Waukesha City IT board approves ReciteMe PDF remediation contract, subject to attorney review

The Waukesha City Information Technology Board on April 1 reviewed and unanimously approved a contract with ReciteMe to remediate inaccessible PDF documents on the city website, with the approval made subject to further review by the city attorney.

Chair (speaker 1) presented the meeting’s single business item as a contract review and asked Andrew (city IT staff) to explain the vendor’s service. Andrew said the move responds to Americans with Disabilities Act Title II compliance and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1), noting that "any municipality...has to be in compliance with the web accessibility guidelines set out in the WCAG 2.1, up to a standard of AA." He described ReciteMe’s approach as manual remediation of original PDF files rather than an overlay that only changes how a PDF is displayed, and said the service would produce fully remediated documents the city can publish and retain.

Board members asked for details about scope, cost and timing. Andrew said ReciteMe’s initial crawl found the site’s PDF inventory and that the contract includes a page-count specification ("I think the number is, like, 3,333"). He said the vendor estimated it could remediate the prioritized backlog within roughly two years if uploads were managed and quoted an average turnaround of about five days for urgent items. He also contrasted ReciteMe’s pricing (about $5,000 a year for the a la carte service) with overlay-type tools quoted at $20,000–$30,000 per year.

Members pressed on technical limits and internal practices. Andrew said automated tools such as Adobe’s automatic tagging frequently introduce errors and that the city uses a PAC review workflow and staff training to produce accessible source documents (for example, using Word header styles). He said new PDFs would be blocked from publication if they were not accessible, and staff maintain backups of materials sent for remediation.

Several board members raised contract concerns to be addressed before signature. Brandon (speaker 6) flagged language in the deliverables and related sections that he read as granting the vendor rights, saying the contract’s definitions "say they shall retain all rights, titles, and interest into the deliverables including related intellectual property rights." He also pointed to clauses (142A/142B) that assign suggested process improvements to the vendor, a subprocessor clause permitting third-party subprocessors, and a provision (22.2.c) allowing the vendor to delete client data upon termination. Andrew responded that ReciteMe had clarified that once the city receives remediated files "it would be our document for use" and that the vendor has been open to redlining and making contract changes.

The board agreed to take the highlighted contract passages back to the city attorney for review. Chair moved to approve the contract "subject to further review by the city attorney's office of the items as discussed," Brandon seconded, and the motion passed unanimously after a roll call. The board noted that under city purchasing policy this IT-related contract does not need additional council approval.

In other business, Chris (speaker 3) said a stormwater management capital project contract will return to the board in May and reported on on-site configuration workshops for the city’s CAD/RMS project, saying the system is on budget and tentatively scheduled to go live around March 2027.

The board adjourned with no further comment.