Oklahoma County delays decision on Novotix asset-management software after cost, implementation questions

Oklahoma County commissioners on March 10, 2025, discussed a proposed countywide implementation of Novotix asset-management software and voted to defer a contract decision until county staff and district offices can review costs and implementation details.

The discussion matters because the software would replace or supplement existing Munis modules for capital assets, work orders and facilities management and could affect multiple county departments’ budgets and data access practices.

Staff and commissioners described the proposed implementation as modular and optional for individual offices. Amber, a staff member who attended vendor demonstrations, described the software’s scope and price components, saying a single module that includes work orders and facilities “is 40,000.” She also explained that two initial implementations (District 3 and emergency management) were being proposed and that additional departments would face smaller per-department implementation costs thereafter: “It’s an additional 5 to 7 per or any per per department after the first 2,” Amber said. Staff said the vendor will train county staff (Gabe and Dave) as administrators so the county can perform future implementations internally.

Presenters characterized other costs in the vendor proposal but used conversational figures during the meeting. One staff member described a higher first-year countywide figure and an ongoing annual subscription that would follow the first year; presenters repeatedly flagged the numbers as estimates tied to timing and the scope of departmental participation. Staff emphasized that offices could run Novotix concurrently with existing Munis modules and that “nothing running outside of Munis is considered the master record” for audit purposes until county records are reconciled.

Commissioners and staff raised practical questions about departmental data separation and governance. Staff said if individual districts do not want to see other districts’ records, the vendor can implement filters or separate implementations; that separation adds to implementation cost. “If you don't mind seeing everybody's stuff, then we could probably put a filter on it to where you wouldn't see it. Initially, you wouldn't see it,” one staff member said when describing access controls.

Officials also discussed potential uses beyond facilities management, including road-inventory scoring, permit/plan-review workflows, and on-the-road tools for the sheriff’s department to view liquor-license history during inspections. Staff noted the county would need to confirm with state authorities whether certain offices, like the court clerk, can use a cloud-based SaaS platform for ticketing or other functions.

After discussion, commissioners voted to defer action and asked staff to coordinate a follow-up briefing with other districts and offices. The transcript records a motion to defer the item to the next meeting, a second and an affirmative voice vote.

No contract was executed at the meeting. Staff said they would return with additional information, cost breakdowns and a recommended implementation schedule for the board to consider during upcoming budget deliberations.