion ensued regarding the cost of legacy data transfer and ongoing annual maintenance available through the technology fee; blending of the systems within the department and reality to do so; and options available to download paper ap- plications or electronically as per preferred customer choice. Councilmember Laliberte thanked staff for their research, information provided and presentation. However, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she felt this came out of nowhere, but then heard staff had been researching it over the last two years, which had been new information for her. Councilmember Laliberte stated staffls presentation made sense, but she wanted to ensure face to face cus- tomer was available for those seeking that, noting it was not only important to the City Council, but also Department Heads in making that part of the streamlining