Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Software Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board briefed on GeoPermits software purchase after attorney flags vendor liability clause
Summary
County staff updated the board that a prior conditional approval of a GeoPermits software purchase is at an impasse over a vendor limitation‑of‑liability clause; vendor representatives said they work with many Minnesota counties and the platform pulls read‑only public data, while county counsel and MCIT recommended caution; board elected to proceed with existing approval and continue attorney negotiations.
County staff told the Aitkin County Board that a conditional approval granted Nov. 25 for a GeoPermits software purchase remains subject to county‑attorney review because the vendor's proposed contract contains limitation‑of‑liability language. The county attorney and MCIT (the municipal insurance pool) flagged the clause as a concern; county counsel said six of seven contractual issues were resolved, with the single remaining issue the liability cap.
A vendor representative, Ryan Smith of Schneider Geospatial, said the company provides similar platforms to over 30 Minnesota counties and that the GeoPermits module and the company’s data platform pull county public data on a nightly basis rather than requiring the county to push data, which he described as more secure. Smith said the vendor has legal counsel available to discuss contract language.
County attorneys raised a potential cap on recoverable damages (transcript discussion referenced a cap up to $50,000 for certain liabilities), and staff highlighted past data‑breach costs in the industry that can exceed $100,000. County Administrator David advised that the contract is for three years and that any issues could be worked out in that period; the county attorney said MCIT advises members to avoid such limitation clauses but has not ordered withdrawal of any member over such a provision.
Board members discussed options including seeking another vendor or proceeding; several commissioners expressed comfort proceeding under the prior conditional approval and letting the attorney continue negotiations. No new formal motion was taken to rescind the conditional approval; the board signaled assent to proceed with the previously authorized conditional purchase subject to attorney follow‑up.
