City staff seek sole‑source contract to update legacy SURF software
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City IT and finance committee members discussed a proposed sole‑source contract with Emergent/Emergence Tech to update the SURF web application built on the proprietary Netgain tool, and flagged a confidential corporation‑counsel memo about surplus funds that needs a majority waiver before release.
City information‑technology staff told the Finance Committee they plan to use a sole‑source vendor to update the SURF web application because the system’s code base is tied to a proprietary rapid‑development tool and cannot be updated on the city’s current server framework without the original vendor’s support.
The request matters because staff said the SURF program runs on an outdated framework that requires migration off the proprietary Netgain tool before the city can competitively bid future development work.
A city staff member identified in the meeting as Commissioner of MIS said the SURF program was developed with a rapid‑development tool called Netgain, a proprietary product originally associated with Algonquin Studios. “Algonquin Studios…are no longer in business. They essentially, moved their proprietary rights to that software to Emergent Sec,” the Commissioner of MIS said. The staff member said the requested work would extract the code from the proprietary tool and move it to a more common platform so the city could solicit bids later.
Committee members also raised an independent issue about surplus funds and said corporation counsel circulated a confidential memorandum describing legal opinions on surplus funds. A committee member said the counsel’s memo was marked confidential and would require a majority of members to waive privilege before it could be made public. The committee requested the written opinion be circulated to members in advance of further action.
Staff said timing for filing the contract request is driven by available funds in the current fiscal year. One speaker said they want to use money in this year’s budget rather than risk losing the appropriation next year; the meeting did not record a formal vote on awarding a contract.
The discussion did not include a final contract approval or a recorded vote. Committee members asked staff to provide the corporation‑counsel opinion in writing and to clarify whether the sole‑source justification and budget timing require formal committee action before the full council agenda.
The item will return to the committee after members review the written opinion and the contract documentation.