Spokane County IT directors outline larger Workday costs, pass-through contracts and capital shortfalls
Loading...
Summary
Spokane County Information Technology directors told commissioners the 2026 IT budget faces a larger ongoing subscription cost for Workday, rising pass-through contract fees and underfunded capital needs; they proposed limited use of remaining ARP funds and a possible disaster-recovery site at the county medical examiner's office.
Kevin Norris, Spokane County IT director, and Sean Dimitrovich, IT assistant director, briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the department’s proposed 2026 internal services and information technology budgets, telling commissioners on the continuation of the budget workshop that recurring subscription costs — especially Workday — are the primary driver of a higher request.
The presentation said the department manages roughly 350 virtual servers and multiple infrastructure teams and expects 24 technical-services staff and 14 application-services staff; it identified roughly $5.6 million in “pass-through” contractual technology costs that IT does not directly control. "Every time we move to a subscription licensing model, the cost goes up," Sean Dimitrovich said, citing vendor moves from perpetual licenses to subscriptions.
Norris and Dimitrovich told the commissioners the submitted internal-services general fund request exceeded the board target and left a gap they have been working with the budget office to close. They proposed using remaining ARP (American Rescue Plan) funds to cover a one‑time gap in 2026 — noting ARP money must be spent by mid‑2026 — but emphasized this would not solve higher recurring subscription costs.
The IT directors listed capital requests that they described as underfunded: campus switch upgrades (~$95,000), replacement physical servers (~$72,000), and courthouse‑annex cabling and fiber recabling. They cited a more than $1 million Microsoft enterprise agreement as the department’s largest single supply/service item and described savings from renegotiated vendor agreements for a subset of subscriptions.
The presentation stressed two recurring pressures: (1) pass‑through costs such as Workday, Docfiniti, SAN, NeoGov and others that scale annually and are largely outside IT control; and (2) ongoing application implementations (Aumentum, Carpel, eDiscovery) that consume application‑services staff time. To avoid pulling staff off maintenance work, the presenters recommended short‑term vendor‑funded contractor support for implementation projects.
On disaster recovery, IT proposed using the county medical examiner’s facility as a county‑owned DR site because it has generator‑supplied power and a telecom room; the department said it could reuse some retiring server cluster hardware and would need additional storage and network equipment to complete the site.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about liability insurance (self‑insured in the county’s risk fund), use of fund balance in the IT internal service fund, and the timing and limits of ARP funds. The presenters said they will return with version 2 of the budget and that legal staff would confirm any needed interlocal or contract language before shifting ARP spending.
If the board does not add recurring funding for subscription growth — notably Workday — Norris said the county would need to absorb increased subscription costs in future budgets or reduce scope elsewhere.
The IT directors closed by asking commissioners for guidance on whether to use ARP as a bridge for 2026 and offering to supply more granular capital and pass‑through detail in follow‑up materials.
