Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electronic Records Probate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Probate register warns of uncertain costs for electronic records contract; requests $15,000 in budget
Summary
The York County Register of Probate told commissioners that the county’s long‑running contract with Catalyst (formerly Icon) is expiring and vendors have been slow to respond; staff proposed $15,000 in FY2026 to cover near‑term electronic records work while longer‑term costs remain undetermined.
Carol, a probate office official, told York County commissioners during the April 9 budget review that the county’s contract with Catalyst (formerly Icon) for online records management expires at the end of the year and that the vendor has been slow to provide contract pricing.
Carol said the registers’ association evaluated other vendors but could not find an alternative that could meet the urgent December 31 contract deadline and complete a records transfer in time. The probate office asked that $15,000 be placed in the proposed budget for electronic records as a near‑term placeholder; Carol and staff cautioned that the actual multi‑year contract cost could be substantially higher.
Why it matters: The probate office processes filings and passport applications; a change in the county’s record management vendor could require a significant one‑time migration cost and higher annual maintenance fees. Commissioners were told that vendor responses are mixed and that a larger expense could be necessary if the county must switch vendors.
Key details and context
- Usage: In 2024 the probate office accepted 1,478 passport applications and opened about 1,173 new proceedings; in 2025 so far the office had accepted 74 passport applications and opened 303 new proceedings (numbers reported by staff during the meeting).
- Requested budget item: Staff asked for $15,000 for electronic records in FY2026 as an initial placeholder; staff noted that the registers’ association is handling the vendor negotiations but has not yet secured definitive pricing.
- Vendor options: Carol said a vendor demonstration from IQS suggested an initial contract cost in the neighborhood of $80,000; by contrast the county’s initial contract in 2006 was about $17,000 with a maintenance fee then near $3,500. County staff also noted that larger statewide solutions suggested in past conversations (e.g., a Tyler Technologies migration) had been estimated at roughly $1 million per county and were not pursued.
Carol summarized the procurement position to the board: “We have no idea what that contract’s going to be.” Commissioners agreed to include the $15,000 placeholder in the packet and to treat the item as subject to further clarification when vendor prices arrive.
