Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Financial Software Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Treasurer presents county financial-software options; commissioners hear costs and migration issues
Summary
The county treasurer briefed commissioners on current financial software (Harris), alternative vendors (Latt, Lao, XSoft), costs and migration timelines. No procurement decision was made; commissioners asked for more research and possible coordination with the auditor's office.
The Dubois County treasurer presented an informational review of the county’s financial-software landscape at the April 21 commissioners meeting, advising the board that the county’s current system (Harris) has functioned since 2001 but has had unresolved technical tickets and that several vendors have presented replacement options.
Why it matters: The county’s core financial system affects bookkeeping, payroll interfaces and interdepartmental workflows. Software change would be a multi-month process, could require a substantial one-time purchase and ongoing maintenance costs, and would affect how multiple offices (treasurer, auditor, assessor) share and reconcile fund data.
What presenters said Treasurer (name not specified in transcript) noted recurring application freezes and an open support ticket with Harris that lacked timely resolution. The treasurer reported Harris’s annual support cost of roughly $6,800 and described three replacement vendors that gave demonstrations: Lao (presented as a third-generation vendor and a common alternative), XSoft (early stage, tax-focused) and “Latt” (described as a longer-established vendor). The treasurer said a combined switch that would unify financials across departments would raise up-front implementation costs (presentation figures in the meeting indicated an example combined cost roughly in the mid six-figure range for full departmental conversion), with an annual maintenance figure quoted in the board presentation.
Commissioner and staff reaction Commissioners asked for more comparative research and for input from the auditor’s and assessor’s offices; several commissioners suggested a cautious approach. One commissioner asked whether it would be practical to continue with Harris for another two years while monitoring vendor maturity and pricing. Treasurer staff indicated a multi-month conversion timeline (estimated several months, with data conversion and onsite support from vendors) and stressed the trade-offs between low current annual costs and larger replacement costs.
Quotations "We have our Harris Financial Software that we utilize to reconcile, make deposits, make withdrawals, write checks out, and all those sort of things." — Treasurer (presenter) "...we've had problems where our software will... freeze up. We've had a ticket that's been out there for over a year that continuously doesn't get fixed." — Treasurer (presenter)
Ending: Commissioners did not direct an immediate replacement; instead they asked staff to continue vendor research and to coordinate with the auditor and assessor on feasibility, cost-sharing and a realistic migration timeline.
