02-20-2016 OpengovADVANCING
THE BUSINESSOF9DVERNMEAT
fir.....
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
FEBRUARY zo, 2o16
PRESENTED BY ADP ARIWOOLA
BACKGROUND
from October 27, 2015 FEDRAC meeting
• Councilmember Duclos requested that the IT Manager
and the Finance Director gather more information and
report back to the Committee at a later date.
2/19/2016
QUESTIONS
from October 27, 2015 FEDRAC meeting
• How much staff time is needed to provide the data in a
format the company needs to enter it?
• What is the value?
• What is the benefit in a general sense?
• Is it the intent by Opengov to have people available to
answer specific questions?
- -tNNO R MATI O N
gathered from other Entities using Opengov
• A lot of capacity
• Very good customer service
• Uses Springboard software
• Does not lessen the work load for the Finance Department
• Does not replace the Monthly Report
• Citizens are not getting more involved because of Opengov
• Average length on site is 3 minutes
• The Directors of one of the comparison cities do not
currently have access to their current accounting system
1
--INFORMATION
ORMATION
gathered from other Entities using Opengov
...continued
• The Directors /Managers of another city still use the reports
they receive from the Auditor's office
• One entity reported only 4o logins in the last 90 days
• Mostly within City Hall
• More in August because of their Council meeting
• Another entity also reported about too hits in the year they
have been on the system
• Costs, based on total expenses are:
• sn,000 annual subscription
• s3,000 one -time implementation fee
• 3 year payment discount is io%
OTHER ENTITIES
• WASHOUGAL k ouoa.
• DUPONT
• THURSTON COUNTY *°".
All the people that 1 spoke with spoke very highly of
Opengov and how responsive they are.
2/19/2016
COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITIES
• CHECKBOOK
• The Council still needs to formally approve
payments.
• Financial Reporting
• RCW 42.24.180(3)
• The Legislative Body shall provide for its review of documentation
supporting claims paid and for its approval of all checks or warrants
issued in payment of claims at its next regularly scheduled public
meeting or, for cities and towns, at a regularly scheduled public
meeting within one month of issuance.
CONCLUSION
• The program is attractive, the graphs are engaging
BUT we should also consider the following:
• What is the goal and will this meet the goal?
• Will the citizens use it and what do the citizens want?
• Is this the ONLY company that provides this kind of
service?
• If we want this kind of service we should probably use
RFQ.
• Is this service worth the cost?
2