Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Justice of the Peace courts to adopt Intech Apex solution; county authorizes one-time JP technology-fund payment
Summary
Commissioners approved designating Intech Apex Court Solution as the sole-source vendor for the Justice of the Peace courts and authorized a one-time payment from the Justice Court Technology Fund.
Get email alerts on the Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Washington County Commissioners Court on Oct. 7 approved a contract designating Intech Apex Court Solution as a sole-source vendor for use by the Justice of the Peace (JP) courts and authorized the county judge to sign documents necessary to complete the purchase.
Miss Hollis reported that the contract documents were reviewed by the county attorney’s office and that changes requested by the county attorney were incorporated where possible. Hollis said the company provided a detailed list of changes made and noted where the company declined to change other provisions; she asked the court to accept the remaining contractual risk in order to move forward.
Following adoption of the contract, the court separately authorized a one-time payment from the Justice Court Technology Fund to cover the purchase. During discussion the payment amount was given twice: Miss Hollis initially stated a one-time cost of $49,980, and later the figure was cited as $49,009.80. The court approved the payment authorization by voice vote; the meeting transcript does not include a roll-call tally.
County officials said the expenditure was discussed previously during the budget process and that the JP courts (JP 2 and JP 4) had agreed to use their technology-fund allocations to cover the cost. No vendor-level procurement details, such as vendor contract text or implementation timetable, were approved in open session beyond the contract designation and payment authorization; further steps will be handled administratively by the county and court staff.
The court also noted that the county attorney’s office reviewed the contract language and that some concerns raised by staff had been identified as remaining in the documents where the vendor did not agree to changes.

