Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Erp Modernization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council endorses countywide modernization plan; OpenGov presents software, scope and costs
Summary
The council adopted a joint resolution endorsing a countywide financial/administrative modernization initiative and heard an OpenGov presentation describing asset management, permitting, performance modules and a projected first-year cost of roughly $126,008; final appropriations were deferred to a later meeting.
The Delaware County Council voted to endorse a joint resolution supporting a countywide financial and administrative modernization initiative and heard a two-hour presentation from OpenGov representatives about the proposed platform and implementation.
OpenGov account executive Samantha Grabovac and colleagues described three core modules — enterprise asset/work-order management, permitting and licensing, and performance management — and said the system can centralize requests, field inspections, GIS-based asset management and public-facing transparency dashboards. The vendor presented case studies and claimed measurable time and cost savings in peer jurisdictions. OpenGov provided a prorated first-year cost estimate (implementation + software) of approximately $126,007.86 with a one-time implementation fee of $80,880.80; ongoing annual licensing costs were discussed for future budget cycles.
Council members asked detailed questions about implementation timelines, contract length, vendor support, scope for time-clock integration and how the project would be funded. County staff said funds exist in the contractual-services line to begin work, but final appropriation or transfers will be requested at a future meeting to replace the funds used. The council adopted the resolution as a policy endorsement but deferred any purchase order or appropriation vote until administration returns with exact appropriation requests and a formal implementation plan.
Presenters emphasized that the contract includes data ownership and standard termination provisions (including non-appropriate-year protections) but that there is no general “termination for convenience.” Council members expressed caution about multi-year commitments and asked for benchmarks and reporting to measure return on investment.
