County staff reviews tax and financial software options; auditors satisfied with current tax processes

County staff told Dubois County commissioners that the county's tax system and daily scanning workflow are meeting auditors' expectations but that the county's financial software is aging and could require a future replacement.

The presentation described the tax office's scanning process: incoming payment coupons and checks are scanned into a vendor product called FNE ("fast and easy") that integrates with the county's MVP tax software, allowing staff to scan mail throughout the day and deposit checks at the end of the day. "Usually within an hour, we can have everything scanned for the day," a staff member said, and the office reported a recent daily tax-collection deposit of nearly $1 million.

Why it matters: commissioners were shown that the county's tax workflow is efficient and that auditors said they had no outstanding data requests, but staff flagged the county's financial software as a possible future risk if vendors change their product lines or stop supporting some modules.

Staff said the county currently uses MVP for tax processing and uses two different systems for financials in different county offices: Harris in some departments and United Systems in others. The presenter noted that county practice has been to keep both systems in operation and that auditors reported being "happy with us." The presenter also summarized market shifts staff observed: a decline in counties using Harris over recent years and growth in other vendor use, an observation presented as context for contingency planning.

Commissioners asked whether switching vendors would produce operational savings or let the county reduce staff. Staff said some vendors advertise efficiencies such as single-entry payroll and automated transfers to the county financial system, which can reduce duplicate data entry. However, staff said the county currently operates with three people in the tax office, that much of the work is seasonal and staff-intensive on collection days, and that staff did not expect to be able to reduce headcount immediately.

Staff also provided a ballpark budget note: if the county were to consolidate financial systems, the presenter said there would be an additional one-time cost and ongoing service differences; the presenter characterized the additional one-time replacement cost discussed during the meeting as roughly $41,000 above some current licensing items, and noted a larger annual figure mentioned for another vendor module ($75,000). Staff emphasized the county was not planning an immediate change and was presenting options to be proactive.

The presentation concluded with staff offering to bring more specific cost estimates and vendor comparisons to a future meeting if commissioners wanted to pursue a formal replacement study.

Ending: Commissioners took the information as an update and asked staff to return with more precise cost estimates and a timeline only if Harris or other vendors notify the county they will discontinue specific services.