1. Overview and Introduction

Broward County Activity‐Based AnalysisCounty Records

Analysis Completed on April 20, 2009

April 2009 © Copyright 2009, EquaTerra, All Rights Reserved Page 1 of 20

1. Overview and Introduction EquaTerra completed an Activity‐Based Analysis of the County Records Agency in Broward County on April 20, 2009. To comprehensively assess the business processes within the agency (used to indicate this particular department, agency, or section) along with the potential value associated with an ERP implementation, the following methodology was followed:

• Analyzed all relevant departmental information • Conducted analysis of department activities, documenting costs • Surveyed all division employees, detailing their time allocations and perceived issues • Discussed and documented key issues with department leaders and employees • Developed a Return on Investment (ROI) model that demonstrates the department cost

drivers that can be removed. This analysis, and the data presented in this report, was confined to this specific agency. There will be other reports that present combined data for common processes across the county.

Agency Mission Statements and Overview (By Section) County Records The purpose of the County Records Section is administer the Official Records System for the citizens of Broward County for the purposes of recording and cataloging recordable public records and collection of established fees; and to ensure compliance with Florida law as it relates to the retention and disposal of public records. The County Records Section is responsible for providing a central repository on microfilm and/or optical disk of legal documents related to ownership of real property such as deeds, mortgages, liens, and court judgments. Required fees are collected and remitted to the Department of Revenue. Assistance is provided to the public in locating documents and obtaining copies. Secretaries attend Commission meetings, take notes, and prepare reports that become Public Records. The Records Center warehouses and arranges for disposition of Broward County and some Constitutional Officer Records, pursuant to State of Florida archiving rules and schedules. Value Adjustment Board The purpose of the Value Adjustment Board Section is to manage the Administrative Review Process, on behalf of the Value Adjustment Board, for the taxpayers of Broward County in order to provide a means for taxpayers to appeal the assessments placed on their property by the Property Appraiser's Office.




The Value Adjustment Board Section is responsible for coordinating the process whereby taxpayers file petitions to contest the value and/or exemptions/classifications placed on real or personal property by the Property Appraiser. Special Hearing Magistrates (Attorneys and Appraisers) are appointed by the Value Adjustment Board. The Board consists of two County Commissioners, one School Board Member and two citizen members. One citizen member is appointed by the County Commission and must own homestead property within the county. The other is appointed by the School Board and must own a business occupying commercial space located within the school district. The Special Magistrates will conduct hearings on the Board’s behalf, and the School Board reimburses the County for two‐fifths (40%) of the net costs of the process. Public Records Modernization Trust Fund The Public Records Modernization Trust Fund Section is used for acquiring new equipment and software, maintenance of equipment and software, personnel training, and technical assistance in modernizing the public records system. Some of the items in this category in FY 09 include: the purchase of additional Records Center fire proof racking systems, additional Index licenses, maintenance for Aptitude OnCore software, and the replacement of computer hardware that will be beyond its useful life. 2. 2009 Operating Budget The Office of Management & Budget (OMB) supplied the current operating budget for the County Records Agency. The current operating budget consists of the funds required for day to day operations, including salaries, benefits, supplies, and common or expected expenses. EquaTerra analyzed the operating budget because this budget funds the activities that produce repeatable services to Broward County employees and constituents. This analysis utilized the best of breed tools to identify the cost distribution of all activities conducted by the Agency. The following Chart A represents a list of budget line items that constitute the sum of the current operating budget:




Chart A ‐ Dollars by Category for the Current Operating Budget

The total current operating budget, as depicted in Chart A above, was distributed to the activities and/or processes performed by the Agency. The budget allocations were spread as follows:

• Salary Trace – For all personnel expenses, this method of allocation was used to trace the percentage of time spent on an activity by a given employee to the budget costs associated with that employee’s personnel costs.

• Direct Trace – For all expenses that can be directly traced to an activity from a budget line item.

• Headcount – For all expenses that remain and must be spread evenly across all activities, based on total headcount.

Using these allocation methods and an analysis of the agency budget, each budgeted position and all operational budget accounts were spread to key County Records activities (see below).

$5,187,508.00

$406,600.00

Salary & WagesContract SvcMisc. LegalPostage OITWorkers CompensationOffice SupplyInt PrintOfc Equip <1000PostageTel Alloc ChTravel/Per DiemSelf InsuranceCommunicationBus TravelBuilding MaintenanceEquipment MaintenanceRent EquipAdvertisingTelecommunicationMisc. ExpExt PrintEducationUnemployment CompensationComm & FeesSubscriptionDues & MembMotor PoolWear ApparelAuto Allow




3. Department Processes The assistance provided to Broward County employees and constituents is driven by public expectations and taxes. Typically these services are directed by public need and demand, which is in turn determined by the Broward County Board of Commissioners. The services are provided based on repetitive activities or processes that are performed by the Broward County Divisions and Agencies. The activities, sometimes enabled by technology, are funded by multiple line items in the operating budget. The sum of these component line items determines the cost of the activity. The importance of understanding activity costs is critical because:

• It provides a means of evaluating annual budget requests from Divisions and Agencies • It provides a means of comparison with peer organizations • It highlights opportunities to gain efficiencies.

During the initial facilitated sessions, the representatives of the County Records Agency identified the following list of key activities performed by the agency: Chart B ‐ Process and Sub Processes

Processes and Sub Processes General Administration Records Management

Identifying Locating and Accessing Records Storing & Retrieval of Records Security of Records Archiving of Records

Public Access To Records Providing Public Assistance Providing Technical Support Collection of Access and Copying Fees Fulfillment of Official Records Requests Fulfillment of Public Records Requests Providing Public Assistance

Recording Receiving, Categorizing & Scanning Doc & Records Indexing Documents & Records Cashiering and Finalization of Recording Process Index Verification Handling of Specialty Documents




Processes and Sub Processes Document Control

Recording and Producing Board Minutes Verifying Execution of Board Legal Documents Updating the Administrative Code and the Code of Ordinances Miscellaneous Document Control Support Archiving Records Recording and Producing Board Minutes Verifying Execution of Board Legal Documents

Value Adjustments Accepting Value Adjustment Petitions and Filing Fees Entering and/or Verifying Data Supporting Quasi‐Judicial Hearings Managing Value Adjustment Appeals Processing Changes to the Tax Role

Commission Agendas Assembling & Pub Commission Agendas for all Mtgs. Archiving Commission Agendas

Miscellaneous Support Systems Data & Phys Security & Integrity Miscellaneous System Support System Monitoring & Control Help Desk (Internal/External Customers) Agency Accounts Payable Data & Phys Security & Integrity Miscellaneous System Support System Monitoring & Control

Agency User Training Dev & Del Training Sup Records Mgmt, Off & Pub Records

Agency Related Functions Agency Accounts Payable Agency Accounts Receivable Agency Budgeting Agency Purchasing Agency Payroll Agency General Accounting Agency Human Resources Employee Expense Reporting Agency Fixed Assets and Property Accounting




The following charts, Chart C (Detailed Process Cost Allocations), Chart D (Percentage Dollars Allocation By Process) and Chart E (FTE Allocation By Process), demonstrate how the operating budget and FTEs were distributed to activities. This distribution is pulled from the Employee Surveys, which all agency employees completed, and agency budgets provided by the Office of Management and Budgets. The employees documented the percentage of their time spent on each activity. These documented percentages were applied, along with the corresponding number of dedicated FTEs and associated costs of each activity. These cost allocations was confined to this specific agency. There will be other reports that present combined data for common processes across the country. Chart C ‐ Detailed Process Cost Allocations

Activity Total Costs FTE Agency / User Training $135,033.98 2.125

Agency / User Training $135,033.98 2.125

Agency Accounts Payable $17,783.15 0.275

Agency Accounts Payable $17,783.15 0.275 Agency Accounts Receivable $76,479.15 1.230

Agency Accounts Receivable $76,479.15 1.230

Agency Budgeting $61,833.94 0.640

Agency Budgeting $61,833.94 0.640

Agency Fixed Assets & Property Accounting $2,506.92 0.030

Agency Fixed Assets & Property Accounting $2,506.92 0.030

Agency General Accounting $55,590.52 0.840

Agency General Accounting $55,590.52 0.840

Agency Human Resources $57,290.29 0.529

Agency Human Resources $57,290.29 0.529

Agency Payroll $21,891.04 0.340




Agency Payroll $21,891.04 0.340

Agency Purchasing $58,751.60 0.870

Agency Purchasing $58,751.60 0.870

Employee Expense Reporting (EER) $3,646.87 0.050

Employee Expense Reporting (EER) $3,646.87 0.050

Archiving Commission Agendas $15,906.16 0.250 Assembling & Pub Comm Agendas for all Mtgs. $184,317.22 3.020

Commission Agendas $200,223.38 3.270 Archiving Records $51,271.65 0.663 Miscellaneous Document Control Support $112,087.29 1.226 Recording and Producing Board Minutes $192,103.25 2.500 Updating the Administrative Code and the Code of Ord $21,472.72 0.300 Verifying Execution of Board Legal Documents $25,526.82 0.400

Document Control $402,461.73 5.088 General Administrative Activities $679,374.99 9.173

General Administrative Activities $679,374.99 9.173

Data & Phys Security & Integrity $42,574.58 0.460 Help Desk (Internal/External Customers) $124,817.51 1.315 Miscellaneous System Support $151,547.16 1.750 System Monitoring & Control $28,028.20 0.310

Miscellaneous System Support $346,967.45 3.835 Collection of Access and Copying Fees $530.04 0.010

Fulfillment of Official Records Requests $8,818.05 0.065

Fulfillment of Public Records Requests $19,886.09 0.150 Providing Public Assistance $66,799.85 0.905

Providing Technical Support $32,621.24 0.355

Public Access To Records $128,655.27 1.485




Cashiering and Finalization of Recording Process $684,336.49 12.540 Handling of Speciality Documents $78,374.20 1.500 Index Verification $227,094.48 3.620 Indexing Documents & Records $455,228.07 7.260 Miscellaneous Recording Support $191,528.53 3.043 Providing Customer Service $377,961.73 6.530 Quality Control $269,093.64 4.400 Receiving, Categorizing & Scanning Doc & Records $570,984.07 9.110 Supporting Recording Financial Transactions $359,239.03 6.195

Recording $3,213,840.24 54.198 Archiving of Records $42,270.09 0.675 Disaster Recovery $2,749.31 0.017 Disposition of Records $55,585.67 0.960 Identifying Locating and Accessing Records $75,145.98 0.880 Record Policies and Procedures $41,256.45 1.420

Security of Records $13,222.15 0.177

Storing & Retrieval of Records $76,300.52 1.260

Records Management $306,530.17 5.388 Accepting Value Adjustment Petitions and Filing Fees $40,152.36 0.575 Entering and/or Verifying Data $34,041.68 0.475 Managing Value Adjustment Appeals $50,932.34 0.615 Processing Changes to the Tax Role $31,885.81 0.375 Providing Direct Customer Service $109,384.50 1.475 Supporting Quasi‐Judicial Hearings $114,833.51 1.800 Supporting Value Adjustment Financial Transactions $26,817.10 0.320

Value Adjustments $408,047.30 5.635

Totals $6,176,908.00 95.00




Chart D ‐ Percentage Dollars Allocation By Process

Chart E ‐ FTE Allocation By Process

$679,374.99

$346,967.45

$3,213,840.24

Agency / User Training

Agency Accounts Payable

Agency Accounts Receivable

Agency Budgeting

Agency Fixed Assets & Property AccountingAgency General Accounting

Agency Human Resources

Agency Payroll

Agency Purchasing

Employee Expense Reporting (EER)

Commission Agendas

Document Control

9.173

3.835

54.198

5.388

5.635

Agency / User Training

Agency Accounts Payable

Agency Accounts Receivable

Agency Budgeting

Agency Fixed Assets & Property AccountingAgency General Accounting

Agency Human Resources

Agency Payroll

Agency Purchasing

Employee Expense Reporting (EER)

Commission Agendas

Document Control

General Administrative Activities




4. Process Cost Drivers During facilitated sessions, EquaTerra asked participating employees to identify barriers to success in performing their various activities. These barriers to success, or cost drivers, are typically the issues that prevent maximum efficiency and often cause rework to occur. The inefficiency measured in this section represents potential waste in work processes, and as such, provide opportunities to improve the value provided to Broward County constituents. It is important to note that inefficiency is not necessarily all easily‐addressable waste. Rather, it represents the maximum that could be addressed in time. The investment in an ERP system will be weighed against these inefficiencies by comparing ERP requirements that may remove the inefficiency. The following table demonstrates the Cost Drivers identified by agency employees:

Cost Driver Description

Lack of . . . (typically drives a need for growth of additional capability)

Funding Need more budget money to perform activity correctly

Resources Need more FTE to perform activity correctly

Training Need more training to perform activity correctly

Evaluation Criteria Need the ability to incent employees to perform activity

Progression Opportunity Need to know activities performed correctly will lead to better opportunity

Technology Need to improve or add new software to perform activity

Standard Policies and Procedures Need standards to ensure the activity is performed consistently

Leadership Need improved and more timely leadership to perform activity correctly

Accountability Need to ensure accountability of the activity performed

Impacted by . . . (Typically demonstrates an inefficiency that can be addressed)

Fear of Change Fear change or improvement will negatively impact my department

Strategic Direction The future is uncertain or unclear and requires more detailed definition

Decision Making Authority Politicians and/or staff leaders impact process through use of key decisions

Micro Management Leadership is concurrently performing activities, thereby impacted productivity

Manual Intensity (paperwork) The activity is manually intense and requires a long duration to complete




Agency personnel in the facilitated sessions identified barriers to process efficiency, and then established a relative impact for each of these cost drivers (minimal, moderate, large, huge). The cost drivers in Chart F (Total Inefficiency Target Dollars compared to Total Budget Dollars), Chart G (Total Inefficiency Target Dollars by Cost Driver) and Chart H (Total Inefficiency Target Dollars by Major Process) were documented during facilitated sessions. Employees provided feedback on the impact of cost drivers in relation to activities. This feedback and process costing led to an estimate of total work process inefficiency for the Agency. It should be noted that these cost driver results are driven by perceived work process inefficiencies, and are not an indication of efficiency for a particular Agency.

Chart F ‐ Total Potential Inefficiency Dollars compared to Total Budget Dollars

85%

15%

Efficient Budgets

Inefficient Budgets




Chart G ‐ Total Inefficiency Dollars by Cost Driver

Chart H ‐ Total Potential Inefficiency Target Dollars by Major Process

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000




NOTE: The cost driver analysis focused on perceived work process inefficiencies and used allocated process costs to establish total potential cost opportunities. It should be noted that the scale on these graphs, and the total potential cost opportunities, could be influenced by the total allocated cost for that process or agency, and also by non‐personnel costs that increase these allocated costs. Using the facilitated session cost driver discussions in conjunction with FTE and activity allocations, these distributions was derived using averaging within categories and cost drivers to identify the areas where inefficiency targets exist to support potential FTE and financial savings when these inefficiencies can be addressed. This analysis provides a target range which can then be compared with other agency data and process analysis. Some of the factors that resulted in these cost drivers being identified by County Records personnel are listed below under the discussion of work process limitations after Chart J, Benchmark Analysis, and prior to Section 6, Aligning ERP Requirements to Inefficiencies. 5. Benchmark Analysis There was no industry standard benchmark data available where similar processes could be validated and similar data collection processes were utilized (i.e., activity based costing). As a result, benchmark data could not be used to support the cost driver analysis for these specific County Records activities although an enterprise wide assessment was performed for all business support activities.

Chart I – Metric Analysis

Organizational Metric Broward

Labor to Budget Ratio 85.19%

General and Administrative Ratio 11.00%

Operating Metric Broward

Operating Cost per FTE $65,020

Labor Cost per FTE $55,390

A desired labor‐to‐budget ratio will typically fall in the 75% ‐ 85% range indicating a balance between budgeted employee costs and budgeted operational costs. When that is higher, budgeted operational costs may not be sufficient to effectively sustain employees. The second ration, general and administrative ratio, will fall between 12% and 15% indicating the ability of management to devote time to planning and program management. Being too lean in this metric many indicate insufficient management, while dedicating more than 15% of the operational budget to this metric may indicate too many layer of management.




The cost driver data came from facilitated sessions where Broward County personnel focused on the perceived inefficiencies that impacted the County Records work processes (see Section 4, Process Cost Drivers). As illustrated in these cost driver graphs, the primary areas of perceived inefficiency were as follows:

• Recording • Records Management • Value Adjustments

These functions were impacted by some common cost drivers like funding, resources and training, however they were also consistently impacted by manual intensity. Neither of these analyses, either the cost driver or the benchmark analysis, can provide a scientific measurement of savings that can be provided through an ERP implementation. However, they can provide target ranges that be compared with other data and an experienced assessment of ERP functionality as it relates to these specific business processes. This methodology has proved itself to be reliable in previous public sector engagements, and can certainly set return on investment (ROI) expectations. However, again these reviews will just provide a good target when similar processes can be compared. This preliminary target data will be followed up with a post implementation analysis to confirm these target ranges. These analyses are further validated by County Records work process limitations identified during facilitated sessions. A summary of the more significant process limitations include:

• The interface between the official records application (OnCore) and the financial system of record (AMS) is manual and all receipt and refund transactions must be manually entered into AMS. In addition, the cash receipts are entered as summary transactions so any detailed review much be made through the official records application.

• Shadow application systems (i.e., Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Microsoft Project) are used for some management tracking and reporting. Although these tools work well as an intermediate solution, they are not intended for use in complex reporting as required by the County Records agency. Using these tools for complex reporting actually contributes to and creates manual work, because most often than not, these apps contain data that must be either uploaded or retyped into a central system of record. The most challenging barrier created for upper management is the ability to access and report real‐time accurate data.

These work process limitations create significant manual work and require duplicate data entry. In addition, the inability to effectively access source data for management reporting impacts the reliability of this information.




6. Aligning ERP Requirements to Inefficiencies Once the inefficiencies were documented, the current state process flows were redesigned to become the future state or desired process flows that will be enabled by an ERP solution. A key differentiator for EquaTerra is that we capture the variance between what is possible (100% of all ERP Requirements implemented/100% of all inefficiencies removed) and what is realistic from a change and training perspective. The realism is related to combination of current systems and employee skill sets (employee ability to change) and employee perceptions and politics related to change (employee willingness to change). The measure of employee ability to change and employee willingness to change formulate the view of employee adoption. If the employees don’t adopt the new system, then more resources and money will be needed to operate the system and inherently, savings will be lost and the investment may be perceived as a poor one. Once the ERP Requirements are selected that best fit what employees will adopt, then the plan to implement the solution is formulated, which is called a deployment strategy. The Deployment Strategy provides a means by which to implement the change without requiring all change be adopted at once. These two steps are depicted in the picture below:




Functional requirements for other business sub‐processes such as Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Accounts Receivable, and Purchasing as well as other supported processes including Human Resources and Payroll, will be defined in the appropriate functional area (i.e., Accounting, Human Resources, Purchasing). These functional requirements have been provided to County Records personnel for review and input. 7. Projected Implementation and Related Savings Scenarios There are five possible savings drivers for Broward County related to implementing a new ERP system and reengineering current business processes. The following graphic depicts these savings drivers in relation to a standard business process:

These savings drivers have been evaluated based on the feedback by each department to provide a means to define scenarios ranging from aggressive to conservative, in terms of savings targets. Each scenario consists of the following information:

• Systems ‐ Current Systems Costs • Processes ‐ Current Process Costs (survey information and process statistics) • Outputs Improvements / Savings • Policy, Procedure and Controls Improvements / Savings • Target FTE and Savings Projections • Summary Scenario Comparisons




These savings drivers have been evaluated based on the feedback by each department to provide a means to define scenarios ranging from aggressive to conservative, in terms of savings targets. Each scenario takes Current Process Costs, Current Systems Costs, Cost Driver Feedback, Benchmark Comparisons, and the ERP Requirements into account to determine the savings that can result. The savings are based on improvements in automation, throughput and a reduction in the costs associated to manually intensive processes and systems that will be retired upon implementation of the ERP system. Each scenario is described below, providing a range of savings from which to determine the exact savings targets for Broward County. The Aggressive Scenario combines Cost Driver Feedback, Top Performer Benchmark Comparison and ERP Requirements in comparison with the current costs of business processes and to costs to subsequently produce outputs associated to business processes. The Aggressive Scenario maximizes the potential savings associated with implementing the ERP system. The savings are based on the five savings drivers and collected based on the deployment plan. The EquaTerra Scenario uses the same scenario approach; however there may be some differences with the Aggressive Scenario based on the specific areas and functions reviewed as part of these analyses. The Conservative Scenario (if presented) identifies any differences with the Aggressive and/or EquaTerra Scenarios based on the expectation that these recommendations can be attained. Systems For the purposes of these scenario presentations, all application systems used by Public Works are listed. However if this system is owned (or primary application) by another agency, any proposed retirements and cost savings will be reflected in those reports. Application costs in the scenario tables reflect operating expense only (i.e., annual maintenance costs, upgrade costs, license fees) and not any personnel resources (i.e., dedicated county technology support). They are presented for this agency regardless of where the operating expenses are actually paid (agency or ETS).

Aggressive Scenario

Application Systems FY2009 Cost Retire System Proposed Retirement TimingAMS Advantage / Financial System $0 N/A >> Accounting <<AMS infoAdvantage Report Writer $0 N/A >> Accounting <<Aptitude Solutions (Land/Real Estate) ** $0 No N/AAxia (Tax Appeals Board) ** $0 No N/A




As there are no application systems recommended for retirement, no other scenarios will be presented. Process Output Improvements / Savings Aggressive Scenario

Impacted Output Type of Impact Recommended Result Impact OccursNone Identified

Policy, Procedure and Controls Improvements / Savings The implementation of an ERP solution most often address business process improvements that may have direct impacts on current policies, procedures, and controls in an organization. These controls which are often established and executed to ensure certain audit capabilities where a system lacks the automation and internal system controls. An ERP solution could alleviate the need for these types of manual controls by having the system controls built‐in, resulting in changes to organization policies and procedures. Aggressive Scenario Impacted Policy, Procedure, Control Type of Impact Recommended Result Impact Occurs

Organization Re‐alignment Organization Reporting Lines Augmentation Post Phase 2

EquaTerra Scenario EquaTerra believes that these process output improvements could be put into place as presented in the Aggressive Scenario, which would facilitate a single owner for each business process. The establishment of a single business process owner would include full responsibility for these processes, along with minimum service level expectations.

Empower/Global 360 ** $0 No N/AExtender/Lagato (Cultural Affairs) ** $0 No N/AOnCore (Official Records )** $0 No N/AOracle URM (Public Records) ** $0 No N/A

Total Potential Application Savings: $0 ** Application costs could not be determined Total Scenario Savings For County

Records: $0




Target FTE Savings For the purposes of these scenario presentations, targeted FTE savings from cost driver and benchmark analyses based on a review as to whether these target savings could be addressed by ERP functionality were used. It is very important to recognize that any FTE savings can only be secured after ERP functionality and business process modifications have been made. So for business processes modified during the first phases, FTE reductions could be made in the second phase after confirmation that these changes effected staffing as targeted. Aggressive Scenario # of Business Process FTE

# of System Support FTE

Phase 1 Reductions

Phase 2 Reductions

Phase 3 Reductions

Phase 4 Reductions

Total Reductions

93 2 0/0 2/0 0 0 2#/# indicates first the number of business process FTE, then System Support FTE (i.e., X/Y indicates X number of business support positions, while Y indicates the number of system support (technology) positions The Aggressive Scenario is based on the number of account clerk positions that now support many manual processes related to fee collections. These targeted FTE savings would occur after the accounting and purchasing implementation (Phase 1). EquaTerra Scenario # of Business Process FTE

# of System Support FTE

Phase 1 Reductions

Phase 2 Reductions

Phase 3 Reductions

Phase 4 Reductions

Total Reductions

93 2 0/0 2/0 0 0 2#/# indicates first the number of business process FTE, then System Support FTE (i.e., X/Y indicates X number of business support positions, while Y indicates the number of system support (technology) positions EquaTerra believes that certainly some account clerk positions can be reduced after implementation of a new primary financial application and electronic interfacing of that application to the cash collection components of the records management systems. Of the four current account clerk positions, EquaTerra believes half of these positions could be reduced as presented in the Aggressive Scenario. Savings Projections In some instances an average salary for the agency may be used to calculate FTE savings, and in this case the average County Records account clerk salary was used. (see Chart H ‐Total Inefficiency Target Dollars by Major Process above).




Aggressive Scenario

Department Budget

Savings Phase

Systems Retirement

Process Improvement

Output Improvement

Policy, Procedure, Controls

FTE Savings

$6,176,908 Phase 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$6,176,908 Phase 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,523$6,081,385 Phase 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$6,081,385 Phase 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings by Area: $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,523

EquaTerra Scenario

Department Budget

Savings Phase

Systems Retirement

Process Improvement

Output Improvement

Policy, Procedure, Controls

FTE Savings

$6,176,908 Phase 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$6,176,908 Phase 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,523$6,081,385 Phase 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$6,081,385 Phase 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Savings by Area: $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,523

Scenario Comparisons

AREA AGGRESSIVE EQUATERRA Systems Retirement $0 $0 Process Improvement $0 $0 Output Improvement $0 $0 Policy, Procedure, Controls $0 $0 FTE Savings $95,523 $95,523

TOTALS $95,523 $95,523