Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-2011 - 3ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 6, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Paperless Agenda Options DEPARTMENT:. Information Technologies PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTAGFiMENT(S): Agenda Automation Options INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Jones, {919) 245-2285 PURPOSE: To review options for managing the Board of County Commissioners' agenda process. BACKGROUND: Since 1997, Orange County has been using_ various technologies and updated business-processes to create meeting. agendas, distribute them to elected officials and staff, and make them available to the public via the County's Internet site. .The processes and technologies matured and in 2000, entire agenda packages, including attachments, were regularly posted on the County Internet site in advance of the meetings. These web-accessible agenda materials are increasingly relied upon by the public to learn about issues under consideration by the Board of Commissioners. The production process for the Board- of Commissioners' regular meetings is coordinated by the Manager's Office, where staff collect submissions, route them through appropriate approval processes and aggregate the finished- components into a "master" agenda packet. This packet is then printed out, collated, etc. into 24 paper copies, averaging 500 pages per regular meeting. A copy of this regular meeting paper packet is delivered by Sheriff's office deputies to each Commissioner 5-7 days before the meeting. A deputy clerk in the Clerk to the Board/County Commissioners' Office then converts the packet into an online file and posts it to the County's Intemet site. Technologies are available that potentially automate much of this process, while providing the Board with electronic format agendas that save paper and delivery costs. It is critical to note that efficiency gains with a change to the existing process rely heavily on having all staff and all Board members adopting the new process. Thus, partial adoption of an automated solution will result in a foss of efficiency-over current processes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The options presented to the Board in the attachment range in implementation costs from zero to $90,000. Tablet solutions cost approximately $700 each, with a monthly data fee of $50. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board evaluate the options, review the technology presented in the demonstration and discuss next steps for automating the agenda process. 2 Agenda Automation Options This document provides information on three potential options for agenda automation and a section on hardware options. The project team investigating agenda automation technologies (representatives from Information Technologies, the County Manager's. Office and the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners' Office) evalua#ed several offerings and came away concluding only two products both met minimum requirements and met or exceeded the agenda product currently produced manually. Each of those two offerings is listed below inoptions-2 and 3. Option 1: Leverage Status C~uo This option would involve the Board of Commissioners using. existing County issued laptops (or personal laptops, if preferred) to review pdf files of meeting agendas, as they're being prepared today. IT would ensure all laptops haves versions of Adobe Acrobat which would allow Board members to make individual annotations to those f les. Agendas would be produced as they are now, with the Manager's Office managing the creation and approval process -for individual agenda items. The ultimate delivery of agenda packets to the Commissioners and staff would be in electronic format, as pdf files on the County Internet site, as is currently done. This option requires no additional investment. It has advantages of paper reduction and overall reduction of cost to the County in terms of printing and delivery costs. The disadvantage of this option is that is does not confer any efficiency gains in the production of the agenda packet Option 2: Automated Agenda via Granicus's Legistar This option would be a solution automating the agenda process, from production, to review, to distribution, to archiving, using Granicus's Legistar product. This product, in use in several North Carolina counties and municipalities, .provides mechanisms for template based abstract authoring, workflow processing for review, automated agenda assembly and publishing. The product has been researched by the evaluation team, as well as a group of staff members who frequently author abstracts. The Legistar product met the requirements set for the by the evaluation team and was deemed viable by the authoring group. It should be noted the authoring group believed the Granicus product, while adequate for their needs, was somewhat cumbersome to use and not the preferred choice for authoring and production. Estimated implementation costs for Gra.nicus' Legistar: $90,000. 3 Option 3: Automated Agenda via Sire's AgendaPlus This option would be a solution automating the agenda process, from production, to review, to distribution, to archiving, using Sire's AgendaPlus product. This product, in use in several North Carolina counties and municipalities, provides mechanisms for-template based abstract authoring, workflow- processing for review, automated agenda assembiy and publishing. The product has been researched by the evaluation team, as well as a group of staff members wha frequently author abstracts. The Sire product mef the requirements set for the by the evaluation team and was deemed viable by the authoring group. It should be noted tiie authoring group believed the Sire product was adequate for their needs and was deemed the more efficient product to use and the preferred choice for authoring. AgendaPlus was deemed the more mature product and- had more useful. features, including delegation controls (for use when staff needed for review stages are out of the office), and inline commenting. Estimated implementation costs for Sire's Agenda Plus: $90,000-. Hardware Options For any, of the three options listed, Commissioners may individually, or collectively, prefer tablet devices such as Apple iPads or Lenovo ThinkPad tablets for use in reviewing and referencing agendas before and during meetings. These tablet devices have several advantages over traditional laptop computers. They are considerably lighter than laptops, owing to their smaller screens, miniaturized components and lack of a keyboard. This smaller size makes them less. intrusive when conducting meetings, while their touch screen makes them easier and more intuitive to use. The disadvantage of tablet devices is that their small screens often are inadequate for showing large documents, Iengthy passages of text and multiple images. Further, the lack of a physical keyboard compels the user to utilize ascreen-based keyboard, which is more prone to typographic errors while taking up significant screen real estate.