Update 10/02/23: This morning I clicked a link in the CARES Newsletter that was a SIRE link and got an error. Checked the main agenda page and it was down too. Since then the service has come back up (seems snappier?) and I was able to search and access the archived agenda. One thing to note—all supporting documents for a given agenda are being appended to a single PDF. If you try and access one, make sure you have the bandwidth and machine that can handle it. The file I accessed was 445MB. I’ve also updated the section about costs now that I have been able to review the documents.

[Note: I was unable to access the supporting documents from the original agenda item related to the SIRE upgrade on December 15, 2022. Search results returned a link for the agenda however after entering the Captcha a message “This file is currently not available” (eventually) displays. Which is different from the 404 error returned for a “cached” link to a document from the same agenda.]

“What’s next?” That was the reoccurring line of President Jeb Bartlet in “The West Wing”. Crisis adverted. “What’s next?” Big bill gets passed. “What’s next?” For City Council, “What’s next?” is what ever is on the agenda.

Council does not act on anything that isn’t on the agenda. Every penny spent and every zoning decision runs through it and its supporting documentation. By rule, City Council can not consider any evidence that is not attached to the agenda (“In SIRE”) or presented in person for quasi-judicial zoning items.

I believe the rule is that the agenda and all supporting documentation be available for 3 business days prior to Council meeting. Currently, all regular and evening meetings are on Thursdays as well as one Thursday morning a month for the CRA Board. Agendas are published on Friday afternoons with occasional addendums added the next week.

Agendas and their related documents are public records and should be as accessible and easy to read as possible.

The Backstory

Since roughly 2012, the City of Tampa has used the software SIRE to electronically manage the agenda and all supporting documentation. The thing about SIRE is that the company that owns it no longer supports it. Since January First 2022 they have not supported it. That company, Hyland, purchased SIRE in 2012. The city renewed their contract on SIRE in 2016. I found an announcement from April 2020 by one of Hyland’s “top partners” noting Hyland’s decision to retire the SIRE product suite and to continue the process of actively moving SIRE users to OnBase by 12/31/2021. In that announcement it also notes “SIRE software has dependencies on Windows Server 2008 R2 which will reach end of support on January 14, 2020.” That was for extended support. Mainstream support ended in 2015.

In December of 2022, an item was brought before Council to finally migrate off of SIRE onto Onbase. Now, I’ll note Onbase isn’t an agenda management system in itself, it’s a “content services platform that organizes, manages and optimizes your content, processes and cases.” So yeah, its an enterprise level CMS that can be adapted to municipal agenda management and they obviously built a way out of SIRE but it’s not like the product CivicPlus.

“CivicPlus® provides an end-to-end solution that enables municipal clerks to easily manage agendas, minutes, and public meetings, while providing the public with unparalleled transparency and access to the meeting process.”

But because we had neglected the SIRE product beyond its end-of-life the city was painted into bit of a corner and took the path of least resistance using the migration path provided by Hyland. I’m not arguing CivicPlus is better than Onbase or any of the other similar products on the market. I am arguing that I do not believe the city properly researched and decided on a replacement that would best serve all of the stakeholders that rely on the agenda. The public, the council, city staff, and yes, the City Clerk.

Timeline

That was December of 2022. At the time, Russell Haupert, CTO for the city stated that commencement of the project was contingent on the availability of the vendor however believed the resources were lined up for a Jan 15 kickoff and that it would be in before the end of the first quarter.

In June of this year I inquired with City Council if there were any updates. I was put in touch with Mr. Haupert and his reply:

Council approval for the item in December, we did indicate that we expected a 4-6 month implementation assuming a start in January pending confirmation of contract and resources with Hyland. In working with Hyland and our internal customers, resource availability did dictate a later start and lengthier schedule.

The implementation project formally kicked off February 15th, 2023. Discovery sessions with City department subject matter experts were held in mid-April and the solution design is now confirmed as of 5/5/23. Hyland is currently configuring the solution, while the Tampa team works on testing and training plans (with a council, council staff and public component) that will be required a bit later in the project (starting mid-Summer). Based on the expressed needs of our departments, we’re expecting a go-live with OnBase this fall.

Working with the City Clerk as application owner, we will of course keep the Council and Council staff apprised of final schedules as they are completed and coordinate training opportunities.

As to costs for this project, as I can’t access the original documents I can not cite what the migration and up front costs were for this project. I can say that for FY23 budget, there was a CIP of $387,000 budgeted for Onbase and there is another $545,000 budgeted for FY24. There was an additional $900,000 SaaS agreement with the vendor for 5 years. Update: The $387,000 was to cover $248,768 for the migration and the rest for the first year of the 5 year SaaS agreement. I assume that will roll over to FY24 as the platform wasn’t launched in FY23. I also assume that means we are still under a 5 year contract. Still waiting to hear what the additional $545,000 is for. There is no mention of a second phase or additional costs in the original documentation.

The system has a first-year implementation and software services cost of $387,176.30, with subsequent software services/hosting costs of $125,209.00 in FY2024; $125,209.00 in FY2025; $128,965.27 in FY2026 and $132,834.22 in FY2027. Funding for future fiscal years wil be based on future budget approvals.

I’m not arguing costs however. I believe this is critical digital infrastructure and should be invested in accordingly. It is an integral part of transparency.

We now are entering into October and I have not heard one person mention any Onbase training or time schedule for its rollout. Undoubtedly Onbase will be an improvement over SIRE.

But is it the best long term solution for City Council and the public? Doesn’t matter. We don’t have a choice because yet another critical piece of infrastructure was neglected and this is what we get.

And Then There’s This

One thing I didn’t lead with is the whole thing about Windows Server 2008 R2 ending support in January of 2020 (and that’s a stretch when they say support) is that it is a giant security issue. The reason you have to type Captchas and get the “cached” urls is because they can’t afford to expose that installation to the Internet. That doesn’t get into the issues of what can and can’t be uploaded to SIRE and the difficulties it puts on Planning staff to prepare for zoning hearings.

And if you think that all sounds bad, what if I told you there was a budget request for 2 million dollars from the same person overseeing this project to upgrade the internal IT help support system because they are in a very similar situation as we are with SIRE. From the CIP page, “leaving organizations vulnerable to security risks and compliance issues.”