Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Government It Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Spokane County auditor's office seeks approval to replace aging recording system with Harris 'Acclaim' after vendor support costs rose

Spokane County Board of County Commissioners · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Auditor’s staff told commissioners they plan to replace the county’s aging recording system (Tyler/Eagle) with Harris (Acclaim), citing unsustainable support costs from the incumbent and a nine‑month implementation timeline; staff asked for authority to execute the agreement.

Auditor’s office staff briefed the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners on June 16 about a plan to replace the county’s long‑running recording and reporting software. Daniel Van Reinber, who said he manages the reporting and vehicle‑licensing departments, called the current technology “aging” and said the incumbent vendor’s support costs would be “not even close to sustainable” (quoted in the briefing as $230,000 per year for support/maintenance).

Daniel said the county selected Harris’ Acclaim land‑records management product because it offers configurable government‑to‑government electronic submissions, real‑time recording alerts and customer‑facing features that staff expect will reduce manual work and improve service. He described a nine‑month implementation plan with kickoff in July, configuration, data conversion and staff and public training, with a likely go‑live in March.

“We are in desperate need of some updated technology,” Daniel said during the briefing, arguing the Harris solution would deliver modern functionality at lower ongoing cost than the incumbent.

The auditor’s team asked the commission for approval to proceed with executing the contract; commissioners confirmed the capital funds were previously approved in the budget and asked staff to move forward with contracting and implementation details.

Clarifying note: in the briefing staff cited a $230,000‑per‑year support estimate for the incumbent vendor; staff did not provide an alternate consolidated multi‑year cost estimate during the meeting and commissioners requested further contract paperwork and implementation-cost details before execution.