Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Treasurer Software topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County commissioners approve Treads software license for treasurer’s office
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement to use Treads software to manage treasurer deed applications; the presenter said the system imposes no cost to the county and that a $60 applicant fee would cover vendor charges.
The Dolores County Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement to license Treads software and related services for the county treasurer’s office at a brief meeting Sept. 20.
The treasurer’s office staff member who requested the agreement said the software would be used to process treasurer deed applications and that “this is no fee to the county at all,” adding that fees would be collected from applicants to cover vendor charges. The presenter said the vendor also provides a separate product the county already uses for foreclosure processing (referred to in the meeting as GTS), and that Treads is a distinct module for treasurer transactions.
The presenter described operational benefits the county expects to gain: an integrated calendar that tracks deadlines, autogenerated forms and mailings, and the ability to print standard reports. She said the system updates forms centrally through the vendor so the county would use the same current templates other counties employ, and that the office currently is tracking roughly 10 active applications using spreadsheets.
Commissioners asked whether the software required a budget appropriation; the presenter reiterated there was no direct cost to the county and said the vendor fees would be recovered from applicant charges, which she estimated would be $60 per application. A commissioner moved to approve an agreement for the Treads software license and services for the treasurer’s office; another member indicated support and the board voted in favor. The transcript records the motion and subsequent affirmative votes but does not list individual vote tallies.
On procedural details, the presenter asked whether she or the board should sign the agreement; commissioners confirmed standard contracting practice and requested that the presenter provide a final signed copy for county records once signatures are complete. The presenter said she would deliver the executed contract for the county file.
The board completed that item, exchanged brief closing remarks and adjourned the meeting after a motion to do so.
