Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Sheriff's office says vendor renewal left county 'on the hook'; commissioners approve payment
Loading...
Summary
County staff told commissioners that an updated vendor contract for the PowerDMS scheduling module included renewal-notice terms the county had not received, leaving the county liable; despite criticism, the board voted to pay the renewal and asked staff to review options.
County staff told Umatilla County commissioners on April 1 that a vendor's renewed contract for a public-safety management system included a 30-day-renewal-notice term the county had not been given, and that legal review indicated the county may be liable for the renewal fee.
Captain Primerio of the sheriff's office described the issue: "We found the original contract, which did not list anything similar to that. . . . then the new company had some provisions that if you utilize a license, you are subject to these new terms. So we got stuck with the new terms even though we didn't agree to them." The presenter said the county must continue to pay for parts of the PowerDMS package even though some modules—specifically a scheduling module called Power Time—will not be used because it does not integrate with HR/payroll.
Commissioners pressed staff about whether the county could cancel and obtain a pro rata refund. Staff said the renewal date had passed and the vendor had not been cooperative in offering proration or alternative licensing arrangements. One commissioner called the situation "dirty" and another said the county was being put "on the hook" for terms it had not knowingly accepted. County counsel told the board the county's options were limited under the vendor's current terms.
Despite the objections and the request for further review of vendor terms and procurement alternatives, a commissioner moved and the board approved payment of the cited PowerDMS charge (total cited on the record: $9,474.11). Staff said the amount was budgeted and that they would pursue options to avoid similar problems going forward.
The board directed staff to examine alternatives, to document contract notices and renewal language for future purchases, and to report back on whether different vendors or procurement approaches would be appropriate. The meeting record shows the board approved the renewal payment to avoid an immediate operational gap but left open a follow-up review of vendor relationships and procurement safeguards.
Next steps: staff will review contract language and report back; commissioners requested that procurement and legal provide options to reduce future vendor-notice risk.
