Medford councilors ask finance director for plan to modernize city financial software

Medford City Council Committee of the Whole members voted to request a one-page plan from Finance Director Bob Dickinson by Sept. 30 outlining options, costs and a timeline to replace the city’s aging financial software.

The request followed a detailed review of the finance and procurement proposed fiscal 2026 budget and an extended discussion of the limits of the city’s current systems. Finance and procurement’s FY26 proposal totals $880,135—personnel $620,295 and ordinary expenses $259,840—an increase of $25,821 (about 3%) from the prior year, the council was told.

At the start of the discussion, Finance Director Bob Dickinson said, “we presently have a deficit of about a million dollars,” referring to the current preliminary gap in the overall FY26 budgets the administration is reviewing. Dickinson and councilors emphasized that fixed costs such as union contract increases, health insurance, pension funding and a rising DPW trash contract are the primary drivers of citywide budget pressure.

Why it matters: Councilors said the software question affects the city’s ability to process payroll, accounts payable and reporting efficiently and to reduce hidden labor costs across departments. Councilor Hussain opened the substantive software exchange by noting longstanding problems with the city’s financial software and asking whether the FY26 budget included any seed funding for replacement. “I know oftentimes when we’re here together, we talk about the need, how old our city's financial software is,” Hussain said.

Details from the discussion: - Dickinson said the city currently uses a software referenced in discussion as “admins” for general ledger functions, SoftRight for the treasury/cash book, and Harper’s for payroll workflows. He described a staged approach to replacement and estimated that a full transition to a commonly used package (Munis was discussed as an example) would involve “north of a million dollars” in up-front costs plus ongoing annual support fees in the hundreds of thousands. “It’s a big project,” he said. - Councilor Callaghan asked for an accessible comparison and timeframe, initially requesting a “1 or 2 page document” outlining upfront and long-term costs and the point at which investment might break even. Dickinson said he could prepare that outline “sometime this summer” and later agreed to deliver a report timed for the council’s fall planning cycle; the council set a formal target of Sept. 30 for the document. - Councilors raised implementation concerns: cross-department training will be extensive because every department currently interacts with the general ledger; the treasury’s SoftRight system must be migrated or interfaced; and payroll conversion would be a later phase. Dickinson highlighted the training burden as the biggest non-financial barrier: “The training. Obviously the up front cost is…a big number. How we get there, I don't personally know,” he said. He added that much of the purchase cost would be one-time software and consultant fees and that the city’s building infrastructure is now closer to the capacity needed to run such systems. - The council discussed operational benefits, including automated AP workflow and potential time savings for departmental clerks and finance staff, but noted the likely overlap period in which both old and new systems would run in parallel to avoid missed payroll or payment errors.

Formal action: Councilor Callaghan moved that the finance director prepare the requested comparison/plan; the motion received a second and passed on a voice vote. The motion asks for an outline of options, estimated upfront and recurring costs, likely phasing (general ledger, treasury, payroll), and an initial recommendation; the council set a target delivery date of Sept. 30, 2025.

Next steps and caveats: Dickinson and councilors said the document will be an initial planning tool; any procurement, capital funding or multi-year budgeting would require further study and formal appropriation. Councilors also noted staffing constraints inside finance—an open assistant finance director position and the department’s busy season—when setting the delivery expectations.

Ending: The council framed the request as a first step to inform capital improvement planning and future budget cycles rather than as authorization to spend. Members said they expect follow-up briefings and additional detail before any contract award or capital funding decision.