Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Journal Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate court 'journal' project amendment as critics cite rising costs and potential state alternatives
Summary
County staff asked the committee to approve a small contract amendment for third-party interfaces on a multiyear court records project; commissioners and a public critic questioned repeated contract amendments, contingency use and whether a future state court system would make the project redundant.
County staff presented a contract amendment covering third-party interface work related to the county’s court-journal/records project and asked the committee to refer the amendment to the full Board of Commissioners for final action.
A public commenter and at least one commissioner sharply questioned continued payments and timeline slippage. One speaker said the project has been active for multiple years, highlighted a contingency fund of $46,853.42 on the project documents and said taxpayers have been told no further funds were required — yet another amendment request for roughly $10,000 had arrived. “Any private-sector business waiting eight years on an IT project would be out of business by now,” the critic said, adding that the state offers a court system with free maintenance and that an anticipated state mandate could make the local journal project unnecessary.
Staff (identified in the record as Mike) responded that the amendment covered routine third-party interface work (I3 verticals/OnBase) and that the project includes a contingency line item in the budget for such work. Mike said the county has budgeted for interfaces in a contingency line of approximately $100,000 and that contract amendments that raise a contract above the county’s $50,000 threshold must come back to the board for approval. He also said there is currently no immediate statewide mandate to adopt the state system and that counties typically enter a queue to migrate to a state-hosted system; exiting the current contract without settlement could trigger significant penalties.
Commissioners asked about the potential state mandate and timing. Staff said there is no mandate on the immediate horizon and that migration plans for the state system are being pursued in larger counties first; county staff said it will continue the project to maintain court operations until a viable alternative is available. The committee moved the contract amendment to the full board for final approval.
Next procedural step: the amendment and related contract documents will be brought to the full Board of Commissioners for final action; staff said they will ensure contract exit provisions and contingency tracking are made clear.
