Laserfiche WebLink
p. 2 <br /> <br />Analysis of Alternatives <br /> <br />Novalls <br /> <br />Pros: <br />Continued support services by known, competent staff. <br />Commitment to maintain the current CAMA process and features which are reliable and tested. <br />Existing Novalis functionality would be available with the CAMA package. <br />Additional functionality at additional charge would be available to compliment the basic CAMA software, <br />i.e. Parcel Editor and Parcel Analyst. <br />Conversion timeframe would be shorter, approximately 6 months. <br /> <br />Cons.' <br />Can a quality product be developed in the timeframe of twenty-seven months? <br />Will there be time to upgrade all modules to the robust product that Cabarms County needs? <br />Learning curve of staff. <br />Will Novalis continue the commitment to provide the support we are accustomed to receiving? <br />Programmers developing the software are dependent upon former Cott staff for their knowledge base <br />regarding property taxation. <br />New system will have to accommodate both NC and Georgia requirements. <br />Monthly fees will be paid to an escrow company to ensure continued performance under a contract. <br />Initial version not integrated with GIS. <br /> <br />NCPTS <br /> <br />Pros: <br />Developed to meet functional requirements of Cabarrus and other NC counties and endorsed by NCACC. <br />Institute of Government is sponsoring an advisory committee of experienced NC CAMA users to respond <br />to design specifications and development plans. <br />Software will be tested and fully functional in Wake County prior to installation in other counties. <br />System design and plans for future releases/upgrades are available to participating counties for Billing and <br />Collection modules. <br />Software will not be owned by IIS, but by NCACC, requiring no escrow for performance. <br />Current County IT staff can write code to supplement software capabilities. <br />Contains a link to Finance that will tremendously enhance the time consuming reconciliation process. <br /> <br />Cons.' <br />CAMA is still under development. <br />Cost is higher. <br />Currently so,ware runs only with Oracle operating system; SQL Server version available in approximately <br />12 months. <br />Increased functionality necessitates a large number of system screens. <br />Learning curve of staff. <br />Initial version not integrated with GIS. <br />Would require Cott to provide either support or table layouts for use in conversion. <br />Timeframe for conversion would be longer, approximately nine months. <br /> <br /> <br />