Charlie, the city manager, opened a virtual briefing pitching a citywide digital modernization effort for Ellsworth and introduced an OpenGov demonstration of asset management, grants management and procurement software. The session focused on how centralized records, GIS integration and automated workflows could reduce missed inspections, simplify reporting and improve transparency for residents and vendors.

OpenGov presenters led three short demos. Jim, a solutions engineer, walked through an asset-management map and task list that showed 29 planned tasks and allowed staff to sort work by priority, proximity and estimated start date. He demonstrated a one‑click workflow for crews to record labor, equipment and materials and said the system rolls those entries up to park-level and asset-level cost and condition summaries. On the map Jim filtered water mains (he cited 687 segments below 8 inches in an example), and showed fields such as install date, material and estimated probability of failure that supervisors could use to target maintenance.

Charlie said the system could reduce operational errors that currently cost taxpayers, pointing to an example where the city paid $750 to rent a bucket truck after an inspection was missed. He also noted heavy front‑end work would be required to import GIS layers and water‑distribution records and to train staff: “a lot more training, GIS mapping, you know, getting everything into the grid,” he said.

Adam Corby, a solutions engineer, demonstrated the grants module, describing a workflow from pre‑award opportunity searches to post‑award compliance and reimbursement tracking. Adam showed how the system can auto‑populate federal forms and keep a central compliance calendar; he used a sample reimbursement request for $265,000 as an example of tracking reimbursements. Charlie said the feature could have prevented a prior reporting lapse that delayed a $1,000,000 grant until quarterly reports were reconstructed.

Morgan Roberts, who presented procurement and contract management, demonstrated a public portal for posting solicitations, collecting vendor questions and hosting document repositories. Roberts highlighted that OpenGov does not charge vendors to use the portal and said the system can surface critical contract milestones — for example, expiring certificates of insurance or renewal options — and publish downloadable reports for public transparency.

On costs, Charlie reviewed the proposed service agreement: ongoing subscription costs for the full suite of modules were described as roughly $65,000 per year after implementation, with an initial first‑year cost of about $170,000, much of which would pay for professional services to configure the system and load legacy data. Council members asked about phased rollout and modular adoption; presenters said municipalities commonly implement modules incrementally (‘‘crawl, walk, run’’) and that the suite is configurable.

No formal motion or vote was recorded during the briefing. Presenters invited follow‑up technical meetings and implementation planning; Kevin, the OpenGov representative, said the company hoped for a council vote on an engagement the following Monday. The demonstration closed with staff and council expressing general support pending review of the service agreement and implementation plan.