County, judges and vendor at odds over court case‑management project; contract amendment and testing timelines debated

County and court leaders and Journal Technologies representatives met with the County’s judiciary and public safety committee to discuss the multi‑court case management and document management project and a proposed contract amendment.

Background: the county contracted with Journal Technologies (JTI) to replace legacy systems. Court staff and JTI have been engaged in implementation and testing; the vendor and county have differed about outstanding change‑order items and required scope. At a judiciary meeting judges decided to remove the district court from the current implementation and proceed with circuit, probate and juvenile courts only; that decision affects scope and costs.

What the meeting covered: JTI and county staff reviewed progress (vendor said about 60% complete) and discussed outstanding change‑order items the vendor described as necessary to complete court‑specific workflows (examples cited included bond return headers and garnishment fee handling). Committee members repeatedly pressed for a clear cost estimate of the revised scope (excluding district court), estimated annual maintenance/licensing costs tied to user counts, and whether legislative updates would be covered by annual maintenance or billed as separate change orders. The vendor said maintenance includes upgrades, bug fixes and support; large legislative changes or complex new features could require additional fees. JTI representatives said that, while some travel had been billed to the county in the past, most travel costs were paid by JTI and that travel billing practices would be clarified in the contract amendment.

Testing and timing: county staff, judges and the vendor discussed the testing windows and a “sandbox” (practice) environment. The vendor said the post‑go‑live document management and MyFile (state e‑filing) interfaces are included in the contract, but MyFile availability depends on state rollout. Committee members emphasized the importance of adequate testing time and rigorous “one‑offs” testing rather than “happy path” testing; the vendor agreed to negotiate testing windows with court administration and said they would include more realistic testing time in a contract modification.

Costs and next steps: the vendor and county said they will produce a revised cost estimate removing district court and proposing adjustments; vendor indicated the district court work accounted for a sizeable portion of earlier change‑order cost. County staff said they would seek a contract amendment that integrates the revised scope, clarifies responsibilities for travel and maintenance, and spells out testing cycles. Multiple committee members requested a demonstration of the product and a clear timeline for work resumption; the vendor said they could schedule a demo for committee and court staff.

Ending: Committee members signaled concern about rate and schedule slip but also urged completion because current legacy systems are aging and produce operational risk. County and vendor agreed to continue negotiations on a new amendment that reflects the reduced scope and clearer testing and change‑management terms before final board action.