Many cities first adopted Laserfiche for records work. It usually started with a scanning project, a retention cleanup, or a public portal for ordinances and minutes. Over the years the repository fills with decades of council history, and eventually someone asks a reasonable question. If our records already live here, should our agendas be built here too? Or should Laserfiche stay the records system while agenda work moves to a different tool?
No single answer fits every city. Laserfiche is a capable platform, and some cities run agenda processes on it and are satisfied. Others find that agenda work has demands a records platform was not designed around, so they pair Laserfiche with a dedicated meeting product. A third group keeps whatever they have and adds a tool that helps staff prepare the content going into the packet.
This guide looks at those choices from the buyer's side. It describes vendors only at the level of what is publicly well known. It sets out the integration questions that usually decide the outcome, and it names the conditions where staying put is the sensible call. It ends with a demo worksheet and a list of commitments to get in writing.
One caution first. Product lines in this market change through acquisitions, new releases and renamed editions. Treat every vendor description below as a starting point to confirm in a demo and in writing, not as a description to rely on.
What a records platform is built to do
Laserfiche is a long-established enterprise content management company with a large public sector customer base. At the level of general public knowledge, it is associated with:
- A central document repository with metadata, folder structures and full text search
- Capture and scanning of paper records into electronic form
- Records management features for applying retention and handling disposition
- Workflow and electronic forms for routing documents and collecting approvals
- A public-facing portal for publishing records (many cities know it as WebLink)
- Both self-hosted and cloud deployment options
For a city, those features add up to a few real strengths.
A single place for the official record. When adopted ordinances, resolutions, contracts, minutes and permits all sit in one governed repository, staff spend less time asking which copy is the real one.
Retention you can defend. A records platform is designed around the lifecycle of a document after it is created: how it is classified, how long it is kept, who can see it, and how it is eventually destroyed or transferred. That matters when an auditor, a records request or a lawsuit asks what happened to a file.
Search across departments. Once records from the clerk's office, planning, public works and finance share one repository, a staff member can often find an old easement or a prior council action without calling three departments.
Public access. A portal that publishes minutes and adopted legislation can reduce routine records requests and give residents a place to look things up on their own.
Notice the common thread. A records platform treats the document as the basic unit and is strongest once a document exists and needs to be kept, found and governed. Agenda work centers on something else.
Where agenda work asks for something different
Agenda work treats the meeting as the basic unit, and most of the effort happens before any document is final. That difference shows up in four places.
Item intake and routing
A council item usually starts as a request from a department, moves through a supervisor, then legal, finance and the manager's office, and lands with the clerk by a submission deadline. Along the way it gets revised, sometimes several times. Late items arrive. An item gets pulled and moved to the next meeting.
A general workflow engine can model this. The question is how much of the model your city has to build and maintain itself. In a dedicated agenda product, the item, the meeting, the deadline and the approval chain are usually built-in concepts. In a configurable platform, they are things someone designs, tests and keeps working when the process changes or the person who built it leaves.
Packet assembly and publication
Assembling a packet means pulling the right versions of many documents into a single ordered set, numbering items consistently, inserting attachments, and publishing on time. Open meeting laws set posting deadlines and notice requirements, and those rules differ by state. When a packet is late or incomplete, the consequence can be a continued item or a challenge to an action, not just an inconvenience.
Ask any vendor, Laserfiche included, to show you a complete packet build from item submission to public posting. Do not settle for screenshots of individual steps.
Meeting day and the record that follows
During and after the meeting, staff may need to record motions and votes, track amendments made from the dais, link video to agenda items, draft minutes, and update the status of each item. Dedicated meeting products are generally built around these tasks. A records platform receives the results, but it may not be where the meeting itself is managed.
Then the outputs need to come back into the record: approved minutes, adopted resolutions with signatures, and executed agreements. This handoff is where many arrangements quietly break down, and it gets its own section below.
The content inside the packet
Most agenda tools, records tools and workflow engines move documents. They do not help staff write a better staff report, find the prior council action that bears on today's item, or notice that a recommendation conflicts with a commitment the council made two years ago. Content quality is a separate problem, and it is easy to buy a new platform expecting it to fix a content problem when the platform was never designed to.
Before you compare products, sort your office's frustrations into these four groups. A city whose real problem is late or missing attachments needs something different from a city whose real problem is thin staff reports.
Three ways cities arrange records and agendas
Most cities that use Laserfiche end up in one of three arrangements. None is correct in the abstract. Each one fits a different set of conditions.
Arrangement 1: Run agendas in Laserfiche. Item routing, approvals and packet assembly are built with Laserfiche workflow and forms, either by city staff or with help from Laserfiche or a reseller. Laserfiche has promoted agenda-related solutions, so ask what is currently offered and whether it is a packaged solution or a configuration built for your city.
Arrangement 2: A dedicated agenda platform, with Laserfiche as the archive. A meeting product handles items, packets, publishing and meeting day tasks. Final documents are transferred into Laserfiche for retention and public access.
Arrangement 3: Either of the above, plus a preparation layer. A tool focused on drafting and checking content sits alongside the routing and records systems. It helps staff produce the reports and briefings, and it does not replace the system of record.
| Consideration | Agendas in Laserfiche | Dedicated agenda platform plus Laserfiche | Adding a preparation layer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who maintains the agenda process | Your city, reseller or Laserfiche, depending on how it was built | The agenda vendor maintains the product; your city maintains settings | The preparation vendor maintains its tool; routing stays where it is |
| Where the official record lives | Laserfiche | Laserfiche, once final documents are transferred | Unchanged; drafts are reviewed by staff before entering the record |
| Integration burden | Lower, since one platform holds most of the work | Higher, since files and metadata must move between systems | Moderate, depending on how the tool reads your archive |
| Main risk | Custom configuration that only one person understands | Gaps or duplicates where the two systems hand off | Expecting it to fix routing or publishing problems it is not built for |
| Tends to fit when | Meeting volume is modest and staff can maintain workflows | Meetings are frequent or formal, and publishing deadlines are tight | Routing works, but report quality and preparation time are the concern |
The alternatives, by category
"Laserfiche alternatives" can mean two different searches. Some cities want an alternative for agenda work while keeping Laserfiche for records. A smaller number are reconsidering Laserfiche as the records platform itself. Be clear about which search you are running, because the evaluation criteria differ.
Dedicated agenda and meeting platforms
These products are built around the meeting: items, deadlines, approval chains, packets, publishing, and often meeting day and video features. Well-known names in local government include:
- Granicus, a government technology company long associated with meeting video and legislative management. Its Legistar product has been used by larger cities and counties with formal legislative processes. Granicus has grown partly through acquisitions and may offer more than one meeting product, so ask which one it is proposing and why.
- CivicPlus, best known for municipal websites, which also offers agenda and meeting management (CivicClerk is the name you are most likely to hear). Ask how its agenda product relates to any CivicPlus website you already run.
- Diligent, known for board governance software, whose BoardDocs product is widely used by school boards and some local government bodies.
Other vendors serve this market as well, including companies focused on smaller municipalities and on boards and commissions. The questions that matter are the same for all of them: how the product handles your approval chain and late items, how it publishes to meet your posting rules, and exactly how finished documents get into Laserfiche.
Other records and content platforms
If the real question is whether Laserfiche is still the right records platform, the comparison set changes. Commonly considered options include Hyland OnBase, another established enterprise content management platform with government customers, and Microsoft 365 with SharePoint, which many cities already license for other purposes and sometimes extend into records work.
Replacing a records platform is a much larger project than changing agenda tools. It involves migrating years of documents, preserving metadata and retention assignments, maintaining public links, and proving that nothing was lost or altered. If your agenda frustration is driving a records replacement conversation, separate the two decisions. It is rarely wise to migrate an archive to fix an agenda workflow.
Preparation tools that sit beside both
A newer category focuses on the content and preparation side rather than routing or storage. Govera is one example. It drafts staff reports, resolutions and agenda items grounded in the city's own records, with citations to the source document, page and meeting. It searches across the full archive for institutional memory, tracks commitments made in minutes, prepares council briefings for each agenda item, runs packet completeness checks, and raises budget awareness flags and possible conflict flags phrased as suggestions. Staff review every output. Each city's data is isolated in its own database schema, and every action is audit logged.
A tool like this does not replace Laserfiche as the records system or a dedicated agenda product as the publishing system. Evaluate it as an addition to whichever arrangement you choose. Ask the same integration questions you would ask any vendor about how it reads your archive and where its outputs go.
Integration questions to settle before you compare products
Most arrangements succeed or fail at the seams between systems. Settle these questions internally first, then put them to every vendor. Each vendor's answers will tell you more than its feature list.
- Which system holds the official record for each document type? Write it down for agendas, packets, staff reports, minutes, adopted resolutions and ordinances, and executed agreements. If two systems both claim to be the record for the same document, you will eventually face a records request where the copies differ.
- What moves, when, and in what format? Ask whether finished documents transfer automatically, on a schedule, or by manual upload. Ask what file format arrives in Laserfiche, whether it is searchable, and whether attachments arrive as separate files or as one combined document.
- Does the metadata travel? A document without its meeting date, item number, body and document type is hard to find and hard to retain correctly. Confirm which fields map into your Laserfiche templates and who maintains that mapping.
- How do final versions come back? Approved minutes, signed resolutions and amended items are often finalized after the meeting. Trace exactly how each one reaches the repository, and who confirms it arrived.
- What does the public see, and from where? If residents find agendas on one site and adopted records on another, decide whether that is acceptable and how links between the two stay current. Broken links to past packets are a common source of records requests.
- How do sign-on and permissions work? Ask whether the products support your city's single sign-on, how permissions are set for confidential or closed session material, and how access is removed when staff leave. Your IT department should review security documentation, and CISA publishes guidance that can inform those questions.
- Who owns the connection, and what happens at upgrade time? A connector built by a reseller, a vendor's standard integration, and a script your IT staff wrote are three very different maintenance commitments. Ask who fixes it when either product releases a new version.
- How do you leave? Ask each vendor how you would export your data, in what formats, and with what metadata, if the city changed products later. A clear exit path is part of a responsible procurement.
Every vendor will say it integrates. Ask each one to define the term: a live data connection, a scheduled file transfer, a manual export and import, a link on a web page, or something still on the roadmap. Then ask for a reference city that runs the same combination you are considering.
A note on state law
Retention periods, rules for electronic records and signatures, open meeting posting deadlines, and public access requirements all vary by state, and some are shaped by local ordinance or charter. Before you settle on an arrangement, confirm the requirements with your city attorney, your state archives or records program, and your state clerk association. Then check that each system in the arrangement can meet them, especially at the handoff points.
When staying put makes sense
Changing systems costs staff time, training, migration effort and some disruption to meetings. Sometimes the best decision is to keep what you have and fix the specific problem. Staying with your current Laserfiche setup is often reasonable when most of these are true:
- Meetings are published on time and complete. If your packets meet posting deadlines and rarely need corrections, your routing works.
- Someone can maintain the configuration. A staff member or a dependable reseller understands how the agenda workflow was built and can change it when your process changes.
- Meeting volume is manageable. A city with a few regular bodies and predictable agendas may not need a product built for heavy legislative traffic.
- Your complaints are about content, not routing. If the issue is thin staff reports, missing background or repeated questions from council, a platform change will not fix it. Training, better templates or a preparation tool may help more.
- The records side is working well. If retention, search and public access are in good shape, protect that before introducing a second system and a new seam to manage.
On the other hand, it may be time to look at alternatives when:
- Packet assembly depends on one person, and the office struggles when that person is out
- Late items and revisions regularly cause publishing errors or near misses on posting deadlines
- The workflow configuration has grown so complex that nobody wants to touch it
- Meeting day tasks such as votes, video and minutes happen in disconnected tools with manual re-entry
- Council or the manager has raised concerns about the reliability of the process
If you decide to stay, write down why. A short memo noting the criteria you weighed and what you found protects the decision when budgets or leadership change and the question comes up again.
A demo worksheet
Use the same scenario with every vendor so you can compare fairly. Before the demos, prepare a realistic sample: a regular council meeting with a consent calendar, 2 to 3 action items, one late item, one item that gets revised after legal review, and one closed session item. Ask each vendor to work through it live.
| Criterion | What to ask the vendor to show | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| Item intake | A department submitting an item with attachments | Number of steps, required fields, clarity for occasional users |
| Approval routing | Your actual approval chain, including a rejection and resubmission | Whether the chain is built in or configured, and who can change it |
| Late and revised items | Adding the late item and swapping a revised attachment | How versions are tracked and what the public sees |
| Packet assembly | Building the full packet in order | Time taken, numbering, handling of large attachments |
| Publishing | Posting the agenda and packet to the public | Where it appears and how it meets your posting rules |
| Closed session | Restricting the confidential item | Who can see it and how access is logged |
| Meeting day | Recording a motion, a vote and an amendment | Whether this is in the product or a separate tool |
| Minutes and return | Drafting minutes and sending the final version to Laserfiche | Format, metadata and confirmation of arrival |
| Search | Finding a prior council action on a related topic | How results are presented and whether sources are clear |
| Administration | Changing a deadline or adding a new board | Whether city staff can do it without vendor help |
| Exit | Exporting a year of meetings | Formats, metadata and any fees to confirm in writing |
Add a column for your own notes, and have at least two people score each demo independently: someone from the clerk's office and someone from a department that submits items regularly. Include IT for the integration and security portions.
Checklist for the evaluation team
- Sort current frustrations into routing, publishing, meeting day and content problems
- Decide which system holds the official record for each document type
- Confirm state and local requirements with the city attorney and state records program
- Prepare one sample meeting scenario and use it with every vendor
- Ask every vendor to define "integration" for your specific setup
- Request 2 to 3 references from cities with a similar structure and the same records platform
- Have IT review security documentation and sign-on support
- Document the decision and the reasons, including a decision to stay put
What to get in writing
Demos show what a product can do on a good day. Contracts and written responses show what a vendor is committing to. Before anyone signs, ask for written confirmation of:
- The exact product, edition and hosting arrangement being proposed, so the contract matches what you saw
- The integration with Laserfiche, described specifically: what transfers, how often, in what format, with what metadata, and who maintains it
- Responsibility at upgrade time, including what happens to the integration when either product changes
- Data ownership and export, including formats, metadata and the process for leaving
- Implementation scope, covering who configures workflows, who migrates past meetings if any, and what training is included
- Support terms, including response expectations around meeting days and publishing deadlines
- Security and access controls, including sign-on, permission settings, closed session handling and logging
- Records handling, including how the product supports your retention requirements or hands documents off to the system that does
If a vendor describes a feature as planned or upcoming, note it as a roadmap item rather than a current capability. Base your decision on what exists today.
Next steps
Start small and concrete. This month, sit down with your deputy clerk and one department head who submits items often. List the last 3 to 5 meeting cycles and write down what went wrong in each one, then sort those problems into routing, publishing, meeting day and content. That list will tell you whether you are looking for a new agenda platform, a better handoff to Laserfiche, help with preparation, or simply a cleaner version of what you already run.
Next, write the one-page system-of-record map described above and review it with your city attorney and IT. Then schedule demos using a single shared scenario, invite at least two scorers, and collect written answers to the integration questions.
If content and preparation turn out to be the larger concern, you might include a preparation tool such as Govera in your evaluation alongside your records and agenda options, and judge it by the same standard: what it does in front of you and what the vendor confirms on paper.
