This project was supposed to take 3–6 months. Three years later, it still wasn’t working. More than $100,000 had been spent — and even after the decision to abandon TownSuite, the record still showed TownSuite.
Staff reported two submissions: MuniSoft at roughly $45,741 and TownSuite at roughly $411,150. Staff then concluded the RFP process was not adequate to determine the pricing and features required.
Instead of restarting procurement, staff recommended TownSuite for finance and payroll, along with CGIS and FirePro for other functions, for a total cost of $189,218 plus taxes.
The remaining $68,885.07 is moved to reserve in December 2023, then transferred again in the very next meeting in January 2024 for the final purchase costs of TownSuite.
After a project originally estimated at 3–6 months, staff reported they were now three years past that date, had not achieved the transition, and needed to terminate TownSuite and switch to MuniSoft.
After TownSuite had already been terminated in September, the year-end carry-forward resolution still listed “Municipal Software Conversion to TownSuite” with the remaining $71,885.
States the RFP process was not adequate, then recommends TownSuite for finance and payroll as efficient and comparable to the Baker software being replaced.
Open April 2022 staff report →States: "We are now 3 years past that date and we have not been able to achieve the transition." TownSuite does not meet the needs of the Township. MuniSoft is confirmed as the more compatible path.
Open September 2025 staff report →“Transfer the remaining software funding… $68,885.07… pending the finalization of the project in 2024”
“THAT we transfer the following to reserve from the 2023 budget for use upon project completion in 2024: $68,885.07 to Operating Reserve for the final purchase costs of TownSuite software program;”
The record does not show any discussion explaining why the same software funding required a second approval one meeting later.
Project estimated to take 3–6 months to complete.
Year-end carry-forward: “pending the finalization of the project in 2024.”
Year-end carry-forward again: “pending the finalization of the project in 2025.”
Three years past the original estimate. TownSuite conversion had not worked. Council is asked to terminate and switch to MuniSoft.
R2025-237 carry-forward still lists “Municipal Software Conversion to TownSuite… $71,885” — three months after Council terminated TownSuite and approved MuniSoft.
By September 2025, Council was told the project had failed and that a vendor change was required. More than $100,000 had already been spent without delivering a working system.
This is how that moment was handled.
That isn’t just a software issue. That’s a governance failure.
Shows the two RFP submissions, states the RFP process was not adequate, and recommends the revised software package led by TownSuite.
Open document →Approves TownSuite for finance and payroll, plus CGIS and FirePro for other functions.
Open document →States that TownSuite had not successfully converted for Township needs after three years and recommends termination and a switch to MuniSoft.
Open document →Terminates TownSuite and accepts the MuniSoft quotation for software and conversion costs.
Open document →Year-end transfer moving remaining software funding to reserve pending finalization of the project in 2024.
Open resolution →Transfers $68,885.07 for the final purchase costs of the TownSuite software program in 2024.
Open resolution →Year-end transfer again moving the remaining software funding to reserve pending finalization of the project in 2025.
Open resolution →Resolution archive entry related to the TownSuite termination and MuniSoft approval.
Open resolution →Carry-forward resolution that still lists TownSuite by name after the September decision to terminate TownSuite and switch to MuniSoft.
Open resolution →If the RFP no longer reflects the actual solution being pursued, Council should stop and restart instead of letting a major project drift into a different scope.
Council should receive recurring public checkpoints on major implementations, with a clear expectation that failed paths come back for review.
If a project is terminated or changed, budgets, carry-forwards, and public reporting should reflect that clearly and immediately.
This case is about more than one technology project. It is about whether Council resets failed plans, tracks its own decisions clearly, and asks hard questions before more public money is committed.