Ontario County Department of Records, Archives and Information Management Services

Final Grant Report, Computer Generated Microfilm

 

1) The original grant request for the 2001/2002 grant cycle was designed to provide hardware and software for converting electronic TIFF images into computer-generated microfilm. The chosen hardware was the Kodak Archive Writer. The review panel denied the request and instead provided funds for microfilming through a vendor. The major intended result, to create a demonstration model for the conversion of TIFF images to COM microfilm could thus not be realized.

 However, the modified grant funds still permitted us to eliminate the need for additional paper records while safeguarding permanent records on microfilm. At the same time, the "customers" retained the convenience of electronic record access. We were also able to eliminate some electronic glitches for the smooth conversion of non-TIFF financial records to TIFF format. We were thus able to convert year-end permanent financial records directly to COM microfilm.

 The County Clerk's records were no problem at all because the Clerk's image system is already based on TIFF images. We were also able to experiment successfully with a conversion of survey maps to computer generated 35 mm microfilm. This was made possible through the Kodak vendor Biels, utilizing new Kodak hardware not yet available for purchase.

 The grant funds thus made possible a good trial run for the next step in our technological upgrade toward efficiency and cost cutting.

 2) During the 2001/2002 grant year, the Department of RAIMS utilized Lason and Biels as the vendors for this project. The major series microfilmed were

 County Clerk: Deeds, Mortgages, Other Clerk records, including DBAs, Civil Court, etc

Real Property/Clerk: Survey Maps (35 mm com microfilm - experimental)

DSS: Client files - both rolls and sleeved.

3) The RAO is always available on a formal and informal basis. Since this was an outsourced project, no specific help was required. The RAO did provide me with the comments of the panel and we discussed the next logical steps in the RAIMS microfilming projects.

4) The Records Advisory Committee did not participate as a whole body, but only through those members directly concerned with the project e.g. County Clerk, County Attorney and County Administrator.

5) The Board of Supervisors supports records management with a budget of over $300,000. This particular project had a cost overrun that was picked up in the RAIMS budget.

6) Although the original grant proposal was a direct and logical step in the records management plan of the Department of RAIMS, the grant, as changed by the panel, was more or less a holding action until the Kodak Archive Writer is in place.  One of the major concerns of the Department of RAIMS is to compress permanent records whenever possible to avoid additional storage costs for paper records. The grant did permit us to gain additional experience in the conversion of electronic records in various formats to make them ready for the creation of computer-generated microfilm. The project with the vendors also gave us a breathing space with a virtually full records and archives center.

7) As always, Ontario County will continue the project as started with a LGRMIF grant. RAIMS will continue to create computer-generated microfilm and expand the service to every possible county department. The success of the continuation of the project has been assured through the award of a grant for the Kodak Archive Writer. The County will continue to pick up the salary of three microfilmers and the creation/development cost of microfilm.

8) LGRMIF funds have had a tremendous impact on the continued development and enhancement of the RAIMS records management program.  The RMO at all times has attempted to make the fund year a demonstration project for colleagues, but especially the governing board. Because all projects have been successful, the Board of Supervisors has never hesitated in supporting the continuation of a LGRMIF funded project. I think the success of grant funding speaks for itself particularly this year. Ontario County was looking at an $8 million shortfall for FY2003. Despite this, the Department of RAIMS has escaped major cuts and will be able to continue its programs with only minor difficulties.