Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Information Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller proposes $60 million overhaul of city's legacy financial system; $20M requested over two years
Summary
Controller Ben Rosenfield told the committee the city's core financial system dates to 1980 and is increasingly unsupported; the office estimates a $60 million multi-year replacement with $20 million appropriated in the two-year budget (about $12M general fund), and projects a go-live around June 30, 2018.
San Francisco's Controller presented an overview of his office's budget request on June 16, emphasizing a multiyear program to replace the city's aging financial system.
Ben Rosenfield said the current system (referred to in presentations as the city's financial system, "Famous") was first implemented in 1980 and has had only modest upgrades since the 1990s. The system runs on a mainframe and is no longer supported by the original vendor in many respects, Rosenfield said, forcing departments to use an increasing number of subsidiary systems for purchasing, vendor management and project tracking.
Rosenfield and his slides estimated a $60 million total all-funds cost for the replacement program; the proposed two-year budget includes $20 million of the program's early funding (about $12 million from the general fund and $8 million from enterprise funds). He said product demos and preliminary scoping have been completed, a project director (Mike Dearman) has been hired, and the office is pursuing benchmarking and marketplace reviews. A target go-live was described as June 30, 2018, with the project described as long and complex.
The Controller said the initiative is expected to reduce reliance on disparate subsidiary systems, enable improved procurement and vendor management, and support new employee self-service payroll features. Rosenfield also flagged related work to strengthen public financial reporting through SF Openbook and performance-management tools.
Committee members welcomed the proposal but reserved additional questions for the budget analyst review; the committee did not take final action on the request at the hearing and asked for ongoing coordination among Controller, budget analysts and the Board before adoption.
