Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the It Project Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mono County advances ERP replacement planning; staff warn of heavy workload and backfill needs
Summary
Consultants and county staff briefed the board on an enterprise resource planning (ERP) replacement: an RFP is planned for August 2025, contract negotiations in late 2025 and implementation beginning in 2026. Staff and supervisors pressed for clear budgets and a plan to backfill departmental work during implementation.
Mono County officials told the Board of Supervisors on March 11 that a countywide replacement of its aging financial and administrative software is moving from assessment into procurement, but staff warned the project will require sustained departmental time and likely temporary staffing support.
Kim Bunn, the assistant director of finance and the county’s ERP project manager, presented the project timeline and said the county has completed an ‘as‑is’ analysis and set up process‑improvement teams with department subject‑matter experts. With technical assistance from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), Bunn said the county will finalize functional requirements and release a request for proposals in August 2025.
Why it matters: county staff say the ERP will consolidate multiple “shadow” systems, reduce duplicate data entry and improve budgeting and grant tracking; but the conversion will require many staff hours from finance and departmental personnel and will mean work must be backfilled so core services continue.
GFOA consultant Eva Olsaker described the next phases: vendor demonstrations and evaluations, narrowing vendors in October–December 2025, contract negotiations and on‑site implementation beginning in 2026. She also urged broad, cross‑departmental involvement to avoid designing the system without input from units that will use it.
Board members focused on two practical issues: (1) cost and funding and (2) staffing capacity. Janet Dutcher and county finance staff said the county has appropriated funds for the GFOA engagement and that roughly $200,000 was set aside for the first year; she and Bunn said the full consultant engagement is roughly $400,000. Supervisors repeatedly asked whether the county can realistically hire temporary staff in a tight rural labor market and how any ongoing costs would fit into next year’s budget.
Supervisor McFarland said the county needs a clear plan to avoid the problems that led to prior partial implementations of an older system, emphasizing that process redesign and staff training are essential. Supervisor Peters pressed staff for a precise projection of total costs, both vendor and internal, before the county obligates additional funding.
Bunn said staff will return to the board with cost scenarios and a proposed approach to backfill — including temporary CPA or consulting help — and described a modest slowdown to give departments more time for the process‑improvement work.
Ending: staff urged the board to treat the ERP as a multi‑year program rather than a single purchase; the board asked for detailed budget scenarios and a plan to protect day‑to‑day services while the county implements the new system.
