Citizen Portal
Sign In

Davis County seeks eProsecutor upgrade to meet HB 354 reporting deadline

Davis County Budget Committee · September 30, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff told the budget committee a one‑time eProsecutor development (quoted to cover reporting and workflow enhancements) would reduce heavy manual data entry needed to comply with HB 354’s May 2026 reporting requirements; alternatives include state assistance, vendor development, or internal workarounds.

County legal and technical staff told the Davis County budget committee they are seeking a one‑time technology investment to automate reporting and reduce manual work required by a recent state reporting law.

Committee members asked whether the quoted $40,000 for eProsecutor was a one‑time development cost or an ongoing subscription. The district attorney and county IT staff said most of the estimate is development to add functions—automated notifications, improved file storage and statistical capture—so the expense is primarily up front.

The district attorney warned that without development to capture the required statistics for HB 354, prosecutors and support staff would face heavy manual data‑entry burdens. “Literally… every day… would probably [require] an hour to 90 minutes” of manual entry to comply with the law, he said, adding that such work would divert time from screening cases, preparing for trials and other prosecution tasks.

Staff described three options: pay Journal Technologies (the eProsecutor vendor) to build the required reporting and enhancements; have the state build or centralize the reporting capability (discussions reportedly underway with Representative Wilcox and other stakeholders); or hire a vendor to configure or build an external workaround. County technical services staff said the initial development is currently budgeted in technical services but could be accounted for in either technical or prosecution budgets.

No formal procurement or vote occurred at the meeting; staff said they may combine technical and functional budgets or hire a specialized vendor to configure eProsecutor if needed. The committee flagged the item for follow‑up and budget placement decisions.