County IT staff to draft AI policy, recommends Microsoft CoPilot as preferred enterprise option

County IT staff told the committee on May 13 that there is no countywide artificial intelligence policy and said they have been asked by the county administrator to work with corporation counsel to produce one. "There is still no policy at this time right now," the staff member said, summarizing a Jan. 30 training that raised both enthusiasm and caution about the technology.

The staff member said different county departments already have divergent rules: the sheriff’s office allows local discretion about AI tools, while human services maintains a ban on employee use. To create consistent, documented guidance, the staff member said IT will help draft a "fit‑for‑purpose" policy that defines acceptable uses and governance.

On procurement, the staff member recommended evaluating an enterprise Microsoft CoPilot license rather than consumer AI services, citing the county’s existing Microsoft government cloud agreements and data‑residency assurances. The staff member said the typical list price for CoPilot is about $30 per user per month and that an educational discount at $18 per user was not expected to apply to county government. "CoPilot is already, it's a Microsoft product...we have government cloud," the staff member said in explaining the preference.

Committee members asked whether the county had considered competing products. "Why CoPilot and not ChatGPT?" one member asked; the staff member replied that the Microsoft option aligns with the county’s government cloud tenancy and offers contractual limits on where data reside, which the county views as a security advantage.

Committee discussion also raised operational risks: staff noted concerns about bias and hallucinations in AI outputs and that excessive reliance by individual employees could weaken critical thinking. The staff member said those concerns surfaced during training and suggested governance measures such as a cross‑departmental oversight group and designated departmental designees to control subscription access.

The staff member said drafting work is currently limited to two people in IT working with corporation counsel, and that the county is reviewing sample policies from outside sources to decide how much governance to embed. No formal policy vote was taken at the meeting; staff framed the discussion as direction and planning.

Next steps: IT will coordinate with corporation counsel to develop a draft policy for future committee review and will continue staff training and stakeholder outreach before any licensing procurement or countywide rollout.