HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-11-minutes-it-study-sessionCOMMISSIONERS' MINUTES
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
BOCC CONFERENCE ROOM
REGULAR MEETING – IT STUDY SESSION
Monday 11:00 am July 11, 2016
Board members present: Chair Obie O'Brien, Vice-Chair Paul Jewell,
Commissioner Laura Osiadacz
Others: Jim Goeben, IT Director; Andrew Drain, Application Development
Manager
Regular Meeting Commissioners
Call to Order: 11:00 AM
Website Image Copyright
Mr. Goeben informed the board he has received a request from the
public to use a photo posted on the county website for their use. DPA
Stephanie Hartung advised Mr. Goeben that “the photos on the website
are county property, therefore they are under BOCC authority.” If the
board should choose to permit image reuse, she recommended a website
policy change be made to “allow people to use county photos with prior
written permission.” She also created a revocable license to use if
the policy is changed.
Board direction: The board decision was not to permit image reuse.
Criteria for Developing Applications In-House
Mr. Drain provided the board guidelines for the criteria for
developing applications.
Board direction: The board will review and comment if necessary.
Other business
Mr. Goeben provided the board with an overview of options for
streaming agenda sessions. The board asked IT to:
1. Try to get audio from FTR on the public website attached to the
agenda.
2. Get all costs for using AV Capture All.
Adjourned: 12:01 PM
KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
________________________________ _______________________________
Jim Goeben, IT Director Obie O'Brien, Chairman
NON-EXCLUSIVE REVOCABLE LICENSE FOR USE OF COUNTY WEBSITE
PHOTOGRAPHS
This non-exclusive revocable license agreement (“License”) is entered into this ___day of
_________, 20___ between Kittitas County, a subdivision of the State of Washington (“County”)
and __________________ (“Licensee”).
WHEREAS, the content of the Kittitas County website, including all text, graphics,
compilations, data, and other documentation is the property of Kittitas County and protected by
copyright law, and may not be published, displayed or commercially exploited without prior
written permission of Kittitas County; and
WHEREAS, the Licensee desires to use the described photographs for the use described below;
and
WHEREAS, the County desires to allow the Licensee to use the described photographs for the
purposes described below in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below; now
therefore
The County and the Licensee agree as follows:
1) The photographs are the sole and exclusive property of Kittitas County. They may be
used only by the following Licensee with regard to the below identified purpose and
only in accordance with the terms and conditions of this limited and revocable
license:
LICENSEE:____________________________________________________
PHOTOS:______________________________________________________
Describe photos to be used
INTENDED
USE:___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2) This license shall be effective upon execution by the Kittitas County Board of
Commissioners (BOCC) and valid for 10 years from that date. It shall terminate
automatically upon such expiration or revocation by the BOCC in accordance with
section 3 herein.
3) Any failure by Licensee to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein
may result in the immediate revocation of this license. The interpretation and
enforcement of these terms and conditions, and compliance therewith, shall be made
by the BOCC in its sole discretion.
4) The photographs may not be revised or altered in any way and must be displayed in
the same form as provided on the County website.
5) The use of the photographs shall create no ownership or other rights in or to the
photographs or their use beyond the terms and conditions of this limited and
revocable license. The photographs remain at all times the sole and exclusive
property of Kittitas County.
6) Upon termination of this license, Licensee agrees to immediately discontinue all use
of the photographs.
7) The Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, its trustees, elected
and appointed officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims,
demands or causes of action of whatever kind or nature and the resulting losses, costs,
expenses, reasonable attorney fees, liabilities, damages, orders, judgments or decrees
sustained by the County arising out the Licensee’s exercise of rights pursuant to this
License. The County makes no indemnification of the Licensee, its officers, agents, or
employees.
8) In the event either party to the License commences litigation related to rights or
exercise of rights under this License, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled
to reimbursement of its reasonable attorney fees and costs from the other party.
9) The venue for any litigation regarding this License shall be Kittitas County Superior
Court.
10) This License shall be construed according to the law of the State of Washington.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Non-Exclusive Revocable License Agreement is executed and
shall become effective as of the date first above written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
___________________________________
Obie O’Brien, Chairman
___________________________________
ATTEST: Paul Jewell, Vice-Chairman
____________________________________ ___________________________________
Clerk of the Board Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner
June 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4
Kittitas County Information Technology
New Application Development Criteria
This guide is designed to facilitate conversations and introduce questions on choosing the appropriate
software solution provider. It does highlight certain conditions where Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)
will be required, but generally hopes to introduce advantages and disadvantages of both options so an
informed decision can be made together.
Background
COTS
A commercial solution may refer to either something that is available immediately via a purchase online
or store, or an enterprise‐based solution where a vendor will provide some site‐specific customizations
and installation services. The latter will often be handled through a project manager working with staff
to schedule various aspects of a comprehensive installation including data conversion, deployment,
configuration, and training; whereas the former will just require minimal coordination with IT to
purchase and install the software on the desired workstations and servers.
After the implementation is complete, the vendor (if available) and county often enters into a
maintenance contract, providing an agreed upon amount of support and product upgrades.
Occasionally, additional charges for certain upgrades or higher levels of support or training will apply.
In‐house development
With in‐house development, IT and the department(s) involved will meet several times to plan the exact
specifications and features that are to be in this solution. Often times, connections to existing county
systems are possible and integrated, resulting in a more unified approach and greater functionality as
additional in‐house solutions are brought online. Support issues and bug reports are handled internally,
often by the very developers who planned the system initially.
Pre‐requisites
Some solution requirements will exclude an in‐house approach from being considered. If the project
meets any of the following requirements, an external provider must be chosen:
Handles mission/business‐critical function(s)
Special handling (HIPPA, CJIS, PCI) involved (Data Classification 4)
Data conversion from legacy, proprietary systems is needed
Similarly, to consider in‐house development the project must meet these criteria:
Must affect more than one person, or be a major function of a person’s duties and is connected
to another existing system.
Must be used by all staff performing the functions provided by the application
June 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Must save significant staff time, improve efficiencies, or extend services to the public
Limiting factors
Only one viable option may remain after exploring the following questions:
Is there a suitable COTS solution?
o In some rare cases, like a unique, county‐specific project, a COTS solution is not readily
available; often there are options but they may prove to be too cost or resource
prohibitive to consider.
What are others using?
o Widespread use of a COTS solution by like jurisdictions (either through contractual
obligations, like Washington courts, or mere convenience of using the same system)
might point to this solution being the most advisable option as it has the potential to be
a greater public benefit than just to Kittitas County.
Can you change your business process to match a COTS solution?
o Many COTS solutions – especially the larger, enterprise integrations – allow for some
customization to translate your existing process into their system; however, most
solutions require some change in how things are currently done. If changing internal
processes and workflows would be too burdensome, a COTS solution should not be
considered.
General considerations
Answering the following questions will help illustrate the priorities of the project and better choose the
appropriate option.
What is the problem you are trying to solve?
What service will this extend to the public?
How much time will this save staff/public?
How much time will it take to develop an in‐house solution?
Comparison of options
COTS
Suggested if
Thorough knowledge of business processes and awareness of industry best practices is
desired
Multiple variables often encountered, or no standard practice
Frequent updates needed (code revisions, new laws, yearly variables)
Solution is needed quickly
Broad range of support and training availability is desired
June 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4
Not recommended if
Project scope is narrow, such as simple tasks or productivity enhancements
Ongoing costs (maintenance, licensing) are a concern
Advantages
Solutions often have widespread use – most bugs have been found
Ongoing development
Developed by experts in field
Disadvantages
Higher cost (initial outlay and yearly maintenance)
More complex interface requires more training
Must interface with vendor for support, updates
In‐House
Suggested if
Connectivity to existing systems (GIS, CAMAS, Laserfiche) is desired
Development and support is within IT allowable allotments
Development does not require intimate knowledge of business process
Not recommended if
Rapid deployment is required
Functions are considered mission/business‐critical
Special handling (HIPPA, CJIS, PCI) is involved (Data Classification 4)
Advantages
Lower cost, usually
Greater customization
Quicker interaction with developers
Connectivity with existing systems
Disadvantages
Continuity concerns i.e. how is support affected by transitioning IT staff?
Lengthy testing and debugging period
Initial versions have not been field tested
Lack of resources (user‐groups, online training)
June 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4
Responsibilities
Application Development Manager/IT Assistant Director (ADM)
The IT ADM will work with staff and their Department Head/Elected Official (DH/EO) to determine the
appropriate course of action. The IT ADM will make the final decision.
Staff and their DH/EO
Staff and their DH/EO will consider these application development decision criteria and will make a
sincere appraisal of their needs and work with the IT ADM to find the most beneficial solution.
IT Director
The IT Director will evaluate the ADM’s decision if requested by the ADM or a DH/EO.
Page 1 of 2 g:\projects\streaming agenda sessions\streaming agenda sessions recommend to bocc ‐ draft.docx
Kittitas County Information Technology
Project Request
Title: Streaming Agenda Sessions
From: Jim Goeben, IT Director
To: Board of County Commissioners
Date:
Description: Propose options for streaming video/audio of agenda sessions to the Internet and
retain for required retention period
Type of Request: Value add (process improvement, business opportunity)
This information is being offered to get direction from the board as to how it would like IT to proceed in
the investigation.
Background
Commissioner Obie O’Brien asked IT to look into options and costs to streaming video/audio of BOCC
agenda sessions to the Internet for live and recorded viewing by the public and staff. He asked if there is
an inexpensive option using equipment already installed, e.g. connecting security footage with FTR
recordings.
Considerations
IT considered the following when evaluating each option.
Current equipment: FTR software, microphones, mixer, and security camera system
Records retention requirements: GS50‐05A‐13 Rev. 2 Meetings – Governing/Executive, retain
for 6 years after end of calendar year then Transfer to Washington State Archives for permanent
retention. (Effectively 7 year retention.)
Storage volume needed
Technical abilities and time requirements of BOCC staff
Courts use of FTR and their plans for upgrading/replacing FTR: the courts have made no decision
on an upgrade direction.
What other counties and cities are using: AV Capture All and Granicus are the two most
frequently use among ACCIS members. City of Ellensburg uses a consultant who uses Tightrope
Page 2 of 2 g:\projects\streaming agenda sessions\streaming agenda sessions recommend to bocc ‐ draft.docx
Options
1. Use FTR and security camera footage
Using FTR and the security camera footage is not a viable option. The session cannot be streamed live
because it is not a feature of the FTR software. Captured audio and video cannot be synchronized.
2. Upgrade FTR
The county has FTR Reporter v5.6. To add video recording (not streaming) the county would have to
upgrade to FTR Gold v5.7. Court.fm would need to be purchased for streaming audio. Since this option
doesn’t provide streaming, costs have not been obtained.
3. Replace FTR
ACCIS survey: of responders, 35% use Granicus, 35% use AV Capture All, remaining 30% each use
something different.
Granicus and AV Capture All both provide
Agenda management (create, approve, publish agendas, build agenda packets, like CAMAS’ PAS)
Link agenda items to video segment and minutes
Cloud storage
Live streaming
Records management
3a. Granicus ‐ $3500‐$4500 upfront (for the encoder) and a monthly fee of $600
3b. AV Capture All ‐ $399 per month
Additionally both would need a video camera and computer.
4. YouTube
Using Google+ and YouTube the board could log into a county web account, start the streaming, end the
streaming, and then download the MP4 file to the county system. The video will have a Google+
watermark.
Costs: $1,000 for a camera.
Other Considerations
Kittitas County Records Management Policy requires primary records be stored onsite.
Storage for 7 years of board public meetings would be $5,000 (with no backup)
Board Direction