Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessibility Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners hear $233,000-plus estimate to make county website and videos accessible under HB 21-1110; vote deferred pending detailed vendor quotes
Summary
Staff briefed the Rio Blanco commissioners on the county’s work to comply with Colorado House Bill 21-1110 (ADA/web accessibility), reporting roughly $233,000 in hard and staff costs to date and seeking direction on whether to continue posting YouTube live streams while remediation is incomplete.
County staff presented an update on remediation of county digital content after Colorado House Bill 21-1110 raised new accessibility requirements for public websites and media. Vicky (Deputy County Administrator) told commissioners that the county has spent money since 2022 on software licenses, third-party audits and staff time to address accessibility gaps, and that more costs are likely ahead.
What staff reported
- Remediation work and vendors: The county contracted with Converge Accessibility and has piloted remediation work on selected pages (e.g., solid-waste pages). The county also uses Continual Engine software and Adobe Acrobat Pro licenses to remediate PDF documents. Staff said no single product solves every requirement and that Converge and Continual Engine perform distinct but complementary checks.
- Hard costs to date (staff estimate): Converge accessibility audits and remediations, Adobe Pro licenses, a public computer terminal and assistive hardware, headset audio improvements for the commission chamber, and contracted remediation and IT staff time were discussed. Vicky presented a project-to-date figure of roughly $233,000 spent or committed since 2022 on compliance work (staff time, third-party audits, licenses and equipment). She characterized that figure as “project to date” and advised commissioners that additional remediation—particularly for video closed-captioning—would require more vendor quotes.
- Video captioning and YouTube: Commissioners heard staff explain that live-streamed YouTube videos remain on the county channel but that auto-generated captions on YouTube are not audited and often misidentify speakers and words. Staff said they were pursuing vendor quotes for post-processing and corrected caption files that could be re-uploaded to YouTube and to the county website. Vicky said the county temporarily removed some videos from the public website while remediation and captioning quality assurance was pending.
Commissioners’ concerns and direction
Commissioners repeatedly framed the issue as a tension between transparency (keeping live streaming and archived videos publicly available) and fiscal responsibility (the high cost of remediation and staff time). Several commissioners expressed frustration with the law’s costs and said they wanted more precise vendor quotes before approving further expenditures. They asked staff to get specific cost proposals for caption remediation and ongoing closed-captioning services and report back; commissioners did not order the immediate reinstatement or permanent removal of videos but directed staff to return with firm pricing and options.
Quotes from the meeting
- “I want to tell the public how frustrated I am personally with this law — it is costing us so much money, and we are having to take so much off the website,” Commissioner Kelly said, adding the suggestion that constituent contact with state legislators may be warranted.
- “We’re spending way too much time on this,” another commissioner said, urging that the county’s priorities be balanced against technology and staff costs.
What remains open
Staff will obtain firm vendor proposals for: (a) live-stream captioning solutions for real-time captioning that meet state standards, (b) post-processing services to audit and correct existing YouTube captions, and (c) an updated website accessibility audit and remediation schedule. Commissioners signaled they would weigh those proposals against other county priorities before committing additional funds. Staff also noted that the county’s public record (Sean’s official audio recordings and minutes) remain the official record, while the county works on accessibility for convenience services.
Ending
The board did not take final action on removal or restoration of YouTube videos at the meeting. Staff were directed to return with vendor quotes and a remediation plan and to identify where ongoing costs would come from if the board chooses continued video posting and live streaming with certified captions.
