Dade County to consolidate permitting, asset and accounting software with Tyler Technologies; first‑year cost estimated $162,287

Dade County commissioners voted to include a contract with Tyler Technologies in the consent agenda and approved it as presented, moving the county toward a single vendor for permitting, asset management and accounting services.

County staff said the Tyler package would replace separate services the county had been using for business licenses, short‑term rental certificates and asset tracking and would link permitting and civic services directly into the county’s Tyler ERP finance system.

County staff told commissioners the decision followed months of problems with a vendor known in the transcript as GovOS (used for business licenses and short‑term rental certificates) and a second line‑of‑business product, Cartograph/OpenGov, that the county felt had not delivered a complete facility/asset management capability. “GovOS … never caught on. … their customer service was horrible,” a county official said during the meeting. Staff said GovOS renewal proposals also included a proposed price increase the county declined.

Alex (county staff) described the Tyler proposal to commissioners as a bundle that would add civic services (online permitting and GIS), enterprise asset management (work orders, facilities and vehicle maintenance), and better integration of accounts receivable directly into the county’s financial system. “With the Tyler system that they presented to us, it will directly go into where Rebecca has requested,” Alex said. Staff said the modules include a mobile app for crews to receive and complete work orders, an online portal for permit applicants, and inventory controls tied to maintenance activity.

Staff provided cost figures during the meeting: an annual software subscription discounted to $48,337 (after a $16,122 concession), an estimated implementation/professional‑services budget of $113,920, and a total first‑year price of about $162,287. Staff also compared the offer to the county’s current annual spend of roughly $73,661 for the separate services and said the Tyler package would both expand functionality (notably facilities asset management and integrated accounts receivable) and reduce annual vendor fees by roughly $25,000.

Staff cautioned the project would require significant internal “homework” — entering historical asset and work‑order data, training staff and adopting new processes. Commissioners asked about staffing and supervision of work orders; staff said existing employees (dispatch/911 operators, public‑works personnel and code enforcement staff) would continue to create and manage work orders, and the county would not add permanent positions solely for the system. “It’s only gonna be as good as what we put into this,” a commissioner said.

The contract and estimated first‑year costs were placed on the consent agenda and approved by unanimous vote (Doctor Pullen, Mister Hartline, Missus Bradford and the chair voting yes). The county clerk read the agreed first‑year total into the official consent list during the meeting.

Next steps staff outlined included: cancelling the GovOS contracts (already done, staff said), phasing in business‑license and rental modules in 60–70 days if implemented promptly, then adding community‑development, asset‑management and additional ERP links over subsequent months. Staff said on‑site implementation may not be necessary because much of the work can be done remotely.

Commissioners and staff emphasized operational benefits they expect if implementation succeeds: fewer manual entries into Tyler ERP for accounts receivable, automatic posting to department and account codes, searchable work‑order histories, and inventory control tied to maintenance activity. Staff also noted the system would allow co‑ordination of addressing, permitting and inspections through a shared GIS backbone.

County staff said they compared three vendors and selected Tyler because of deeper integration with the county’s existing Tyler financial system and the addition of work‑order/facilities management that the county said it lacked under prior vendors.

The county did not adopt any additional staffing or a formal oversight committee at the meeting. Commissioners asked for final contract documents and implementation schedules before significant purchases or site work began.

The county intends to present the final contract for routine procurement and implementation steps to the board as staff completes the vendor paperwork and project scoping.