Controller warns LUMA funding shift would halve implementation team without general‑fund support
February 17, 2025 | 2025 Joint Legislative Sessions, 2025 Legislative Sessions, Idaho
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
State Controller Brandon Wolf and staff told the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee that the business information infrastructure fund (BIF) used to sustain the state's LUMA enterprise resource platform will expire at the end of the fiscal year and the controller's office is asking the committee to bring most LUMA costs onto the regular appropriation.
Frances Lippitt, Legislative Services analyst, told the committee the controller's office requested a package to transition LUMA costs on budget: Lippitt said the office's fiscal 2026 request included adding seven FTP with $2,159,900 in personnel costs, $800,000 for LUMA infrastructure overhead in the computer service center, two financial specialists to expand agency shared services, and reallocation of leadership salary costs back to the general fund; Lippitt said the combined general‑fund cost for these items was listed in her presentation as $9,856,000, with an additional $5,500,000 requested as a dedicated‑fund appropriation for the computer service center.
Controller Brandon Wolf said the BIF expires June 30 and the office currently has roughly 47 employees working on LUMA. He warned of operational consequences if the Legislature does not fund the transition: "If you think about that, 20 of the positions, if we did not have the funding, then we would almost cut the LUMA team in half." Wolf told the committee the system is functioning but still needs staff to stabilize operations and support agencies during the transition from legacy systems.
Committee members asked about audit delays and agency support needs. Wolf acknowledged timing challenges: he said the office had been late in closing books (he cited an eight‑week delay in a closing cycle) and that additional staff would help timely financial reporting and single‑audit completion. He also described lessons learned from the LUMA implementation and volunteered to share change‑management recommendations for future technology projects.
Ending: Committee members heard the scope and risk of the funding transition but took no immediate appropriation action; staff agreed to provide follow‑up materials and to coordinate with agencies on training and closing schedules.
Frances Lippitt, Legislative Services analyst, told the committee the controller's office requested a package to transition LUMA costs on budget: Lippitt said the office's fiscal 2026 request included adding seven FTP with $2,159,900 in personnel costs, $800,000 for LUMA infrastructure overhead in the computer service center, two financial specialists to expand agency shared services, and reallocation of leadership salary costs back to the general fund; Lippitt said the combined general‑fund cost for these items was listed in her presentation as $9,856,000, with an additional $5,500,000 requested as a dedicated‑fund appropriation for the computer service center.
Controller Brandon Wolf said the BIF expires June 30 and the office currently has roughly 47 employees working on LUMA. He warned of operational consequences if the Legislature does not fund the transition: "If you think about that, 20 of the positions, if we did not have the funding, then we would almost cut the LUMA team in half." Wolf told the committee the system is functioning but still needs staff to stabilize operations and support agencies during the transition from legacy systems.
Committee members asked about audit delays and agency support needs. Wolf acknowledged timing challenges: he said the office had been late in closing books (he cited an eight‑week delay in a closing cycle) and that additional staff would help timely financial reporting and single‑audit completion. He also described lessons learned from the LUMA implementation and volunteered to share change‑management recommendations for future technology projects.
Ending: Committee members heard the scope and risk of the funding transition but took no immediate appropriation action; staff agreed to provide follow‑up materials and to coordinate with agencies on training and closing schedules.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting