County examines $90,000 setup and recurring costs to replace jury summons system

Okanogan County court staff told the Board of County Commissioners they are evaluating a single-vendor replacement for the county’s jury summons, mailing and reminder services and presented a multi-part proposal from Tyler Technology. Superior Court and district court staff said the vendor would consolidate the jury list maintenance, address verification, reminder postcards and toll‑free outreach into a single hosted service. Staff argued the new system would reduce returned mail, cut re-mailing costs and automate reminder generation, but commissioners and finance staff pressed for a clear comparison to current-year costs. The proposal included a large up-front implementation and configuration package (presented as about $38,000 for software and a broader implementation package pushing the combined vendor total near $90,000 for year one, including implementation services and a first 12-month maintenance period). Recurring service estimates were discussed at roughly $14,400 per year for consolidated services, excluding postage, with an estimated per-mailing postage cost to be added separately. Court staff said they had asked Tyler Technology to provide a lump-sum option and a three‑year payment schedule and had parsed the vendor estimate to separate initial implementation costs from ongoing software-as-a-service fees. Commissioners expressed concern about the apparent jump from current combined annual spending (staff cited roughly $11,000–$12,000 annually across contracts and postage) to the recurring totals shown in the vendor proposal and requested a clearer, line-by-line reconciliation before any commitment. Staff proposed using the county’s trial court improvement fund to pay for the initial implementation (a one-time capital-like expense), with recurring subscription fees to be split between Superior Court and District Court budgets afterward. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether that use of the trial court improvement funds complies with applicable statutes and administrative rules and to return with a concise breakdown showing what is one-time versus recurring, and what postage is estimated to cost under varying mailing volumes. Ending: Commissioners asked staff to obtain a cleaner financial exhibit from the vendor that separates one‑time implementation charges (if any), first‑year service totals including postage, and subsequent-year recurring costs. They also asked staff to provide an opinion on whether the trial court improvement fund can be used to pay the implementation costs for the new system.