$95.6M
Court-facility financing authority
Public Law 2015, chapter 468 authorized up to $95.6 million across Oxford, Waldo, and York Counties and related planning.
official-lawCost and outcome metrics
Different buckets remain different. Performance still has to be measured.
The page does not claim that $112.6 million was spent only at York or that facility financing and statewide eCourts spending are one audited project total.
$65M
Reported York Judicial Center cost
Contemporary reporting placed the consolidated Biddeford courthouse at approximately $65 million.
reported$17M+
Reported statewide eCourts spending floor
Reporting in March 2025 placed Maine eCourts spending above $17 million at that time.
reported$112.6M+
Broader modernization context
The facility authority and reported eCourts floor exceed $112.6 million when placed beside each other, but they are distinct buckets.
context$82M+
York facility plus reported eCourts floor
A narrower reported context combining the York facility and the statewide eCourts spending floor.
context878
Filing-system notices in the audit window
Message-level Gmail count, not unique filings.
performance234
Rejection/return messages
Message-level count, not independent rejected filings.
performance30
Automated messages from one representative envelope
Five submission, ten service, five primary rejection, and ten File & Serve rejection notices.
performance62 days
August 7 filing to October 8 hearing
Elapsed-time fact from the York public record.
performanceOfficial and public sources: Public Law 2015, chapter 468; Maine eCourts; Maine Service Contract Search; and the linked reporting identified in the York accountability record.
Public record gap tracker
The missing contract-performance record is now itemized.
| ID | Record category | Likely custodian | Current public-site status | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT-001 | Tyler / Maine eCourts master contract and statements of work | DAFS Procurement / Judicial Branch administration | Public procurement search identified; contract not yet cataloged | Search VSS and request the controlling contract number and all SOWs. |
| CT-002 | Contract amendments, change orders, renewals, and price adjustments | DAFS Procurement / Judicial Branch administration | Not yet in public catalog | Request complete amendment and renewal chain. |
| CT-003 | Acceptance testing, implementation milestones, and go-live criteria | Judicial Branch administration / vendor project records | Not yet in public catalog | Request milestone acceptance documents and exception logs. |
| CT-004 | Service-level, uptime, support, and incident-response obligations | Judicial Branch administration / vendor | Not yet in public catalog | Request SLA, support matrix, escalation path, and performance reports. |
| CT-005 | Invoices, payments, credits, and withheld amounts | DAFS / Judicial Branch financial administration | Not yet in public catalog | Request invoice-level payment history and credits. |
| CT-006 | Defect logs, support tickets, incident reports, and root-cause analyses | Judicial Branch administration / vendor | Not yet in public catalog | Request public-safe aggregate defect and incident records, excluding security-sensitive details. |
| CT-007 | Rejection reason-code dictionary and workflow configuration | Judicial Branch court operations / vendor | Not yet in public catalog | Request current reason codes, definitions, ownership, and change history. |
| CT-008 | Training materials and clerk/filer guidance | Judicial Branch court operations | Partial public guidance exists | Catalog public training materials and request internal public-safe workflow manuals. |
| CT-009 | Quarterly public performance measures | Judicial Branch administration | No contract-performance dashboard located in site catalog | Request and propose publication of rejection, repeat-rejection, acceptance-time, uptime, and support metrics. |
Records-request boundary
The template seeks public administrative and contract-performance records. It expressly excludes confidential case records, sealed material, judicial deliberations, privileged legal advice, credentials, security-sensitive architecture, and personal identifying information. It does not assume that Maine’s general FOAA procedure governs every Judicial Branch administrative record; it asks the custodian to identify the controlling process.