Choosing a municipal CMS: test the editor's work before selecting a platform

Start with a change the department needs to make

A new fee schedule is approved. The department editor needs to update the service page, replace a form and send the draft for review. The CMS demonstration looked straightforward, but nobody tested whether the editor could publish without approval or whether an old form link would remain in search.

Make that complete change a selection exercise. Communications, the department owner and IT should agree the starting material, permissions and acceptable result before suppliers demonstrate their systems.

Waverly's 2026 website RFP required hands-on staff training and asked suppliers to identify responsibilities for domain services, updates, backups and ongoing costs. Those procurement requirements connect editor work with operating ownership. They are a dated example, not a statement about the City's current project status.

Sources: City of Waverly — 2026 Website Redesign RFP, pages 4–5

Give each supplier the same service-page test

Use approved public material or a clearly labelled test pack. For an illustrative permit-renewal page, include the accepted instructions, form, contact, fee reference and effective date. Do not put live applications or personal records into a sales demonstration.

Ask a department editor to make the change after a short orientation. A reviewer returns one correction; the editor revises it; an authorized publisher releases the accepted version. Then check the resident's route from search to the page and onward to the application service.

Use the worksheet below to record observed results and unresolved gaps. Agree any evaluation method with Procurement before demonstrations. A supplier's statement that a feature is available still needs a demonstration in the proposed configuration.

Record how the demonstrated result is delivered

For each result, record whether it is included in the quoted product, needs configuration, depends on a licensed addition, requires custom development or remains a future commitment. Name the supplier responsible and the acceptance test. Do not group these different obligations under a single yes in a feature matrix.

Test permissions as separate editor and publisher accounts. Check that a restricted editor cannot release an unapproved change and that the public page keeps the accepted content while a revision is being reviewed. Record any manual workaround and who would perform it.

Automated accessibility checks can flag some problems. Include manual checks of keyboard use, headings, form instructions and the actual resident task. Have the agency's accessibility lead set the applicable requirements; a CMS purchase or AI correction does not establish conformance.

Use Payload to test the proposed content model

In a proposed Payload implementation, the delivery team could configure a service-page collection with separate fields for instructions, form links, effective dates, content owner and review date. These are project design choices. Ask the editor to perform the same test against that configured collection.

Payload documents drafts that retain unpublished changes when enabled, and operation-level access rules that developers can configure. Demonstrate how the proposed application prevents premature publication and exposes only accepted content publicly. Drafts and access rules alone do not specify the municipality's full review chain.

Ask which functions use core configuration, plugins, separately licensed features or project code. Budget the public-facing website, permission tests, deployment, maintenance and support as part of the proposal. Payload is a useful option when the configured content model fits the work and a capable team owns its upkeep.

Sources: Payload — Collection Configs; Payload — Drafts; Payload — Access Control

Compare the exact products and support offers

Build a shortlist from the municipality's requirements and procurement rules. CivicPlus Municipal Websites describes module-based authoring and AI editing tools; Govstack's training covers page creation, file replacement and publishing. Use those descriptions to prepare questions, then confirm the quoted edition, modules and permissions in a working demonstration.

Name Granicus products precisely: its naming guidance maps govAccess and Vision to Websites & CMS VE, and OpenCities to Websites & CMS OE. Match each proposal to the actual product and service scope. Do not assume that similar branding means the same functions are included.

Compare supplier-managed platform offers with a configured Payload application on the same service boundary. Who maintains templates, application code, dependencies, hosting, backups and accessibility corrections? Who handles an urgent publishing problem? Ask for named responsibilities and coverage rather than assuming a subscription or an open-source foundation settles those questions.

Sources: CivicPlus — Content Management System for Local Government; Govstack — CMS Part 1 Training; Granicus — Granicus simplifies product names for enhanced clarity

Make AI part of the acceptance exercise

Altioras Civic's AI-first approach can help prepare and test this work. Supply an approved AI tool with the service instructions, source references and target field definitions. Ask it to propose structured draft content and flag missing or conflicting information. Keep restricted records out of the test pack.

The department reviewer compares each field with its source, rejects unsupported wording and approves corrections. Include a deliberately incomplete test case: the tool should identify the missing information instead of inventing a fee or eligibility condition. Record corrections and review effort before deciding whether to use the method more widely.

For Payload, the proposed output could be a reviewed field-mapping file for a controlled draft import. That import and AI connection require implementation and approval; they are not claimed native municipal features. Staff retain publication authority. Apply the same acceptance checks to any supplier's AI tools.

Select the operating arrangement as well as the CMS

Compare costs over the same agreed period: implementation, migration, document work, training, hosting, support, licenses, AI usage, upgrades and exit assistance. Identify allowances and chargeable work. Flemington's 2026 procurement answers distinguished a link to an external portal from an integration; make that distinction explicit in your own scope and estimate.

Request a sample export and a description of what it includes, plus restoration and handover tests. Resolve gaps in content, files, configuration, redirects or account ownership before treating portability as accepted.

Finish with a decision record: demonstrated editor tasks, accepted gaps, remaining tests, total cost assumptions and operating responsibilities. Carry those commitments into the agreement. Altioras Civic can help scope the comparison and acceptance work through Website Modernization & Maintenance.

Sources: Borough of Flemington — Website Redesign RFP, Amendment 1, page 1