Gravity pitches ACFR automation and public transparency portal to Westfield officials

At a City of Westfield committee meeting, vendor Gravity presented a cloud-based solution to automate preparation of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and publish interactive financial-transparency dashboards tied to the city's Ceramic Navigator accounting system. Megan Gagnon of Gravity led the presentation and Mike Madsen, acting CRO of Gravity, joined the discussion.

The presentation focused on automating the labor-intensive steps of ACFR prep and reducing reliance on linked spreadsheets and outside consulting. "A lot of it can be automated," Gagnon said, arguing that many enterprise resource planning systems "are meant to do the accounting, but they're not real great at getting the data out and reporting it in the manner that you guys need to report on it." She said Gravity's platform can produce a GFOA-compliant ACFR, support auditor collaboration, and publish monthly appropriations and other transparency materials on an interactive portal.

Why it matters: Westfield staff described a need to preserve institutional knowledge and reduce manual reporting as the city grows. Gravity positioned its product as a way to shorten ACFR preparation from months of manual work to an automated, repeatable process, and to provide public-facing dashboards that can be updated with a click.

Details from the presentation included integration options (direct SQL-level integration, API connectors, or manual file uploads), support for two-factor authentication and mapping to the city's access controls, and an offer to scope and build recurring report templates. Gagnon said Gravity has "over 230 customers across 40 different states" and cited Jeffersonville and Rochester Hills among referenced clients. She said customers report large time savings: "they're spending 85% less time on reporting activities." Madsen introduced himself as "acting CRO of Gravity."

Pricing and procurement signals presented: the vendor displayed an estimated annual subscription figure (presented on the slide as about $45,000) and a separate one-time implementation fee (presented on a subsequent slide); Gravity said the implementation cost could change after scoping. Gravity also provided an internal estimate of potential annual staff cost savings of about $105,000 based on reduced staff hours and consultant needs, but emphasized that exact savings would depend on scope and local staffing.

A planned live demo of a customer transparency portal was blocked by the meeting room's firewall and an unsecured certificate on the sample site; Gagnon said she would follow up with screenshots and links. Committee members asked for a list of local (Indiana) customers and additional information on the vendor's debt module, lease calculations and capital-asset ("capital assets") functionality; Gravity agreed to supply client references and the requested module details by email.

No procurement vote or formal direction to staff occurred during the presentation. The meeting record shows the item was an introductory vendor briefing and that next steps would be follow-up information exchange rather than a contract award.

The presentation included specific implementation considerations raised by committee members: integration path (SQL vs. API vs. manual file upload), permissioning and auditor access, ADA compliance of published materials, and the potential to reduce future consulting hours for ACFR prep. Gagnon said final scoping would define which reports the city wanted and whether users needed full, edit or view-only access.

What's next: Gravity will provide follow-up materials including dashboard screenshots, a client list, and module documentation. City staff and committee members did not take formal action at the meeting; any procurement or contracting decisions would follow the city's usual purchasing and scoping processes.