2014-28707 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2014-28707
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE AND CITY-
WIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., IN
CONNECTION WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT ENTERPRISE
RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM, KNOWN AS EDEN, WITH MUNIS ERP; AND THE
REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT PERMITTING/LICENSING SYSTEMS, KNOWN
AS PERMITS PLUS, WITH ENERGOV; AND TO FURTHER EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH
EMA, INC. FOR A BUSINESS PROCESS REVIEW, AS WELL AS PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MUNIS ERP AND ENERGOV
REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS; FOR A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$7,200,000.
WHEREAS, the City implemented the Eden Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
System in October, 2004, to provide functionality across many of the City's core business
processes, including finance, budget, procurement and human resources; and
WHEREAS, the Eden ERP system is more than 10 years old and is not keeping pace
with the current functional requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, given the cross-functional impact and magnitude of an ERP system, the
Administration engaged EMA, Inc., to conduct a full gap analysis of functional deficiencies of the
Eden ERP system in order to ascertain the best course of action; and
WHEREAS, the gap analysis completed by EMA recommended that the City move
forward with a project to replace the Eden ERP system with the Tyler Munis ERP system; and
WHEREAS, the Administration is also recommending the replacement of the City's
current system for permitting and licensing, known as Permits Plus, through Accela Automation,
with Tyler EnerGov, a permitting and licensing system that interfaces seamlessly with the Tyler
Munis ERP system; and
WHEREAS, at the May 28, 2014 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City
Commission authorized a referral to the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee (the
"Committee") for a discussion on upgrading the Eden ERP system and the City's system for
permitting and licensing; and
WHEREAS, the replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's
goal of re-engineering core business processes to maximize efficiencies and service to
constituents, as well as improve internal controls; and
WHEREAS, at its June 20, 2014 meeting, the Committee recommended consideration
of the Project by the City Commission, based upon the following recommendations from the
Administration: 1. the replacement of the City's Eden ERP system with Tyler Munis ERP
system; 2. The replacement of the City's permitting and licensing system (Permits Plus) with the
Tyler EnerGov; and 3. the engagement of the services of Ema, Inc., in connection with
conducting a full business process review, as well as assisting the City with project
management and implementation services to assure a successful implementation of the
systems; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has recommended that the licenses and services
required for the Munis ERP and EnerGov projects be acquired pursuant to the National Joint
Powers Alliance (NJPA) Cooperative agreement number 113011-TTI, for technology solutions,
although Tyler has offered the City an additional discount over the NJPA discounted pricing; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has recommended that the services of EMA Inc. be
acquired pursuant to the State of Florida term contract number 973-561-10-1, for information
technology services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby accept
the recommendation of the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee, and approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contracts with Tyler Technologies, Inc., in
connection with the replacement of the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP)
system, known as Eden, with Munis ERP; and the replacement of the City's current
permitting/licensing systems, known as Permits Plus, with Energov; and to further execute a
contract with Ema, Inc. for a business process review, as well as project management services,
related to the implementation of the Munis ERP and Energov replacement systems, for a total
project amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
PASSED AND ADOPT t day of :TkA 2014.
:s
* INCORP ORATED:
ATTEST: .,
RCN 26�'�°� �r
r4
Rafael . Granado, City Clerk Philip Le n r
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\Procurement July 30\Tyler Ema ERP - RESO.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
&FOR EXECUTION
City Atto Date
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida,Authorizing The
City Manager To Finalize Negotiations And Execute Contracts With Tyler Technologies, Inc., For
Replacement Of The City's Current Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) And Permitting/Licensing
Systems, Munis And EnerGov Respectively; And With EMA, Inc., For A Business Process Review And
Project Management Services Related To The ERP System Replacements; For A Total Project Amount Not
To Exceed $7,200,000.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Streamline the delivery of services through all departments.Strengthen internal controls to achieve more accountability.
Improve building/development-related processes from single family to the large development projects.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.: N/A
Item Summa /Recommendation:
At the May 28, 2014, City Commission meeting, the City Commission authorized a referral to the Finance and
City-Wide Projects Committee (the "Committee") for a discussion on upgrading the City's current enterprise
resource planning (ERP)system, known as Eden, as well as a discussion on Permits Plus, the City's system for
permitting and licensing. The replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's goal of re-
engineering core business process to maximize efficiencies and service to constituents, as well as improve
internal controls.
At its June 20, 2014, meeting, the Committee considered the Administrations recommendation that the City
replace its ERP system, its system for permitting and licensing, and, prior to implementation of the new systems,
conduct a full business process review with the goal of maximizing operational performance, assuring internal
controls, and improving service to constituents. The Committee also considered the Administration's
recommendation for project management and implementation services to assure a successful implementation of
the project. The Committee has endorsed and recommended that the project be considered by the City
Commission.
The proposed project is comprised of four (4) major project components with the following associated cost
estimates:
1.Upgrading the City's current ERP system from Eden to Munis.
2. Upgrading the City's current system for permitting and licensing from Permits Plus to EnerGov.
3.Completing a full business process review (BPR) of all business processes impacted by either Munis or
EnerGov, prior to implementation of the new systems.
4.Engaging a dedicated project manager to oversee implementation of the new systems in accordance with the
results of the BPR.
Additional detail is included in the attached memorandum.
To maximize operational performance, assure internal controls, and improve service to constituents, the
Administration recommends thatthe Committee endorse the recommendations for transition ing from Eden ERP to
Munis ERP, implementing EnerGov for permitting and licensing, and engaging EMA to assist the City with a
review of its business processes, as well as provide implementation services(project management)throughout
the project implementation, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate contracts with all respective parties in a
grand total amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Endorsed by the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee on June 20, 2014.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1- $5,700 000 Fund 301 —Capital Projects Not Financed By Bonds*
$1,500,000 Future fiscal year funding contingent on approved budget
appropriations.
*SubLc royal of sixth bud et amendment for FY2013/2014.
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, ext. 7490 or Mark Taxis, ext. 6829
Si n- ffs:
rtmen a or Assistant Vii" pr Ma er
AD MT JL
T:\A A\2014\J ly\ o rement July 30\Tyler Ema ERP M .doc
AGENDA ITEM 1, 1 C
r�r
MIAMI BE/k o DATE
OD MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39,
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Membe th City Commission
a
FROM: Jimmy Morales, City Manager '
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS AND EXECUTE
CONTRACTS WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR
REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERP) AND PERMITTING/LICENSING SYSTEMS, MUNIS
AND ENERGOV RESPECTIVELY; AND WITH EMA, INC., FOR A
BUSINESS PROCESS REVIEW AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE ERP SYSTEM REPLACEMENTS; FOR
A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,200,000.
FUNDING
Fund 301 — Capital Projects Not Financed by Bonds $5,700, 000
(Subject to approval of sixth budget amendment for FY2013/2014)
Future fiscal year funding contingent upon approved budget $1,500,000
appropriation.
Project Total $7,200,000
BACKGROUND
At the May 28, 2014, City Commission meeting, the City Commission authorized a referral to
the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee (the "Committee") for a discussion on
upgrading the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, known as Eden, as
well as a discussion on Permits Plus, the City's system for permitting and licensing. The
replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's goal of re-engineering
core business process to maximize efficiencies and service to constituents, as well as
improve internal controls.
At its June 20, 2014, meeting, the Committee considered the Administrations
recommendation that the City replace its ERP system, its system for permitting and
licensing, and, prior to implementation of the new systems, conduct a full business process
review with the goal of maximizing operational performance, assuring internal controls, and
improving service to constituents. The Committee also considered the Administration's
recommendation for project management and implementation services to assure a
successful implementation of the project. The Committee has endorsed and recommended
that the project be considered by the City Commission.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 2 of 7
The proposed project is comprised of four(4) major project components:
1. Upgrading the City's current ERP system from Eden to Munis.
2. Upgrading the City's current system for permitting and licensing from Permits Plus to
EnerGov.
3. Completing a full business process review (BPR) of all business processes impacted
by either Munis or EnerGov, prior to implementation of the new systems.
4. Engaging a dedicated project manager to oversee implementation of the new
systems in accordance with the results of the BPR.
1. UPGRADING THE CITY'S CURRENT ERP SYSTEM FROM EDEN TO MUNIS.
The City implemented the Eden ERP System in October, 2004. At the time, the Eden ERP
system integrated and provided necessary functionality across many of the City's core
business processes, including finance, budget, procurement and human resources.
However, the system is more than 10 years old and is not keeping pace with the current
functional requirements of the City. Additionally, Tyler Technologies, who recently acquired
Eden, has informed the City that the systems is end of life; and, that it will continue to
support the system in its current state, but will no longer dedicate development resources to
achieve any significant improvements to its functionality.
Given the cross-functional impact and magnitude of an ERP system, it was necessary to
complete a high level due diligence before recommending any option to replace the aging
Eden ERP system. Therefore, to better understand the functional deficiencies of the Eden
ERP being reported by City departments, as well as identifying possible options that the City
may consider in addressing the aging Eden ERP system, the Administration engaged EMA
Y g
to conduct a full gap analysis of functional deficiencies of the system and provide options for
moving forward.
EMA is a multi-national service provider with over 30 years of experience in assisting public
agencies with their technological, best practices and strategic planning requirements. EMA
has assisted other local jurisdictions in similar projects and has been awarded several large
cooperative agreements with federal and state governments, including the State of Florida.
EMA has completed the ERP Gap Analysis (the "Report"), which is attached for your perusal
(Appendix A). The Report includes many of the specific gaps identified by City departments
as barriers to maximizing performance, internal controls and service to constituents, as well
as the following three options for addressing the deficiencies:
1. Remain with the Eden ERP, but engage Tyler Technologies to address the functional
gaps through City-specific customizations; or
2. Transition from Eden ERP to Munis ERP; or
3. Release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to consider other ERP options.
Option 1 (remaining with the Eden ERP) is not recommended since this option would require
the City to contract with Tyler Technologies to implement the necessary changes through
� Y Y
City-specific system modifications. In the long run, this option creates a multitude of issues
with supporting a system that deviates so significantly from the baseline system.
Additionally, at time of implementation, Eden ERP was deployed utilizing p ast business
,
processes that the Administration is seeking to re-engineer in a continuing effort to
streamline and enhance the delivery of services, improve building/development processes,
strengthen internal controls, and maximize innovation and performance.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 3 of 7
Option 3 (releasing an RFP) is not recommended due to the City's size and functional
requirements and Tyler Technologies' role in the public sector ERP market, possible viable
candidates for replacing the system would only include Tyler Technologies and, possibly,
one or two other ERP providers. Additionally, an RFP would delay the beginning of
upgrading of the current ERP by, at least, 9 — 12 months, over the expected 36 month
period for implementing a new system.
The Report recommends that the City proceed with Option 2 — transition from Eden ERP to
Munis ERP. This recommendation is primarily based on: the heavily discounted costs
proposed by Tyler Technologies; the ability of the Munis ERP to serve the City's needs now
and into the foreseeable future; and Tyler's experience in the public sector. The Report
notes that significant discounts proposed by Tyler Technologies makes a compelling
financial case for the upgrade. Additionally, given Tyler Technologies' client base and Munis'
flagship status within the company, the City will benefit from current and emerging
technologies and transitioning from Eden ERP to Munis ERP, given that both systems are
owned by Tyler Technologies, is expected to minimize potential problems with—data
conversion and other implementation tasks. Finally, Tyler Technologies' extensive client
public sector base and user community will benefit the City in terms of future product
development and opportunities to work with similar public sector agencies on solutions and
system upgrades. According to the Report, a transition from Eden ERP to Munis ERP will
provide the City with the functionality it requires at discounted pricing without delays from an
extended selection process.
In addition to the benefits of Option 2 included in the Report, given the when considering
Eden ERP's end-of-life status, the Administration has concerns that, as current Eden ERP
clients transition to Munis or other ERP systems, the City may be faced with limited
enhancements and support to the current Eden system, and anticipates possible impacts on
to maintenance costs resulting from a reduced client pool and other functional issues related
to the continued use of a system that is end of life.
In response to the City's need for greater functionality, Tyler Technologies has offered to
transition the City from the Eden ERP to its flagship ERP, Munis, at a significant cost
savings by discounting the complete cost of any module license in the Munis ERP that the
City currently owns in the Eden ERP. This amounts to approximately $1,138,150 in license
fee discounts, as well as a 50% discount in data conversion costs totaling $63,150, for a
total discount of approximately $1,201,300.
The costs associated with the Eden to Munis conversion are included in Appendix C.
2. UPGRADING THE CITY'S CURRENT SYSTEM FOR PERMITTING AND LICENSING
FROM PERMITS PLUS TO ENERGOV.
In 2010 the Building Department started a project to replace the Permits Plus system,
currently in use, with Accela Automation. The project attempted to provide full integration
with the permitting, automated approvals workflows, and interface with other City's key
applications for financials and customer service. The goal was to have a solution with the
highest data accuracy, quality of service, system and user security standards and
integration between the department's applications.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 4 of 7
The City experienced significant challenges with the implementation of the Accela product.
Many of the issues with the implementation of Accela Automation were related to the City's
complex business processes which were not analyzed or refined prior to implementation in
order to streamline the burdensome procedures that cause bottlenecks and duplicity of
efforts. Other issues were related to the configuration of an intricate fee structure for
services, as well as Accela's integration with Eden in the context of Finance and Code
Enforcement. Additionally, the implementation of Accela Automation did not incorporate
critical Planning processes and left much of that department's functions to be conducted
utilizing outdated and ineffective manual processes.
The EnerGov option provides out of the box solutions for Building, Planning, and Code
Enforcement without the need for significant scripting. Processes such as Plans Review,
Inspections, Code Enforcement and Cashiering are all processed within EnerGov.
Additionally, Business License (Tax Receipts) is also managed in EnverGov which will
facilitate and simplify the issuance and renewal of Business Tax Receipts.
The proposed EnerGov package includes a Citizen Access Portal for online BTR
submission and renewal, Permit & Plans Submission as well as Inspection Scheduling,
Complaint Submission and the ability to check status.
EnerGov provides a seamless interface with Munis (Eden's replacement) and the Tyler
Cashiering component will provide a continuous interface that will allow for real time
cashiering in both Munis and EnerGov. All permit applications and board orders will be
associated to its corresponding address supported through Geographic Information System
(GIS) which creates a historical record of approvals and permits to each parcel.
The costs associated with the Permits Plus to EnerGov conversion are included in Appendix
C.
3. COMPLETING A FULL BUSINESS PROCESS REVIEW (BPR) OF ALL BUSINESS
PROCESSES IMPACTED BY EITHER MUNIS OR ENERGOV, PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SYSTEMS.
A critical component of any ERP implementation is the corresponding review, streamlining
or other improvements to the organization's business processes. A commonly held
viewpoint in the business literature is that ERP implementations alone will not resolve
significantly deficient business processes; and, that to do so, ERP implementations must
begin with a business process review first. Otherwise, the organization runs the risk of re-
implementing deficient, outdated or cumbersome business processes leftover from the prior
ERP, incurring significant costs in system customization to accommodate legacy processes,
and not achieving quality p the ualit improvements intended to be achieved as a result of the
implementation of the news stem. In short, streamlining of processes must occur before
p Y 9
any ERP implementation begins for the organization to avoid a continuation of unnecessarily
complex or outdated processes.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 5 of 7
Therefore, to assure that the City's business processes reflect the aforementioned goals of
streamlining, process improvements, strengthening of internal controls, and maximizing
innovation and performance, the Administration is recommending that a full business
process review (BPR) of all functional areas of the new systems be completed prior to the
commencement of implementation activities. The goal of the BPR process is two-fold: 1)
make business operations more efficient and effective; 2) and, more effectively utilize
technological investments. In this manner, the new systems will be aligned with improved
processes offering the greatest opportunity to improve the City's business operations.
The statement of work for the BPR is included in Appendix B. The associated costs are
included in Appendix C.
4. ENGAGING A DEDICATED PROJECT MANAGER TO OVERSEE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE NEW SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE BPR.
The business literature is filled with examples of failed ERP and other IT system
implementations. Understanding the complexity of this project and in order to prevent
complications, the Administration has sought to understand some of the reasons why many
implementations fail. Some of which include:
• Lack of ownership and accountability. If team members do not understand their
role and the degree to which they are accountable for the success of the project, it is
nearly impossible to be successful.
• Poor change management processes. The goal of an ERP implementation, insofar
as practical, is to assure that business processes are fitted to the system and not the
reverse. It is understood that there will be some processes that will require system
modifications; however, these should be the exception and not the rule. The change
management process must be carefully controlled to engage leadership, as
necessary, to make decisions between possible costly modifications to the system or
enact the necessary changes in business processes to accommodate system
design.
• Getting bogged down by daily responsibilities. Without dedicated project
management empowered by leadership, it is all too easy for stakeholders to get
bogged down by daily responsibilities rather than completing implementation tasks.
This may result in project delays and escalation of costs.
• Lack of communication. Clear communications and understanding between
internal and external stakeholders, including project staff, implementation staff,
software developers and leadership, is a critical component for successful project
implementation. Project communications must also assure that system configuration
is considered through a holistic perspective rather than through functional silos.
• Underestimating the magnitude of the project. It is all too often that organizations
feel that "we can do it ourselves" and fail to secure the necessary resources to
successfully complete major system implementations. The Administration
understands the magnitude of a project such as this and wants to assure that the
resources necessary for success are allocated from the start. Dedicated project
management is necessary for the success of a project of this magnitude.
With the above in mind, the Administration is seeking the assistance of an experienced
implementation consultant to act in the capacity of owner's representative, to provide project
management and avoid potential pitfalls to assure the success of the project.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 6 of 7
As depicted below, the implementation consultant, under the direction of the Project
Steering Committee, will manage all implementation activities and tasks, as well as
communications between stakeholders, to assure the results of the business practice review
and gained process efficiencies are translated into a successful implementation of the ERP
investment. The implementation consultant will manage, on a full-time basis, configuration,
testing, system documentation (manuals), training and the creation of performance metrics,
as well as assure that only costs related to completed deliverables are incurred by the City.
This will assure that departmental subject matter experts (SMEs) are used to the fullest
extent necessary, and will avoid the need to reassign staff permanently and backfill with
temporary positions, (another option for implementation). Backfilling with temporary
p p Pp
positions is an expensive approach that may impede operational effectiveness of many
departments with limited staffing resources. The implementation consultant will be the
primary liaison between SMEs and Tyler Technologies to assure that configurations are
consistent with organizational requirements resulting from the BPR, and that the project
remains on schedule and within budget. Additionally, the proposed approach will ensure
constant coordination with leadership on project status and change management
requirements.
Project Organizational Chart
TYW
pb►twauapr
c j
M T�cfinoloylu
Building Planning Fhanca F proeurairant
111 ita�ozucao
EnerGov Munis
Given their experience in the public sector, the completed GAP Analysis, current contracts
with the State of Florida, as well as the knowledge of the City's requirements gained from
the business process review, the Administration is recommending that EMA be engaged to
assist with implementation consultant services (project management).
The statement of work for the project management services is included in Appendix B. The
associated costs are included in Appendix C.
Commission Memorandum—July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
To maximize operational performance, assure internal controls, and improve service to
constituents, the Administration recommends, as endorsed by the Finance and City-Wide
Projects Committee, transitioning from Eden ERP to Munis ERP, implementing EnerGov for
permitting and licensing, and engaging EMA to assist the City with a review of its business
processes, as well as provide implementation services (project management) throughout the
project implementation.
It is recommended that the licenses and services pursuant to the Munis and EnerGov
projects be acquired pursuant to the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) cooperative
agreement number 113011-TTI, for technology solutions. In addition to the discounts
available through the NJPA agreement, Tyler has offered the City an additional discount
over the NJPA discounted pricing. It is also recommended that the services of EMA be
acquired pursuant to the State of Florida term contract number 973-561-10-1, for information
technology services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approval of a Resolution of the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to
finalize negotiations and execute contracts with Tyler Technologies, Inc., for
replacement of the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP) and
permitting/licensing systems, Munis and EnerGov respectively; and with Ema, Inc.,
for a business process review and project management services related to the ERP
system replacements; for a total project amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A— ERP Gap Analysis Report
Appendix B — EMA Statement of Work for Business Process Review and Project
Management
Appendix C — Project Costs and Funding Plan
JLM/MT/AD
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\Procurement July 30\Tyler Erna ERP-MEMO.docx
I
i
APPENDIX A
- ------------
4v\jv
w
�.
CO - a
CONSUMPTION
LOW VOW No.oe C�hY4
X
� a y
t City of Miami Beach
't E
ERP
Gap
Plannoing ,
E N
and L
June 2014
E M ;�� 2355 Highway 36 West, Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55113
hood*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ERPGap Analysis........................................................................................................ 1-1
Why Eden to Munis 1-2
Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Software.............................................................. 1-2
Why Permits Plus/Accela Automation to EnerGov?.............................................................1-2
2. ERP GAP ANALYSIS
CurrentState................................................................................................................2-1
ProjectApproach..........................................................................................................2-2
StakeholderInterviews..........................................................................................................2-4
GAPList.................................................................................................................................2-5
Munis ERP Solution Demonstrations....................................................................................2-7
Tyler Connect Conference ..................................................................................................2-10
Cross-Functional Involvement.............................................................................................2-11
MunisERP Solution Quote..................................................................................................2-11
Summary....................................................................................................................2-12
3. PLANNING, PERMITTING, & LICENSING
CurrentState................................................................................................................3-1
Energov........................................................................................................................3-1
Tyler Connect Conference ....................................................................................................3-3
EnergovQuote ......................................................................................................................3-4
4. THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE
Software Demonstrations.............................................................................................4-1
5. SOFTWARE VENDOR MARKETPLACE
SoftwareSolution Options............................................................................................5-1
ERP Software Vendor Marketplace ......................................................................................5-1
CIS Software Vendor Marketplace........................................................................................5-7
Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Software Vendor Marketplace.....................................5-8
6. RECOMMENDATION
ERPOptions................................................................................................................6-1
Option#1: Eden (Not Recommended)..................................................................................6-1
Option#2: Munis(Recommended).......................................................................................6-1
Option#3: Full Request for Proposal (Not Recommended).................................................6-2
Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Software Recommendation .................................6-2
EnerGov(Recommended) ....................................................................................................6-2
Software Implementation Risks....................................................................................6-2
NextStep.....................................................................................................................6-2
0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ERP GAP ANALYSIS
The City of Miami Beach has outgrown the capabilities of its current Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) system. This ERP Gap Analysis report captures the findings and analysis specific to the gap
between their needs and what their current ERP system (a product named Eden) can provide. This
analysis was conducted through a series of interviews with key City of Miami Beach stakeholders.
Figure 1.1 is a graphical chart of a summary of the gaps by priority by department. The entire gap
analysis is included in Appendix A.
Figure 1.1:ERP Gaps by Functional Area
ERP Gaps by Functional Area
35 33
m
30 27
a
25
a
W 20
w
° 15 12 12 12
E 10 = 7 6
Z 3
5 1
0 _____.-...____.__..____......
_._�_—
Finance Human Procurement Budget Property
Resources Management
Department
■High ■Medium ■Low
This report will help the City of Miami Beach understand and quantify the gaps that exist between its
ERP future state and its present state. By understanding these gaps, management can create
specific action plans to move the organization forward toward its goals and close the gaps identified in
the gap analysis report.
While there are many ERP software vendors, only a subset of these vendors focus on the public
sector. Tyler is a leading ERP software vendor in the public sector. A 2012 Gartner study stated that
Tyler is exclusively focused on the state and local government market, with more than 98%of its
revenue coming from this sector'. The firm serves a broad cross section of government clients, and
the majority of those clients are cities of similar size to City of Miami Beach.
Eden was acquired by Tyler, but Tyler's flagship product is Munis. Tyler considers Eden to have
reached an "End-of-Life"status.While the software may still be useable, Tyler made the decision
several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Other public sector entities that
1 Gartner Inc. G00227887, The North American Local Government IT Solution Vendor Landscape, 2012
also used Eden software have migrated to Munis including the City of Bradenton, FL and Rockingham
County, VA. Tyler has provided a quote to the City for the Munis ERP Solution. This quote reflects
heavily discounted license costs from Tyler's"Clients for Life" program.
Why Eden to Munis?
The City has three main options to consider:
1. Eden (Not Recommended). Remain on Eden ERP and request some enhancements that
will require development time. These enhancements may never be available as Eden is in
"End-of-Life"status and it is not Tyler's focus for development.
2. Tyler Munis (Recommended). We recommend that the City take advantage of Tyler's
"Clients for Life" program which offers discounts on Munis license fees and negotiate a
contract for the purchase of Munis.
3. Request for Proposal (Not Recommended). Develop and issue a Request for Proposal for
an ERP solution that would likely result in a response from one or two vendors in addition to
Munis. It is already clear that, with Tyler's "Clients for Life" discount, the other vendors are
very likely to be challenged to compete with Tyler's proposed pricing for the ERP solution.
EMA recommends Option #2 — Tyler Munis. This option provides the City with the desired
functionality at a competitive price without the delay of the RFP process. The next step is for the City
Manager to utilize the Tyler price quote in Appendix B and negotiate a contract. This contract will
include a detailed Statement of Work that outlines the professional services that Tyler will deliver
when implementing the Munis solutions.
PLANNING, PERMITTING AND LICENSING SOFTWARE
The City currently utilizes the Permits Plus application for plan review, permitting, inspection, and
many other processes; however, the processes are not fully automated and are paper-intensive. In
2010, the Watson Rice Report reviewed the Permits Plus system and found that it did not have proper
audit controls and security weaknesses. The report directed the City to replace Permits Plus. There
were plans to upgrade to Accela Automation and replace Permits Plus, but there have been many
challenges over the last two years that have prevented the City from implementing Accela
Automation.
Why Permits Plus/Accela Automation to EnerGov?
City personnel have reviewed the functionality of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find
EnerGov to be a superior product. EnerGov's functionality includes integrated permitting workflows,
electronic plan review capabilities, a GIS-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to
citizens to access status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field personnel.
EnerGov has "out-of-the-box" capabilities that Accela Automation does not. Tyler was asked to
demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their requirements, and as
such, Tyler has provided a quote for EnerGov.
EMA,INC. 1-2
0 ERP GAP ANALYSIS
CURRENT STATE
The City of Miami Beach (the City) is a full service local government with more than 25 departments
providing municipal services to 90,000+ citizens. The City employs approximately 1,917 full time
employees and 246 part-time/seasonal employees on a 2013/14 operating budget of about $450
million. The City of Miami Beach is a destination city that attracts over 10 million tourists a year.
The City relies daily on an ERP system to perform administrative business functions such as
financial accounting, procurement, human resources, payroll, budget management, asset
management, and other tasks. Although the City might be considered a small- to medium-sized city
in terms of the number of citizens, it has unique circumstances and needs. The high level of tourism,
economic development, and growth requires the city to operate with an ERP software solution that
will meet the City's current needs along with the future needs as it grows and evolves. The new ERP
solution should improve the citizen's customer experience, enable operational efficiency gains,
i
ensure accountability, and provide transparency.
In June of 2004, the City selected Eden Systems (Eden) for its ERP software solution. Eden was
purchased by Tyler Technologies just six months before that in December 2003. Tyler Technologies
(Tyler) also has another ERP software called Munis ERP Solution (Munis), which it acquired in 1999.
In 2004, the City ERP selection process considered both Eden and Munis functionality and cost and
ultimately selected Eden.
Several years ago, Tyler ler made the decision to focus primary development resources on Munis and
not Eden. Today, there are still approximately 240 customers utilizing Eden Systems; however, since
Munis is Tyler's flagship product, emerging technologies and capabilities have been added and will
continue to be added to Munis and not Eden. As a result, several Eden customers have migrated to
Munis. These include the city of Bradenton, FL and Rockingham County, VA.
Tyler recognizes that cities such as the City of Miami Beach have business requirements that are not
met with the Eden solution. Tyler operates under a unique approach in the ERP solution market with
a program they call "Clients for Life". This program offers clients an option to convert from the
product they have outgrown to a product that is more suited to their needs at a heavily discounted
price. Clients migrating from Eden to Munis are not required to pay software license fees for
modules that they currently have. An Eden to Munis migration requires professional services,
hardware, license costs for modules the City does not currently have with Eden, and other costs.
The fact that Tyler does not require the City to pay for software license fees creates a discounted
price that is difficult if not impossible for other ERP vendors to compete with.
PROJECT APPROACH
The City engaged EMA to conduct an ERP gap analysis and this report is a culmination of that effort.
The project commenced on March 11, 2014 with a series of functional area stakeholder interviews.
From these interviews a gap list by functional area was drafted for the stakeholders to review,
confirm, and prioritize. The gap list was then provided to Tyler in preparation for a demonstration of
the Munis ERP Solution on April 10-11, 2014. During two days of software demonstrations, Tyler
addressed the gap list items and demonstrated where Munis had the capability and also identified
where it did not(i.e., a modification or enhancement would be required to fulfill the requirement).
Additionally, a team of cross-functional representatives from the city attended the Tyler Connect
Annual Conference on April 13 -16, 2014 with the specific goal of learning more about Munis
capabilities. Tyler also provided demonstrations for the Finance department. These included more
in-depth demonstrations of Munis modules such as Tyler Cashiering, Cash Management, and Utility
Billing.
Several third party software packages have been reviewed and demonstrated as well. These third
party software packages include PatternStream for automated publishing, SymPro for debt
management, and Skyline Software for leasing administration. Refer to Section 4 for additional
information on third party software. Table 2.1 below describes the project activities.
EMA,INC. 2-2
Table 2.1:Project Activities Table
Activity Description
Stakeholder . On-site interviews conducted 3/11/14—3/14/14
Interviews . 21 stakeholders representing Management, Information Technology,
Procurement, Human Resources, Finance, and Budget
• Focus on current ERP system deficiencies
Gap List 0 Compiled gap list as captured in stakeholder interviews
• Stakeholders reviewed and prioritized gap list
Final gap list sent to Tyler Technologies on 4/2/2014
Munis ERP . Tyler provided an Eden ERP to Munis ERP module mapping table
Solution 0 Tyler conducted an on-site demonstration of Munis ERP Solution on
Demonstration 4/10/14 and 4/11/14
• Demonstration specifically addressed gap list
Items that require software modifications or interfaces were noted
Tyler conducted additional demonstrations for Finance of the Munis
Cash Management and Utility Billing modules, Tyler Cashiering on
5/22/14
Tyler Connect 0 Team of 14 individuals representing Management, IT, Procurement,
Conference Budget, Human Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GIS
attended the conference
Team members attended Munis ERP sessions
Attendees further expanded knowledge of Munis ERP
Munis ERP 0 Munis ERP Solution initial quote provided on 3/31/14, 5/26/14,
Solution Quote 6/13/14;final quote provided on 6/17/14
• EMA and the City reviewed the initial quote and noted items for
correction or addition on 4/2/14
Tyler Technologies provided a revised Munis ERP Solution revised
quote that addressed items noted during initial review and during
demonstrations
• Quote reviewed by the City and EMA on 5/22/14
Draft Gap Analysis . Conducted on-site Stakeholder review of draft gap analysis report on
Review June 16, 2014
I
it
EMA,INC. 2-3
Stakeholder Interviews
EMA conducted stakeholder interviews with 21 staff members representing the following
departments: Management, Information Technology, Procurement, Human Resources, Finance, and
Budget. See Table 2.2 below for a detailed list of stakeholders. The interview questions focused on
understanding business processes, process inputs/outputs, reporting requirements, system
interfaces, process cycle time, and ERP system deficiencies.
Table 2.2:Stakeholder Interviewee Listing
Key
Stakeholder Name CMB Positon Department Role
Mark Taxis Mark Taxis Assistant City Manager City Manager Project Sponsor
Francis Frances Executive Office Associate 1 Support
Ariel Sosa Director Information ITSME
Nydia Gutierrez, er J Technology Project
Project Manager
P M P Manager
Alex Denis Director Procurement SME-Lead
Maria Estevez Assistant Director SME
Sylvia Crespo- Director Human SME-Lead
Tabak Sylvia Crespo-Tabak Resources
Samantha Hester HR Administrator SME
Sue Radig HR Administrator SME
Ines Ferreiro HR Specialist SME
Yesenia Alvarez HR Tech 11 SME
Jose del Risco Labor Relations Specialist SME
Trish Walker Trish Walker Chief Financial Officer Finance SME-Lead
Georgie Echert Assistant Director SME
Allison Williams Chief Accountant SME
Ramon Suarez Finance Manager SME
Frank Estevez Financial Analyst SME
Manny Marquez Revenue Manager SME
Juan Rodriguez Treasury Manager SME
John Director Budget SME-Lead
Woodruff John Woodruff
Michael Howard Budget Officer SME
EMA,INC. 2-4
Gap List
The goal of the stakeholder interviews was to capture deficiencies with the current ERP system
Eden in order to develop a gap list versus a complete list of functional requirements. It should be
noted that the stakeholders do not want to lose functionality that currently exists in Eden. . The entire
gap list is included in Appendix A. In total, 159 items were identified. Table 2.3 lists the number of
gaps by department.
Table 2.3: Gaps by Department
NUmber of
Department •
Finance 62
Human Resources 47
Procurement 24
Budget 19
Property Management 7
Total 159
Every department is experiencing limitations with Eden. The Finance Department is most
experienced with Eden as many of their staff were with the City during the Eden installation.
Consequently, the Finance staff reported more involvement with the selection and implementation of
Eden. Other department stakeholders reported they were either not with the City at that time or had
little involvement in the implementation.
Interviews with stakeholders from every department revealed specific gaps. These were captured in
draft form and then returned to the stakeholders for review and clarification. Additionally, each
department was asked to prioritize the gaps as high, medium, and low. Figure 2.1 is a graphical
chart of the functional area gaps by priority.
EMA,INC. 2-5
ERP Gaps by Functional Area
35
33 - - ----
30 27
Q.
C0 25
a
W 20
4-
OL 15 12 12 12
as
E 10 8 7 6
z 3
5 1
0
Finance Human Procurement Budget Property
Resources Management
Department
■High ■Medium ■Low
Figure 2.1: Graph of ERP Gaps by Functional Area
The Finance Department identified the greatest number of gaps; the department identified 62 total
gaps, comprised of 33 high, 19 medium, and 10 low gaps. The Finance Department gaps are further
broken down by areas within that department. Table 2.4 lists the Finance gaps by area.
Table 2.4:Finance Gaps by Area
Finance Area • Total
General Ledger 11 4 2 '
Utility Billing 12 2 2 16
Accounts Payable - 6 4 10
Project Accounting - 4 2 6
Accounts Receivable & 5 - - 5
Misc. Billing
Cashiering 3 1 - 4
Special Assessments & 2 - - 2
Licensing
Fixed Asset Accounting - 2 - 2
Total 33 19 10 62
EMA,INC. 2-6
The Human Resources Department identified the second greatest number of gaps; the department
identified 47 total gaps comprised of 27 high, 12 medium, and 8 low gaps. The Human Resources
Department gaps are further broken down by areas within that department. Table 2.5 lists the
Human Resource gaps by area.
Table 2.5:Human Resources Gaps by Area
Resources Human Area • • .
Compensation & Payroll 13 2 3 18
Recruitment& Position 7 2 3 12
Control
Training 5 2 - 7
Labor Relations 2 2 1 5
Benefits & Leave - 4 - 4
Other - - 1 I 1
Total 27 12 8 47
Munis ERP Solution Demonstration
The prioritized gap list was provided to Tyler prior to the on-site Munis demonstration. The
demonstration was conducted in two full-day sessions. Tyler began by providing a high level
overview that included Dashboards, General Navigation, Self Service, Workflow, Document
Management, and Reporting.
The City's ERP business processes are performed utilizing Eden modules and a separate third party
cashiering system called Core Cashiering. Some of the Eden modules have a comparable module in
Munis and, in some cases, Tyler has a separate comparable Tyler software module. Tyler provided
a mapping of the Eden modules to the Munis modules. Table 2.6 contains that mapping.
EMA,INC. 2-7
Table 2.6:Mapping of Eden Modules to Munis Modules
Tyler Eden to Tyler ML111iS Comparison of Existing ProdUcts at City of Miami Beach
Description-Existing Eden Configuration Description-Tyler/Munis
Core Cashiering Replace With Tyler Cashiering-Replace with S/W Cost
Administration-DD/EM Support N/A
GUAP/PG I Munis Accountin /GUBud et/AP
LaserFiche Interface Support TBD-Replace with Tyler TCM SE-Replace with S/W Cost
State Package Support N/A-Included with Munis
GASB Support Upgrade to Tyler CAFR Statement Builder
Accounts Receivable I Munis Accounts Receivable&General Billing Module
Interface Support Real Time Interface-Query) N/A-Applies to Core Cashiering Product
Human Resources Munis HR Management
Interface Support Real Time Interface-Update) N/A-Applied to Core Product
Contract Management Munis Contract Management
Special Assessment Munis Utility Billing with Assessments Included
Fixed Assets Munis Fixed Assets
Parcel Manager Munis Central Property
Tyler Payments-Hosting Fee N/A
Advanced Budgeting Munis Accountin /GUBud et/AP
Applicant Tracking Munis Applicant Tracking
Licensing EnerGov-for Business Licensing
Position Budgeting Munis Payroll
Project Accounting Munis Projects&Grants
Tyler Output Processing N/A
Employee Training Munis Payroll
Utility Billing Munis Utility Billing CIS
Handhelds I Munis UB Interface
Payroll Munis Payroll with Employee Self Service
Requisitions Munis Purchasing
Inventory Munis Inventory
Bid&Quote I Munis Bid Management
Accounts Payable Support Web Munis-eProcurement
Accounts Receivable Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Applicant Tracking Support Web Munis Applicant Tracking
Bid&Quote Support Web I Munis-eProcurement
Human Resources Support Web Munis Payroll with Employee Self Service
Licensing Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Special Assessment Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Employee Training Support Web I Munis Payroll Employee Self Service
Utility Billing Support Web I Munis Citizen Self Service
The on-site demonstration of Munis took place on April 10-11, 2014. EMA was on-site for the
demonstration session. John White, the Tyler representative leading the demonstration, took care to
EMA,INC. 2-8
review each gap item. The session was well attended by the City's personnel. Representatives from
every department attended, the session allowed time for question and answer, and there was good
participation. Table 2.7 lists the staff represented in the Munis demonstration sessions by
department.
Table 2.7:Munis Demonstration Attendees
Attendee
Glester Edwards
a`Blanco
Kathie Brooks
Allison Williams nance �
Benjamin Nussbaum Finance
�TFrank Este Inan,ce..
Georgie Echert Fib
Jimmy McMillion Finart ►
Juan Rodri manse
Lida Cristobal .
army argue
Ramon Suarez
Raul Soria Finance
Rub Ile Liberty
IRlt�art+i
Y Y
bra Patino
Scott Wagner F
Shaw„
Tracey Hejl Finbrim,.
Trish Walker Finance
Ines Ferreiro HR ����
WrT!antha Hestef_..AM 11
Sylvia Crespo-Tabak HR
5ser,a var
Nydia Gutierrez IT
Georgette Daniels
John Woodruff OSRI
J
Mike Howard OSPt
Tameka Stewar �
Steven Greene Plan
Alex Deni roctoom en
Maria Estevez Procu t o
aquel Aie .
Sandra Rico Pr4ruiT'tt
y _ t#
Shirle Thomas Procuremen
Steven WlWams P rant
EMA,INC. 2-9
• Department
Lourdes Rodriquez Purchasing
Sue Radig S isk Benefits•
Natasha Diaz TCED
John White Tyler
Todd Cloutier
Tim Vickers Tyler
After the demonstration session the gap list was updated to note if the item was demonstrated fully,
partially, or could not be demonstrated. Items that could not be demonstrated were noted as
requiring a modification or an enhancement to fulfill that requirement.
Tyler Connect Conference
Tyler holds an annual users conference that the City, as an Eden user, has attended in the past.
This year the City sent 14 representatives and asked them to attend Munis classes so they could
more fully understand the software's capabilities. Additionally, the users conference allows
attendees to connect with public sector peers utilizing Munis as well as Tyler staff that support
Munis.
Attendees included representatives from Management, IT, Procurement, Budget, Human
Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GIS. In addition to Munis ERP sessions, attendees
were able to learn more about Tyler products such as Tyler Cashiering. Table 2.9 lists Tyler
conference attendees.
Table 2.9: Tyler Connect Conference Attendees
Department
Executive - Mark Taxis
����
[Nydia Gutierrez, 111
Procurement Alex Denis
Maria Estevez
`Budged ° Michael Howard j
Tameka Otto-Stews
Human Resources Samantha Hester
Katherine Gonzalez
Finance =Ramon Suarez
:Frank Estevez .
Planning—EnerGov Carmen Sanchez
Building—Ener inda Bla
GIS Keary Cunningham
Prior to the conference, EMA provided a list of educational sessions applicable to the City. The team
reviewed the session list and planned their time accordingly during the conference. The insights
gained during the conference were valuable and strengthened the team's knowledge of Munis
capabilities.
EMA,INC. 2-10
i
Cross-Functional Involvement
The ERP Gap Analysis process included strong cross-functional involvement at the City. Over the
course of the last few months, from stakeholder interviews through software demonstrations, the City
experienced strong participation from every department in each step. Getting people involved and
making sure their voices are heard are important steps in ensuring long-term engagement with the
ERP project.
Often times Finance and IT departments take the lead role in a city's ERP selection and
implementation. While these departments certainly have key roles in the project, they cannot specify
system requirements for other functional areas. At the City of Miami Beach, all stakeholders
understand how the system will improve the operations of their area.
Munis ERP Solution Quote
Tyler provided the City with an initial quote for the Munis ERP Solution on March 31, 2014. EMA and
the City reviewed the initial quote with Tyler on April 2, 2014 and it was noted that the quote should
be revised after the demonstration.
Tyler Technologies provided a revised quote that addressed items noted during initial review and
during demonstration. Table 2.10 summarizes the Munis quote. Appendix B contains the full Tyler
quote. The quote reflects Tyler's Client for Life discount on licensing for the City's existing Eden
modules.
EMA,INC. 2-11
Table 2.10:Munis Quote
Munis
Software License
Munis Software License $ 1,511,600
Less: License Discount* $ (1,138,150)
Total Munis Software License 373 450
ota $ ,
Professional Services
Munis Services
Munis Implementation Cost $ 478,225
Munis Data Conversion Cost $ 126,300
Less: Data Conversion Discount $ (63,150)
Other Services
3rd Party Interface Testing Assistance $ 17,625
AP/PR Check Recon Import $ 1,000
AP Positive Pay Export Format $ 3,000
25%of Dedicated Project Manager(12 Months) $ 90,000
50%of Dedicated Project Manager(12 Months) $ 144,000
Dedicated Full Time Project Manager(12 Months) $ 249,000
End User Training-Multiple Sessions $ -
Estimated Travel Expenses $ 210,298
Extended Analysis/Functional Lead Training $ -
Implementation Day $ 52,875
Install Fee- New Server I nstall-W I N $ 12,000
Munis Admin&Security $ 8,225
P-Card Import Format W/O Encumbrances $ 7,500
Potential SW Modificaitons Bucket&Interfaces-TBD if Needed $ 124,300
Project Planning Services $ -
PR Positive Pay Export Format $ 3,000
Munis-Tyler Forms Library $ 16,200
Total Professional Services $ 1,480,398
Small Hardware
Munis Small Hardware-Scanners, Printers $ 41,800
Total Hardware Cost $ 41,800
*
-Purchased from Munis
Total Impiermentation as $1,895,648
SUMMARY
The City has identified the current gaps with its ERP solution Eden. Tyler has demonstrated that its
Munis software provides a strong solution for the City's ERP requirements.
EMA,INC. 2-12
Table 2.10:Munis Quote
..
una's uote
Software License
Munis Software License $ 1,511,600
Less: License Discount* $ (1,138,150)
Total Munis Software License $ 373,450
Professional Services
Munis Services
Munis Implementation Cost $ 478,225
Munis Data Conversion Cost $ 126,300
Less: Data Conversion Discount $ (63,150)
Other Services
3rd Party Interface Testing Assistance $ 17,625
AP/PR Check Recon Import $ 1,000
AP Positive Pay Export Format $ 3,000
25%of Dedicated Project Manager(12 Months) $ 90,000
50%of Dedicated Project Manager(12 Months) $ 144,000
Dedicated Full Time Project Manager(12 Months) $ 249,000
End User Training-Multiple Sessions $ -
Estimated Travel Expenses $ 210,298
Extended Anal sis/Functional Lead Training $ -
Y 9
Implementation Day $ 52,875
Install Fee-New Server I nstall-W I N $ 12,000
Munis Admin&Security $ 8,225
P-Card Import Format W/O Encumbrances $ 7,500
Potential SW Modificaitons Bucket&Interfaces-TBD if Needed $ 124,300
Project Planning Services $ -
PR Positive Pay Export Format $ 3,000
Munis-Tyler Forms Library $ 16,200
Total Professional Services $ 1,480,398
Small Hardware
Munis Small Hardware-Scanners, Printers $ 41,800
Total Hardware Cost $ 41,800
* -Purchased from Munis
Totahmplementation os $1,895,648
SUMMARY
The City has identified the current gaps with its ERP solution Eden. Tyler has demonstrated that its
Munis software provides a strong solution for the City's ERP requirements.
EMA,INC. 2-13
0 PLANNING, PERMITTING, & LICENSING
CURRENT STATE
As a municipality, the City requires workflow management and transparency for a variety of building
and business functions. These functions include planning and zoning, building permits and
inspections, code enforcement, fire permits and inspections, and business tax receipts (licensing). It
is also vital that citizens are provided with access to the status of their permits and requests to
provide transparency to the public. Currently, the City is experiencing a high degree of building
growth which creates more demand and work for the permitting, plan review, and licensing functions.
Additionally, the licensing process is in large part managed through manual workflows today. The
City's licensing entails an annual notification to businesses that their license renewal is due along
with payment for license fees and any outstanding city invoices and liens. If a business does not
renew or pay their fees, field enforcement personnel are then required to physically visit the location
to determine if the business is still in existence, has changed hands, or just simply has not paid.
While the Building Department may be the main owner of these permitting and associated
processes, there are other departments that are involved including: Planning, Works, Fire,
P � P 9 9�
Code Compliance, City Clerks, Parking, Finance, Sanitation, and the Special Events Division of the
Tourism and Cultural Development Department.
The Building Department is currently utilizing the Permits Plus application for plan review, permitting,
inspection, and many other processes. However, the processes are not fully automated and are
paper intensive. For a city with such high economic growth, the inefficient process aggravates
citizens, builders, and developers. In 2010, the Watson Rice Report, reviewed Permits Plus and
found that it did not have proper audit controls and security weaknesses and directed the City to
implement a system with proper audit and security controls. There were plans to upgrade to Accela
Automation and replace Permits Plus, but there have been many challenges over the last two years
that have prevented the city from implementing Accela Automation.
ENERGOV
City personnel have reviewed the functionality of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find
EnerGov to be a superior product. EnerGov's functionality includes integrated permitting workflows,
electronic plan review capabilities, a GIS-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to
citizens to access to review status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field
personnel.
EnerGov has "out-of-the-box" capabilities that Accela Automation does not. Specifically, City
personnel noted that EnerGov offers the following "out-of-the-box"capabilities:
• Workflow that is inclusive of the planning process thereby allowing important information
captured in the planning process to flow through to the permitting and other processes
• Integrated cross-functional workflows to enable notifications and tasks to be sent to code
enforcement and other field personnel
• Ability to handle fee calculations.
• Cross-functional visibility to allow a single field visit to accomplish multiple tasks
• Mobile application designed for mobile and tablet devices to allow field personnel to manage
caseloads, inspections, code enforcement, and the plan review process remotely
• GIS map sources that allow users to have a comprehensive view of an area or parcel. This
comprehensive view includes individual assets, code violations easements, and other
applicable information.
Tyler was asked to demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their
requirements and as such Tyler has provided a quote for EnerGov. Table 3.1 describes the EnerGov
project activities.
Table 3.1:Project Activities Table
Activity Description
EnerGov 0 Tyler conducted a demonstration of EnerGov on 5/2/14
Demonstration
Tyler Connect 0 Team of 14 individuals representing Management, IT, Procurement,
Conference Budget, Human Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GIS
attended the conference
• Building and Planning team members attended EnerGov sessions
• Attendees further expanded knowledge of EnerGov
The demonstration of EnerGov was conducted on May 7, 2014. This demonstration was well
attended by city personnel as well. Table 3.2 lists the staff represented in the EnerGov
demonstration sessions by department.
Table 3.2:EnerGov Demonstration Attendees
Attendee Department
Brad Mosher Bldg
Glester Edwar ,,Idg
Linda Blanco Bldg
��nttia I" IF tye aster ce ,.
George Castell Code
Hernan Cardeno Code Compliance
Manny ViIlar Code
Rafael Granapo
Robert Santos-Alboma Code
nne Powers
Georgie Echert Finance
,fish Walker;:
ENIA,INC. 3-2
Atteridee Department
Elet Tb r Fire rr '
Jorge Waulio q
Jean Meizosa Fire
it Fernan
Getty Mui IT
Laurent Yamen
Nydia Gutie+rrez IT
Carmen Sanchez Planning
Michael Belush Planning
�togello Plan
teven V�trnt
Planning
" 'ublic
3errtarV c #s>gral Public W—NMA 00*
Gabriel Forthne Public Works/En/Engineering
9
Adriana Centro Public Worsts"/M
Rhonda McPhWWn Public WbrIOWSonlitifth,
Raul Gonzalek TOED
Matt Kesler
Tim Vickers Tyler
Tyler Connect Conference
Planning and Building department attendees were able to learn more about Tyler products such as
EnerGov Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Solutions at the Tyler Connect Conference on April 13-
16, 2014. The insights gained during the conference were valuable and strengthened the team's
knowledge of EnerGov capabilities. Table 3.3 lists Tyler Planning and Building department
conference attendees.
Table 3.3: Tyler Connect Conference Attendees
Planning— nerov CermerrQ
Building,mr > a
EMA,INC. 3-3
EnerGov Quote
Tyler Technologies provided a revised quote that addressed items noted during initial review and
during demonstrations. Table 3.4 summarizes the EnerGov quote. Appendix B contains the full Tyler
quote.
Table 3.4.EnerGov Quote
EnerGov Quotes
Software License
EnerGov Software License $ 1,244,955
Less: Discount $ (239,545)
Total EnerGov Software License $ 1,005,410
Professional Services
EnerGov Professional Services $ 859,100
EnerGov Estimated Travel $ 54,400
Total Professional Services Cost $ 913,500
Total Implementation Cost ,1,918,910
Ell INC. 3-4
0 THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE
During the gap analysis review, stakeholders identified requirements for functionality that are not
typically included in an ERP software package; therefore, ancillary third party software has been
identified, and while not part of the ERP software, their installation and configuration should be
managed as part of the implementation project.
These ancillary third party software requirements include the following:
• Automated Publishing —The City's Budget Department requires the ability to rapidly compile and
publish materials from various sources including spreadsheets, PDF documents, word files,
XML, and other formats. This functionality is critical to streamlining the production of the annual
budget book. Tyler recommends PatternStream for this function and the City budget personnel
have experience with PatternStream.
• Debt Management — The City's Finance Department requires a tool to manage debt service,
redemptions, service providers, compliance, and reporting for debt or bonds. Tyler referred
SymPro Debt Manager for this function as it is utilized by some of their other clients and offers
an open architecture that integrates with Munis.
• Real Estate — The City's Real Estate Department requires a comprehensive lease
administration, tenant, property, and facilities database. Tyler referred Skyline Software for this
function as it is known as a software package that meets requirements of other municipalities
with similar real estate management requirements and those municipalities are satisfied with it.
SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATIONS
The Budget Department has experience with PatternStream and attended a demonstration of the
software. Budget Department management considers the software critical for production of the
annual budget book and believe it should reduce the annual budget book production time from three
months to one month as well as greatly improve the look and feel of the document. PatternStream
will also effectively overcome current reporting shortcomings of the City's performance management
software Active Strategy.
The Finance Department attended the SymPro debt management software demonstration on May
23, 2014 and found the functionality to meet its requirements. The software is relatively low cost,
provides needed functionality, and integrates with Munis.
The Finance and Real Estate Departments attended the Skyline real estate management software
demonstration on June 12, 2014 and found the functionality to meet their requirements. The
software is relatively low cost and provides needed functionality.
Table 4.1 reflects the third party software quote.
i
Table 4.1: Third Party Quote
Third Party Quote-
Software Licenses
PatternStream Software License $ 75,528
SymPro Debt Management License $ 35,000
Skyline Software(Property Management/Leasing) Estimate $ 10,000
Total Third Party Software License Cost $ 120,528
Professional Services
PatternStream Services
SymPro Implementation/Conversion Services $ 13,900
Skyline Software Services
Total Professional Services Cost $ 13,900
otal Cost 134,428
Yellow highlights reflect estimates or areas where quotes are impending
EMA,INC. 4-2
0 SOFTWARE VENDOR MARKETPLACE
v
SOFTWARE SOLUTION OPTIONS
The City has a number of options in the public sector ERP software vendor marketplace.
Additionally, since ERP systems are modular, the City has the option to select a separate stand-
alone software package for some functions such as a Customer Information System (CIS)/Utility
Billing system. This section of the report provides the city with information on the ERP vendor
marketplace. Also, per the CFO's request, there is a section regarding the CIS/Utility Billing
marketplace.
This information is based on EMA's experience and knowledge of the software vendors most
often serving the public sector. The marketplace and software vendor capabilities are always
changing as companies continue development efforts, vendors are acquired by competing
vendors, and other influences. There are other software vendors in the ERP and CIS market and
vendors with solutions for individual ERP functions; therefore, this information is intended as an
overview of the landscape versus all options available to the City.
ERP Software Vendor Marketplace
The ERP software market includes hundreds of vendors; however, vendors tend to differentiate
themselves on the basis of industry-specific business functionalities and essentially focus on a
vertical market. One of these vertical markets is government or public sector. ERP vendors who
focus on the public sector do this not only with specific functionality, but they also employ
application consultants, trainers, and other staff with public sector business process knowledge.
ERP vendors focused on the public sector can be categorized into Tiers, as seen in Figure 5-1.
Tier 1 vendor packages are the most expensive and rely on third party system integrators for
implementation. Tier 2 vendor packages are less costly and are generally implemented by the
vendor themselves. Lastly, Tier 3 vendor packages are least costly but generally do not have as
many capabilities and options.
Internationally known ERP vendors with 3ro
party system integrators dealing with larger
municipals/public sector entities with a Total
Cost of Ownership over 5 years of>$10M
g,
Regional or leis well known ERP vendors
typically dealing with medium to small
municipals/public sector entities with a
Total Cost of Ownership over 5 years of
-$3-- :
ors focused on small
AND mu nicipals/public sector entities with a Total
Cost of Ownership over 5 years of<43M
Figure 5-1: CIS Vendor Tiers
Figure 5-2 categorizes some of the more well-known ERP vendors focused on the public sector
into the tiers.
P4 cmAcz
tyler t
iU Meru Rbr Systems.
NO
IIUNIS
workdoy.
SUNGARD'
PNInnoprisei,:; >Gogsdale
&S�pri ng]: esa�►
•AII�AAI
Figure 5-2: ERP Vendors Categorized in Tiers
Tier 1 ERP Vendors
Tier 1 vendors provide ERP software that is able to scale and serve billion-dollar enterprises that
have multiple facilities or may be international. These systems are well equipped to support
global operations of large enterprises to meet requirements such as multi-locations, multi-
currency, multi-languages, and complex compliance issues.
Tier 1 ERP vendors are internationally known and generally require the client to engage a third
party system integrator. These third party system integrators tend to focus on or specialize in
vertical markets or the larger consulting firms have specialized groups within their company that
focus on the public sector. Some of the third party system integrators that specialize in public
sector implementations of Tier 1 software packages include: Accenture, Deloitte Consulting,
IBM, Optimal Solutions, and Ciber.
EMA,INC. 5-2
Figure 5.3 provides more detail on the Tier 1 vendors' strengths and weaknesses. In general, a
strength is that these software packages are feature-rich with many"out-of-the-box"features and
processes. These systems are very customizable to meet the entity's needs. These vendors
generally market themselves through Value Added Resellers (VARs) that sell the software and
act as a third party system integrator. A weakness or drawback of these Tier 1 vendors is their
high cost to implement, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and longer implementation times.
Vendor Strengths Weekr Platform Cloud/SaaS Tier
Options
Fewer into �
• Strong in options
manufacturing and than Oracle
healthcare. Can be less ,'
Many out-of-the-box customiza Oracle/SQL
standard processes. Small num Server/IBM Yes 1
public sect DB2
implemen
• Expensive.
• Requiresa
deploy. .
• Flexibility with Does not' gvaul
interfaces and billing,Payroll/HR its
partners. not well, Windows
•
Extensive union Yes 1
VARs provides ability Re Client/Server
to work with strong .
implementer. "
• Large deployed base C' ons
of implementations. also
• Very flexible—almost „!x y,to
�� (��• 100%customizable. to
Oracle Yes 1
• to
• Strong Payroll/HR F IMIEM
functions. also ��
ex
CN?ACLE custom Oracle/SQL Yes 1
►EO►LESOFI suppo Server
• Requir to
deploy ;w
• Large deployed base to soct--
of implementations.
• Very flexible—almost munid SAP Web
I►'•� 100%customizable. sector.
Requ" 4 Application Yes 1
Server
r r
Figure 5-3: Tier 1 ERP Vendors
EMA,INC. 5-3
Tier 2 ERP Vendors
Tier 2 vendors provide ERP software at a lower TCO and their primary target market is mid-size
public sector entities. These vendors utilize their own application consultants for implementation
services and do not generally rely on third party system integrators to configure the system.
The Tier 2 vendors listed below in Figure 5.4 are established vendors in the public sector ERP
software market. In general, a strength of these vendors is that their software packages are
designed to meet unique public sector requirements without extensive customizations. Another
strength is that since these vendors are focused primarily on the public sector their
implementation teams have a strong understanding of public sector business processes for mid-
size entities. In summary, these Tier 2 vendors have a lower cost to implement and Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) than Tier 1 vendors but still have strong functionality.
It should be noted that the average five year TCO for Tier 2 ERP systems is between $3M and
$10M. The City's quote from Tyler for Munis has a five year TCO of$3.8, which is at the bottom
of the range while still delivering the City's desired functionality. This low cost is due to Tyler's
unique "Clients for Life"discount program.
EMA,INC. 5-4
Vendor Strengths Wanknenes Platform Cloud/SeaS Tier
• Large or largest muhipk
installed base in M py
r
which
public sector. elopment
• Good set of ort resources
interfaces and
4�b ty �4'ft • partners. ent NET SQL� Includes utility billing Server Yes 2
e module. the project
ee�i'.M U N I S • Payroll/HR is well pendent on
,e suited for union PINI is.
complexities.
1400 installations of
-y
their software. ,
• Includes utility billing •` ntation
module. nges—many
• Includes police ikd Microsoft
J*WWOW Systems solution including pid entations. browser- Yes 2
- scheduling,dispatch ealWdlity billing. based
center management. esence in
est states.
• Lack of focus on ERP. delayed in
• Newest offering, 'ng new version-
ONESolution,has into
good purchasing lopment.
core financials. ry small number of
SUNIOMD Large number of ESolution NET Yes 2
partners. mentations.
not have utility
�large
i 8 e
• Modern object data operational
model. bilities.
• Mobile and tablet ncial software
workdoy
capabilities. m is less mature
• Transaction HR system.
processing due to -_ day software Integration Yes 2
deployment of in- arty as broad Cloud
memory computing. "' er ERP software
will require
day customers to
ISue a multi-vendor
IT.
Figure 5-4: Tier 2 ERP Vendors
EMA,INC. 5-5
Tier 3 ERP Vendors
Tier 3 vendors provide ERP software generally at an even lower TCO, but their primary target
market is mid-size to small public sector entities. These vendors also utilize their own application
consultants for implementation services.
The Tier 3 vendors listed below in Figure 5.5 are established vendors in the public sector ERP
software market. In general, a strength of these vendors is that their implementations are
shorter, but this is in part due to their smaller-sized customer base. A weakness is that the
software is not as capable and does not offer as many options across all modules. In summary,
these Tier 3 vendors may lack functionality that the City requires.
Figure 5-5: Tier 3 ERP Vendors
Vendor Strengths Weaknesses Platform Cloud/SaaS Tier
Limited number of
partners.
• Focus on smaller
Windows
B$$sA municipals—average 3
S o P i W w w Client Server
/ g
tom. size 40K. .
p�1t Not as robust as some
... ERPs. ..
Tends to be more >'
nsive in Tier 3
group.
C o s d a I e In general,financial Microsoft ,
5 g roducts may not be Dynamics GP/ 3
strong as utility SQL Server
illing.
my approximately .
$00 installations. ;
Owned by Harris
which has 25 different
products so
velopment and
P 01 n n o p r i s e iiupport resources are Oracle/SQL fir. 3
ead thin. Server
ery few
A.
mplementations.
R module is not
4.
mplete.
" West coast support
hours.
HR functions are not
S r i n 61'o o k as robust as some NET 3
ERPs.
Utility billing
n8
functionality is
average.
EMA,INC. 5-6
CIS Software Vendor Marketplace
There are dozens of CIS vendors in the
marketplace. Similar to ERP system CIS firms
dea lin larger utilities
dealing J '.1
vendors, CIS vendors can bef:`'
categorized into 3 Tiers.Also like ERP '.
packages, Tier 1 CIS products are the .,or less well known
most expensive with costs declining at ati + h1'1S typically
Tier 2 and then again at Tier 3. Tier 1 dealsInth utilities of
CIS firms are nationally known and aCCOUntS
typically deal with larger utilities. Tier 2
includes regional or less well known Small Ws with CIS module
national firms who work with utilities of less
than 100,000 accounts. Tier 3 is typically comprised Figure 5-6. CIS Vendor Tiers
of small ERPs with CIS modules.
Figure 5-7 categorizes some of the more well-known CIS vendors into the tiers.
4H HANSEN
CC��
TECHNOLOGIES
' "
1 itineris
A D v A N c E o i NORTHISTAR°
Y T i L I T r s T s T I M s W UTILITIES SOLUTIONS
A"
���aCogsdale
••;:•. tyler
I n,f o Fq HANSEN 8 'p'-'""hO1PS
: .MUNIS
New world SystemsInnoprise
h
h
Figure 5-7: CIS Vendors Categorized in Tiers
EMA,INC. 5-7
Tier 1 vendor products are the most expensive and rely on third party system integrators for
implementation. Tier 2 CIS vendors are less costly and are generally implemented by the vendor
themselves. Lastly, Tier 3 vendor packages are least costly but generally are not as capable.
Tier 1 CIS products represent the most flexibility, "out-of-the-box" functionality, and ability to
interface with partners. Tier 2 products are fairly flexible and functional and will interface with
most partners but are less expensive than Tier 1 products. Tier 3 CIS products will be markedly
less flexible and functional than Tier 1 and Tier 2 CIS products and less costly.
Both Tier 1 and Tier 3 CIS products are often applications or modules within ERP systems,
although not always. A number of Tier 2 CIS products are considered best-of-breed. In other
words, although they may integrate with some products, their primary functionality is utility billing
and they are not developed as part of an ERP system or suite of software. Best-of-breed
products often require more interfaces, but they are designed with this is mind and their utility
billing functionality is often more developed than that of ERP utility billing modules.
Planning, Permitting and Licensing Software Vendor Marketplace
Municipalities have traditionally relied on a combination of stand-alone databases or systems
along with manual processes to manage their planning, permitting, and licensing. As
municipalities strive to more effectively manage workflow and provide improved public
transparency, software vendors are developing and delivering products to meet these needs.
Therefore, there are many software vendors in the planning, permitting, and licensing software
vendor market but not all are full-service providers.
EnerGov is a full-service provider of planning, permitting, and licensing, software for local and
state governments. As such, EnerGov is experiencing fast growth and has over 5,000 licensed
users in the government sector. The product is comprised of Permitting, Inspections, Licensing,
Code Enforcement, Planning/Zoning, Mobile, and Online modules.
Other providers are expanding their software functionality to meet this full-service requirement.
Specifically, Accela has upgraded the Permits Plus software (a client-server system) to Accela
Automation (a new web-based system). The City utilizes Permits Plus today and was planning to
implement Accela Automation. Although Accela Automation delivers services via the web and
automates critical tasks associated with permitting and licensing, many of the City's requirements
require modifications. Some of these can be accomplished within the existing software
framework; still, other needs are beyond what can be accomplished with either one of the Accela
software solutions.
There are other software vendors that provide planning, permitting, and licensing solutions for
local government, including HdL Permits, Iworq.net, CRW Trakit, Permit Soft, and CAA-File
Maker.
EMA,INC. 5-8
Table 5.1 shows a listing of some other vendors that provide permitting and license software
along with their applicable software name.
Table 5.1.Permitting and License Software Vendor Listing
Vendor •
Accela Accela Automation
CGI Tempo 12.5
CSDC Amanda
Infor Infor10 Public Sector Enterprise
Microsoft Microsoft CRM 2011
Oracle Siebel 8.2.2, Oracle Policy Automation 10.3, Oracle E-
Business Suite 12.1
SAP CRM 7.0, SAP ERP 6.0 EhP4
StarDyne Tempest 71500, Vadim 1.38.00, Diamond 9.00.0131,
WorkTech 6.0, Pacific Alliance 3.06
SunGard ONESolution CDR, NaviLine, Plus Series
Tyler EnerGov
City personnel have evaluated the software vendor offerings for permitting, planning, and
licensing. Through software demonstrations and information gathered at the Tyler Connect
Conference, City personnel find EnerGov to be a premier provider that meets the City's critical
planning, permitting, and licensing needs that are lacking/limited in other software offerings.
EMA,INC. 5-9
• RECOMMENDATION
ERP OPTIONS
The ERP system is a mission critical application for the City. It is a vital system enabling the City to
perform administrative business functions such as financial accounting, procurement, human resources,
payroll, budget management,asset management,and other tasks.
The current ERP system gaps must be addressed. The City has three options for addressing these gaps
that should ultimately improve the constituent's customer experience, enable operational efficiency gains,
ensure accountability,and provide transparency. Each of these options is described below.
Option #1: Eden (Not Recommended)
The City remains on Eden for their ERP software solution and requests that Tyler add the required system
functionality through a series of formal system enhancement requests. Tyler would review and scope these
requests and provide quotes and implementation timelines for the City to review and approve. In some
cases, the desired functionality may not be available, or it may take months or years for Tyler to provide this
functionality.
Tyler considers Eden to have reached an "End-of-Life"status.While the software may still be useable, Tyler
made the decision several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Since Tyler is largely
focusing their development resources on Munis, it is likely that some of the desired functionality may not be
available or have a long development window.
Option #2: Munis (Recommended)
Take advantage of Tyler's "Clients for Life" program which offers discounts on Munis license fees and,
working with Tyler's quote, negotiate a contract for the purchase of Munis. Tyler has demonstrated that
the Munis solution will provide the majority of the functional requirements. Some requirements listed in
the gap analysis are noted by Tyler as requiring a modification and the quote assumes professional
service hours for those modifications.
Tyler considers Eden to have reached an "End-of-Life" status. While the software may still be useable,
Tyler made the decision several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Other public
sector entities who have used Eden software have migrated to Munis including the City of Bradenton, FL
and Rockingham County, VA. Tyler has provided a quote to the City for the Munis ERP Solution. This
quote reflects heavily discounted license costs from Tyler's"Clients for Life" program.
It should be noted that the average five year TCO for Tier 2 ERP systems is between $31VI and $10M.
The City's quote from Tyler for Munis has a five year TCO of$3.8, which is at the bottom of the range
while still delivering the City's desired full functionality. This low cost is due to Tyler's unique "Clients for
Life"discount program.
Option #3: Full Request for Proposal (Not Recommended)
The City conducts a formal selection process in which it further refines functional and technical
requirements, writes and issues an RFP, assesses the vendor proposals, develops vendor
demonstration scripts, conducts scripted vendor demonstrations, and selects a vendor or vendors that
meet the City's requirements. This selection process would add an additional 9 — 12 months to the
solution delivery timeline and add additional costs. As described in this report, there are a number of
vendor solutions available to the City; however, given the City's size and requirements, it is likely that
the viable RFP respondents would be Tyler and one or two other vendors. Tyler's heavily discounted
licensing would allow them to compete very favorably against the other vendors.
The disadvantage is that it extends solution delivery by 9-12 months and it is highly possible that Tyler
would provide the most compelling proposal and the City would select Tyler anyway.
PLANNING, PERMITTING, AND LICENSING SOFTWARE
RECOMMENDATION
EnerGov (Recommended)
City personnel have reviewed the functionality of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find EnerGov
to be a superior product. EnerGov's functionality includes integrated permitting workflows, electronic plan
review capabilities, a GIS-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to citizens to access
status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field personnel. Tyler was asked to
demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their requirements and as such
Tyler has provided a quote for EnerGov.
The recommendation is to move forward with negotiating a contract with Tyler for the purchase of
EnerGov.
SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION RISKS
The City should be aware that software implementations are a significant endeavor. It is anticipated that
this effort will take at least three years followed by a six month stabilization period for each major
module.Any system implementation has risks. These risks can include lack of organizational
commitment to the project, lack of alignment on project goals, unclear system requirements, lack of
user commitment to the project for activities such as testing, and lack of commitment to the project
schedule. The City will be required to manage risks that threaten to delay or jeopardize the
implementation of the ERP system in order to reap the benefits of the recommendation.
NEXT STEP
If the Commission approves recommendation for Munis and EnerGov, the next step is for the City
Manager to utilize the Tyler price quote contained herein and negotiate a contract. This contract will
include a detailed Statement of Work that outlines the professional services that Tyler will deliver when
implementing the Munis/ EnerGov solutions.
EMA,INC. 6-2
I
APPENDIX B
STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND EMA, Inc.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT effective as of ("Effective Date")between
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA ("Client")and
EMA,Inc.d/b/a EMA of Minnesota,Inc. ("EMA").
Client intends to contract for assistance in BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSIS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM("ERP")PROJECT
("Project").
Client and EMA agree as follows:
specific Services are set forth, or specific dates by which
ARTICLE 1 -SERVICES OF EMA Services are to be completed,are provided in Exhibit A.
B. If, through no fault of EMA, such periods of
1.01 Scope time or dates are changed, or the orderly and continuous
A. EMA shall provide,or cause to be provided,the progress of EMA's Services is impaired, or EMA's
Services are delayed or suspended, then the time for
services set forth herein and in Exhibit A("Services"). completion of EMA's Services, and the rates and amounts
of EMA's compensation,shall be adjusted equitably.
ARTICLE 2-CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
C. If Client authorizes changes in the scope,extent,
or character of the Project,then the time for completion of
2.01 General EMA's Services, and the rates and amounts of EMA's
A. Client shall have the responsibilities set forth compensation,shall be adjusted equitably.
herein and in Exhibit B. D. Client shall make decisions and carry out its
B. Client shall pay EMA as set forth in Exhibit C. other responsibilities under this Agreement in a timely
manner so as not to delay EMA's performance of the
C. Client shall be responsible for, and EMA may Services.
rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all
requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and ARTICLE 4-INVOICES AND PAYMENTS
other information furnished by Client to EMA pursuant to
this Agreement. EMA may use such requirements,
programs, instructions, reports, data, and information in 4.01 Invoices
performing or furnishing services under this Agreement. A. Preparation and Submittal of Invoices. EMA
shall prepare invoices in accordance with its standard
ARTICLE 3 - SCHEDULE FOR RENDERING invoicing practices and the terms of Exhibit C. EMA shall
SERVICES submit its invoices to Client on a monthly basis. Invoices
are due and payable within 30 days of receipt.
3.01 Commencement 4.02 Payments
A. EMA shall begin rendering the Services as of A. Failure to Pay. If Client fails to make any
the Effective Date of the Agreement. payment due EMA for Services and expenses within 30
3.02 Time for Completion days after receipt of EMA's invoice,then EMA may,after
giving seven days written notice to Client, suspend
A. EMA shall complete the Services within a performance of the Services under this Agreement, until
reasonable time. Specific periods of time for rendering
Page 1 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
Client has paid in full all amounts due for Services, (except EMA's own employees and its Consultants) at the
expenses,and other related charges. . Site or otherwise furnishing or performing any Work; or
B. Disputed Invoices. If Client contests an invoice,
for any decision made by Client without consultation and
advice of EMA.
Client may withhold only that portion so contested, and
must pay the undisputed portion. 6.02 Design without Construction Phase Services
C. Legislative Actions. If after the Effective Date NOT USED
of the Agreement any governmental entity takes a 6.03 Use of Documents
legislative action that imposes taxes, fees, or charges on
EMA's services or compensation under this Agreement, A. All Documents are instruments of service in
then EMA may invoice such new taxes, fees, or charges respect to this Project, and EMA shall retain an ownership
as a Reimbursable Expense to which a factor of 1.0 shall and property interest therein (including the copyright and
be applied. Client shall pay such invoiced new taxes, fees, the right of reuse at the discretion of the EMA)whether or
and charges. Such payment shall be in addition to the not the Project is completed. Client shall not rely in any
compensation to which EMA is entitled under the terms of way on any Document unless it is in printed form, signed
Exhibit C. or sealed by the EMA or one of its Consultants.
ARTICLE 5- B. A party may rely that data or information set
forth on paper (also known as hard copies) that the party
receives from the other party by mail, hand delivery, or
NOT USED facsimile, are the items that the other party intended to
send. Files in electronic media format of text, data,
ARTICLE 6-GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS graphics, or other types that are furnished by one party to
the other are furnished only for convenience, not reliance
by the receiving party. Any conclusion or information
6.01 Standards of Performance obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the
user's sole risk. If there is a discrepancy between the
A. The standard of care for all professional services electronic files and the hard copies,the hard copies govern.
performed or furnished by EMA under this Agreement will .
be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the C. Because data stored in electronic media format
subject profession in the State of Florida. EMA makes no can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise
warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or without authorization of the data's creator, the party
otherwise, in connection with EMA's Services. receiving electronic files agrees that it will perform
acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days, after which
B. Client shall not be responsible for discovering the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the
deficiencies in the technical accuracy of EMA's Services. data thus transferred. Any transmittal errors detected
EMA shall correct any such deficiencies in technical within the 60-day acceptance period will be corrected by
accuracy without additional compensation, except to the the party delivering the electronic files.
extent such corrective action is directly attributable to
deficiencies in Client-furnished information pursuant to D. When transferring documents in electronic
paragraph 2.01(c)hereof. media format, the transferring party makes no
representations as to long term compatibility, usability, or
C. EMA may employ such Consultants as EMA readability of such documents resulting from the use of
deems necessary to assist in the performance or furnishing software application packages, operating systems, or
of the Services, subject to Client's prior written approval, computer hardware differing from those used by the
which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or documents' creator.
delayed.
E. Client may make and retain copies of
Documents for information and reference in connection
D. EMA and Client shall comply with applicable with use on the Project by Client. EMA grants Client a
Laws and Regulations and Client-mandated standards that license to use the Documents on the Project, extensions of
Client has provided to EMA in writing. This Agreement is the Project, and other projects of Client, subject to the
based on these requirements as of its Effective Date. following limitations: (1) Client acknowledges that such
Changes to these requirements after the Effective Date of Documents are not intended or represented to be suitable
this Agreement may be the basis for modifications to for use on the Project unless completed by EMA, or for
Client's responsibilities, or to EMA's Scope of Services, use or reuse by Client or others on extensions of the
times of performance,and compensation. Project or on any other project without written verification
or adaptation by EMA; (2) any such use or reuse, or any
F. EMA shall not be responsible for the acts or modification of the Documents, without written
omissions of any contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, or verification, completion, or adaptation by EMA, as
of any of their agents or employees or of any other persons
Page 2 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
appropriate for the specific purpose intended, will be at 2) EMA shall have no liability to
Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Client on account of such termination.
EMA or to EMA's Consultants;(3)such limited license to
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this
c. g
Client shall not create any rights in third parties. Agreement will not terminate under paragraph
F. If EMA at Client's request verifies or adapts the 6.05.B.1.a if the party receiving such notice
Documents for extensions of the Project or for any other begins, within seven days of receipt of such
project,then Client shall compensate EMA at rates or in an notice, to correct its substantial failure to
amount to be agreed upon by Client and EMA. perform and proceeds diligently to cure such
6.04 Insurance failure within no more than 30 days of receipt
thereof; provided, however, that if and to the
A. EMA shall procure and maintain insurance as extent such substantial failure cannot be
set forth in Exhibit D, "Insurance." EMA shall cause reasonably cured within such 30 day period,and
Client to be listed as an additional insured on any if such party has diligently attempted to cure the
applicable general liability insurance policy carried by same and thereafter continues diligently to cure
EMA. the same, then the cure period provided for
herein shall extend up to, but in no case more
B. EMA shall each deliver to Client certificates of than, 60 days after the date of receipt of the
insurance evidencing the coverages indicated in Exhibit D. notice.
Such certificates shall be furnished prior to commencement
of EMA's Services and at renewals thereafter during the 2. For convenience,
life of the Agreement. a. By Client, effective upon EMA's
receipt of written notice from Client.
C. At any time,Client may request that EMA or its b. Except for Payments Upon
Consultants, at Client's sole expense, provide additional Termination as specified in paragraph 6.05.D.I.
insurance coverage, increased limits,or revised deductibles Client shall have no liability to EMA on
that are more protective than those specified in Exhibit D. account of such termination.
If so requested by Client, and if commercially available, C. Effective Date of Termination. The terminating
EMA shall obtain and shall require its Consultants to party under paragraph 6.05.B may set the effective date of
obtain such additional insurance coverage, different limits, termination at a time up to 30 days later than otherwise
or revised deductibles for such periods of time as requested provided to allow EMA to demobilize personnel and
by Client, and Exhibit D will be supplemented to equipment from the Site, to complete tasks whose value
incorporate these requirements. would otherwise be lost,to prepare notes as to the status of
6.05 Suspension and Termination completed and uncompleted tasks, and to assemble Project
A. Suspension. materials in orderly files.
By Client: Client may suspend the Project upon
D. Payments Upon Termination.
30 days written notice to EMA. 1. In the event of any termination under
By EMA: If EMA's services are substantially paragraph 6.05, except a termination for cause by the
delayed through no fault of EMA, EMA may, after giving City pursuant to paragraph 6.05.B.La, EMA will be
entitled to invoice Client and to receive full payment
30 days written notice to Client, suspend Services under for all Services performed or furnished and all
this Agreement. Reimbursable Expenses incurred through the
B. Termination. The obligation to provide further effective date of termination. Upon making such
Services under this Agreement may be terminated: payment, Client shall have no further liability to
EMA on account of such termination, and shall have
1. For cause, the limited right to the use of Documents, at Client's
a. By either party upon 30 days written sole risk, subject to the provisions of paragraph
notice in the event of substantial failure by the 6.03.E.
other party to perform in accordance with the 2. In the event of termination by Client for
terms hereof. convenience or by EMA for cause, EMA shall be
b. By EMA: entitled, in addition to invoicing for those items
identified in paragraph 6.05.D.1, to invoice Client
1) upon 30 days written notice if and to payment of a reasonable amount for Services
EMA's Services for the Project or the and expenses directly attributable to termination,both
Project, are suspended for more than 90 before and after the effective date of termination,
days,through no fault of EMA.. such as reassignment of personnel, costs of
Page 3 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
terminating contracts with EMA's Consultants, and 6.10 Indemnification and Mutual Waiver
other related close-out costs, using methods and rates A. Indemnification by EMA. EMA shall indemnify
for Additional Services as set forth in Exhibit C. and hold harmless Client, and Client's officers, directors,
6.06 Controlling Law partners, agents, consultants, and employees from and
A. This Agreement is to be governed by the law of against any and all claims, costs, losses, and damages
(including but not limited to all fees and charges of
the state in which the Project is located. Consultants, architects, attorneys, and other professionals,
6.07 Successors,Assigns,and Beneficiaries and all court, arbitration, or other dispute resolution costs)
A. Client and EMA each is hereby bound and the arising out of or relating to the Project, provided that any
such claim, cost, loss, or damage is attributable to bodily
partners, successors, executors, administrators and legal injury, sickness, disease, or death, or to injury to or
representatives of Client and EMA (and to the extent destruction of tangible property (other than the Work
permitted by paragraph 6.07.13 the assigns of Client and itself), including the loss of use resulting therefrom, but
EMA) are hereby bound to the other party to this only to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission
Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors, of EMA or EMA's officers,directors,partners,employees,
administrators and legal representatives (and said assigns) or Consultants.
of such other party,in respect of all covenants,agreements,
and obligations of this Agreement. B. Indemnification by Client. To the fullest extent
permitted by Florida law, and subject to the limitations on
B. Neither Client nor EMA may assign, sublet, or Client's liability pursuant to Section 76F.28, Florida
transfer any rights under or interest(including,but without Statutes, as same may be amended from time to time,
limitation,moneys that are due or may become due) in this Client shall indemnify and hold harmless EMA, EMA's
Agreement without the written consent of the other,except officers, directors, partners, agents, employees, and
to the extent that any assignment, subletting, or transfer is Consultants from and against any and all claims, costs,
mandated or restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees
the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no and charges of Consultants, architects, attorneys, and other
assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any professionals, and all court, arbitration, or other dispute
duty or responsibility under this Agreement. resolution costs) arising out of or relating to the Project,
C. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this provided that any such claim, cost, loss, or damage is
Agreement: attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or
to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than
1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be the Work itself), including the loss of use resulting
construed to create, impose, or give rise to any duty therefrom, but only to the extent caused by any negligent
owed by Client or EMA to any Contractor, act or omission of Client or Client's officers, directors,
Contractor's subcontractor, supplier, other individual partners,agents,consultants,or employees.
or entity, or to any surety for or employee of any of
them. C. Environmental Indemnification. In addition to
the indemnity provided under paragraph 6.10.13 of this
2. All duties and responsibilities undertaken Agreement,and to the extent permitted by law,Client shall
pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and indemnify and hold harmless EMA and its officers,
exclusive benefit of Client and EMA and not for the directors, partners, agents, employees, and Consultants
benefit of any other party. from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, and
6.08 Dispute Resolution damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges
of Consultants, architects, attorneys and other
A. Client and EMA agree to negotiate all disputes professionals, and all court, arbitration, or other dispute
between them in good faith for a period of 30 days from resolution costs) caused by, arising out of, relating to, or
the date of notice prior to invoking the procedures of resulting from a Constituent of Concern at,on,or under the
Exhibit E or other provisions of this Agreement, or Site,provided that(i)any such claim,cost, loss,or damage
exercising their rights under law. is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death,
B. If the parties fail to resolve a dispute through or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other
negotiation under paragraph 6.08.A, then either or both than the Work itself), including the loss of use resulting
may invoke the procedures of Exhibit E. If Exhibit E is therefrom; provided however, that nothing in this
not included,or if no dispute resolution method is specified paragraph shall obligate Client to indemnify any individual
in Exhibit E, then the parties may exercise their rights or entity from and against the consequences of that
under law. individual's or entity's own negligence or omission.
6.09 Environmental Condition of Site D. Mutual Waiver. Client and EMA waive against
each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors,
NOT USED agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all
Page 4 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or Compensation and Liability Act,42 U.S.C. §§9601 et
consequential damages arising out of,resulting from, or in seq. ("CERCLA"); [b] the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act 49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; c the
an way related to the Project. §§ q, [ ]
Y Y J p
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6.11 Miscellaneous Provisions §§6901 et seq. ("RCRA"); [d] the Toxic Substances
A. Notices. Any notice required under this Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq.; [e] the Clean
Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.; [f] the Clean
party at its address on the signature page and given Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.; and [g] any other
personally, by facsimile, by registered or certified mail federal, state, or local statute, law, rule, regulation,
postage prepaid, or by a commercial courier service. All ordinance, resolution, code, order, or decree
notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt. regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or
standards of conduct concerning, any hazardous,
B. Survival. All express representations, waivers, toxic,or dangerous waste,substance,or material.
indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in
this Agreement will survive its completion or termination 4. Consultants--Individuals or entities having
for any reason. a contract with EMA to furnish services with respect
to this Project as EMA's independent professional
C. Severability. Any provision or part of the associates,consultants,subcontractors,or vendors.
Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any
Laws or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all 5. Documents--Data, reports, drawings,
remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding specifications, record drawings, software, and other
upon Client and EMA,who agree that the Agreement shall deliverables, whether in printed or electronic media
be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part format, provided or furnished in appropriate phases
thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes by EMA to Client pursuant to this Agreement.
as close as possible to expressing the intention of the 6. Laws and Regulations; Laws or
stricken provision. Regulations--Any and all applicable laws, rules,
D. Waiver. A party's non-enforcement of any regulations, ordinances, codes, and orders of any and
provision shall not constitute a waiver of that provision, all governmental bodies, agencies, authorities, and
nor shall it affect the enforceability of that provision or of courts having jurisdiction.
the remainder of this Agreement. 7. Reimbursable Expenses--The expenses
E. Accrual of Claims. To the fullest extent incurred directly by EMA in connection with the
permitted by law, all causes of action arising under this performing or furnishing of Basic and Additional
Agreement shall be deemed to have accrued, and all Services for the Project.
statutory periods of limitation shall commence, no later
than the date of Substantial Completion. ARTICLE 8 - EXHIBITS AND SPECIAL
PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 7-DEFINITIONS
8.01 Exhibits Included
7.01 Defined Terms A. Exhibit A, "EMA's Services," consisting of
A. Wherever used in this Agreement(including the pages.
Exhibits hereto) terms (including the singular and plural B. Exhibit B, "Client's Responsibilities,"
forms)printed with initial capital letters have the meanings consisting of pages.
indicated in the text above or in the exhibits; in the
following provisions: C. Exhibit C, "Payments to EMA for Services and
1. Additional Services--The services to be Reimbursable Expenses,"consisting of pages.
performed for or furnished to Client by EMA in D. Exhibit D,"Insurance,"consisting of 1 pages.
accordance with Exhibit A,Part 2,of this Agreement. E. Exhibit E, "Dispute Resolution," consisting of 1
2. Basic Services--The services to be pages.
performed for or furnished to Client by EMA in 8.02 Total Agreement
accordance with Exhibit A, Part 1,of this Agreement.
3. Constituent of Concern--Any substance, A. This Agreement(consisting of pages 1 to
product, waste, or other material of any nature inclusive, together with the exhibits identified above)
whatsoever (including, but not limited to, Asbestos, constitutes the entire agreement between Client and EMA
Petroleum, Radioactive Material,and PCBs)which is and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings.
or becomes listed,regulated,or addressed pursuant to This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented,
[a] the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Page 5 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
modified, or canceled by a duly executed written services to be performed or furnished by EMAand
amendment to this Agreement. responsibilities of Client under this Agreement. Such
8.03 Designated Representatives individuals shall have authority to transmit instructions,
receive information, and render decisions relative to the
A. With the execution of this Agreement, EMA Project on behalf of each respective party.
and Client shall designate specific individuals to act as
EMA's and Client's representatives with respect to the
Page 6 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the Effective Date of which is
indicated on page 1.
Client: EMA:
By: By:
Title: Title:
Date Signed: Date Signed:
Address for giving notices: Address for giving notices:
Designated Representative(see paragraph 8.03.A): Designated Representative(see paragraph 8.03.A):
Title: Title:
Phone Number: Phone Number:
Facsimile Number: Facsimile Number:
E-Mail Address: E-Mail Address:
Page 7 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
EXHIBIT A
This is EXHIBIT A, consisting of 9 pages,referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated ,
Scope of Services
SCOPE OF WORK
The following scope of work is broken into two distinct tracts.
Tract 1 is depicted by the Project ERP
Management Box and is focused
on managing the Business Project Man gernent
Process Analysis (BPA) activities
Communication Span Operational Silos Ove)•see Configuration Oversee Integration
(Tract 2), System Implementation e m e n to t i o n Schedule Control
Coordinate BPA Manager Tyler Contract Limit Customization
Budget Control Software Purchase Model Facilitate Organization Changes Data Conversion
activities, and coordination with Coordination Facilitate Practice Changes Manage Efficiency Opportunities Training Design
Change Management
Tyler to assure BPA results and
subsequent business process Building
Permitting Human Resources f=inance Billing
efficiencies are translated into a Ins bon
successful i m l e m e n to t i o n of the Operational Operational Operational Operational
p Changes Changes Changes Changes
ERP investment. Move from code Move from Improve Inter Move from cash
enforcement to procedure drive to Department collection to
customer service self service Coordination exemplary customer
Tract 2 is depicted by the four service
remaining boxes. This tract is
focused on performing the
Improve Improve improve Improve
business process analysis work efftciencyand efficiency and efficiency and efficiency and
effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness effectiveness
in each of the work groups
identified. The BPA work is
performed at two levels:
Review of the Operational Objectives and Mission of each work group. For example, within the
Building Department, potentially shifting focus from "Code Enforcement" to "Developer,
Contractor, and Citizen support"
Evaluation and Optimization of Current and Planned Work Practices —This is performance of the
"Eliminate, Reduce, Shift, Redesign Analysis" of the work practices outlined below.
Tract 1 - Project Management
Task 1.1 — Program/Project Management Support of the ERP Implementation
ERP system implementation will be conducted by the ERP vendor. EMA will provide management
oversight to ensure user and technical requirements are fulfilled during the implementation process.
EMA will act in the capacity of the owner's representative and the City's main point of contact
throughout the implementation process.
Page 1 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
EMA will provide an ERP project manager who will initially work onsite with the project manager and team
to finalize a detailed project plan. This project plan will nail down all project objectives, tasks, deliverables,
milestones and budgets based on BPA and streamlined business processes.
' I
EMA's project manager will also:
• Conduct regular project review meeting with Miami Beach to review the progress of this project and
to discuss any outstanding issues and potential problems. A standard agenda will be developed for
the progress meetings, and will include the following topics-
- identification of work performed last period,
- work to be completed next period,
- critical action item status, and
- responsible parties to complete actions.
- Budget or schedule problems will also be identified and corrective actions noted.
EMA will upload an agenda, updated schedule, and revised action items log to the project
SharePoint site in advance of the meeting. Meeting minutes for each meeting will be uploaded for
review within three working days of the meeting.
• Provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), including the review of all project deliverables
and status to ensure that all of the appropriate project diligence has been taken.
• Lead in coordinating City implementation team and vendor activities.
• Develop communication and coordination protocols for the project.
• Oversee communication and coordination of the project.
• Meet with Miami Beach leadership to resolve project issues.
• Work with the Miami Beach Project Manager to identify a format and schedule for progress reports
that best meets the needs of the project. EMA will provide these reports in the desired format and
with the desired frequency.
• Assure participation of Miami Beach staff. Our work with clients throughout North America confirms
that change to high performance operations (process optimization) will be realized only by
involving management and staff throughout the project. By involving employees, they learn
what industry best practices are and the importance of maximizing productivity. By involving
managers, they learn the business management practices of high performance organizations and
new approaches to developing and maximizing the productivity of a highly-skilled and motivated
work force. Everyone will also develop teamwork behaviors and be introduced to new ways of
thinking and interacting.
• Meet with the vendor to ensure an understanding of Miami Beach's direction and to discuss and
plan objectives, requirements (as defined in Tract 2 below), responsibilities, performance, and
review of business process analyses, reporting requirements, deliverable review procedures, and
project schedule.
Page 2 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
• Review and get approval of vendor submittals and monthly progress reports. The progress reports
shall describe significant accomplishments, issues and/or problems which have potential effect on
schedule or costs, and plans for the upcoming week. They should be sufficiently detailed to assure
that directions being pursued are in compliance with established and/or projected goals.
• Coordinate and oversee vendor training.
• Work with Miami Beach project team to approve vendor final work product (configured system). All
II a
planned and agreed upon milestones and deliverables must be fully met and approved by the
Project Team and as defined in the project plan.
• Review and approve payment application.
• EMA's project manager will be the point person to manage the ERP vendor activities, deliverables and
schedule while establishing a foundation for the ongoing partnership between the vendor and the
organization. Effective project management involves communication both upward and downward within
the organization in order to understand the business concerns, gain acceptance of the pending changes
and gain project buy-in and support for the team's activities.
The vendor-appointed project manager is the point person to act as a liaison between the organization and
the vendor. This individual is responsible for coordinating vendor resources, managing the vendor
deliverables and handling support requests as they are identified. In addition, the vendor-supplied project
manager or a member of the vendor's team should be expected to provide guidance to the organization on
how to best leverage the vendor product by sharing best practices, processes and experiences.
From a project manager perspective, vendor management best practices may include:
1. Maintain a detailed, written audit trail of all discussions and agreements.
2. When documenting vendor tasks, the operative phrase is "the vendor shall."
3. Get a written commitment on vendor team members, escalation, etc.
4. Roles and responsibilities are clearly written and agreed to.
5. Rules of engagement should include onsite attendance requirements.
6. Implementation strategies are mutually agreed upon.
7. Reserve the right to review vendor designs and request changes.
8. Project plans are submitted in advance for approval.
9. Test plans are submitted in advance for approval.
10. Specify documentation required from the vendor, including media and format.
11. Specify support and maintenance to be provided.
12. Prearrange change control processes and pricing to address scope creep.
13. Any training provided by the vendor must be preapproved.
To ensure a successful venture, all parties need to establish a clear understanding of each other's roles
and open lines of communication. They also need to work to develop an environment of mutual trust.
Open access provides the pathway to a successful relationship; an open exchange of information
throughout the project will facilitate quick resolution when issues do arise.
Page 3 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
Task 1.2 — Assist with User Acceptance Testing
EMA will develop user acceptance test scripts to test the configuration of the ERP system to ensure
compliance with configuration specifications. User acceptance testing will be used to verify the testing
activities have been completed and have validated the design of the ERP system. We will develop User
Acceptance Test Scripts, perform User Acceptance Testing Oversight and maintain a Defect Log
Template
Task 1.3 — ERP Interface Design
EMA will provide the user requirements for the integration of the ERP system with other City systems.
Based on the requirements, EMA will oversee design of the interfaces for the selected ERP solution and
manage system integration activities performed by the vendor. EMA will assist with integration testing to
assure the configured functionality works correctly. EMA has the expertise to design and program the
interface but they are not included in this scope of work.
Tract 2 - Business Process Analysis
The following tasks will be repeated for each of the four major work groups (Building/EnerGov, Finance,
HR, and Billing) understanding that there are sub groups within each (e.g., budget, procurement) for which
the tasks may be required independently. The costs for these will not be uniform. The first work group to
be addressed will require a significantly larger effort than the remaining three. The large effort is due to the
fact that we are laying out the road map for the entire project. Specific effort completed in the first
workgroup that will not need to be repeated includes:
• Development of the working templates, which include
- SWIM lane diagrams that are used to visually represent the various business processes and
sub-processes and the associated data
- forms for resolving changes to business processes
- communications media
- requirements templates for vendor coordination
- training materials
- vendor sign off
• Integration requirements are primarily defined during the first workgroup
• Developing the team structure and rules for participation and sign off
• Building organizational momentum for the change process
• Building an approach to identify and change "sacred cows"
• Formalizing Project Management activities as defined in Tract 1
• Knowledge transfer to the project team on project execution and developing common language
Page 4 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
Based on the Phase 1 work Miami Beach should undertake the EnerGov workgroup first since there are
significant issues that will be addressed with this effort. This work group also has the most points of
interaction with other City Departments and technologies
Task 2.1 — Review and Analysis of Existing Operational Objectives and Mission for
Each Work Group
The purpose of this task is to understand Miami Beach's overall strategic objective and compare them to the
way the four work groups are currently working. If there is misalignment this project is an opportunity to
evaluate the options for making changes. This task will also allow the work groups to define key performance
indicators to measure the progress against City wide objectives.
The City Project Manager will work with the EMA Project Manager to identify stakeholders who have
insight into the strategic objectives of the City. EMA will meet with this group to determine if there are
approaches to the work groups operations they would like to have evaluated and changed to better
support strategic objectives. As an example, the City may wish to improve customer service in a
significant way. This may require business process to be changed to expand business hours, provide
more transparency, or have more self-service options.
After the meeting, EMA will conduct a half-day workshop with the City project team and work group
leadership in which the strategic perspectives are presented and discussed. Consideration of stakeholders
and their business needs will be discussed to determine what if any changes to work group objectives and
mission should be made. Any objective that IS identified will be used in the BPA process.
Task 2.2 - Review and Analysis of Existing Practices within Identified Work Groups
The purpose of this task is to understand Miami Beach's business needs, customers' needs, and the
needs of key stakeholders. Additionally, this task will develop alignment through agreement on business,
technical, and other drivers and how to measure success. By "drivers," we mean those pressures that are
causing Miami Beach to consider investing in analysis and/or improvement to business processes.
The Miami Beach Project Manager will work with the EMA Project Manager to identify stakeholders who
have significant needs related to this project. A workshop will be conducted with these stakeholders,
supplemented by a few one-on-one interviews.
Additionally EMA will review manual processes or Excel spreadsheets to determine what functionality these
systems are providing and what data is stored in these systems.
After the interviews, EMA will conduct a half-day workshop with the Miami Beach project team in which the
stakeholders' perspectives are presented and discussed, and then converted to high level project
requirements.
Page 5 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
Careful consideration of stakeholders and their business needs can reveal important functionality that isn't
obvious in the current business processes and systems. Stakeholders can also identify where business
processes cross organizational boundaries. These points of exchange are often an opportunity for work
process automation or integration.
Task 2.3 - Development of
Process Diagrams that will
0
present the Initial Definition of
the Various Business Processes
During the workshops and interviews
identified above EMA will capture the
0
information required to develop initial --------
business process diagrams. These
diagrams will then be developed in
Microsoft Visio. They will depict a high
level picture of the business processes
and objectives within Miami Beach.
These process diagrams will be
presented to Miami Beach staff for
review and comment.
Task 2.4 — Development of Work Flow Diagrams that Describe how and when Work
within the Work Groups is Accomplished
i Miami Beach Business Process Analysis Objective
For this task we will add the initial work
flow diagrams to the process diagrams. o
Each work group, when there is cross
department work flow, will be depicted on
its own row. This approach serves °
several purposes. First it relates all work o
flow activities back to a specific business
process. This will highlight any work that
is being performed that does not directly
relate to a specific business process. -
Second, it will show all touch points
(areas where information is passed)
between specific groups. It is important to
understand these since one of the best
ways to improve practices is to limit the
number of touch points as much as
possible while still meeting the business
needs of Miami Beach. Touch points are also usually prime targets for leveraging technology, whether it be
on a single system such as ERP or between multiple systems — ERP and CityWorks, GIS, and 311, for
Page 6 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
example.
Task 2.5 — Development of Data Flow Diagrams that show the Relationships between
the Business Processes, the Dataflow, and the Data
For this task we will add the initial data
flows to the business/work flow diagrams.
----------
By adding data flow diagrams to the o
existing diagrams Miami Beach will be
able to see how data is used within work
flows. This data can then be analyzed to
determine not only what data is critical,
what adds little or no value, and what
data is missing, but also what data
should be called out to use for specific --------------
performance measures and exception
reports. ---
By capturing data from the previous three
tasks on an integrated flow diagram
Miami Beach will be able to quickly
identify areas for process improvement,
identify opportunities to provide new services,
and clearly communicate specific system requirements to the ERP project implementation team.
The next three activities will be conducted in parallel. We will use the process analysis diagrams
developed in the previous steps as the baseline for these activities. EMA staff will review the diagrams
and identify areas of possible improvement through either changes to the process or the application of
technology. We will then conduct a series of workshops with Miami Beach staff to review the possible
changes and document other changes identified by Miami Beach staff.
At this stage, we will also utilize an iterative process where we look at the business processes to
determine if various steps can be:
• Eliminated, often steps are added over time to
address issues that have become unnecessary
No No No
• Reduced, again many steps can often be reduced • '
in frequency
• Shifted, when steps are analyzed it may be Yes ' Yes Ye
;
determined that different people are performing
similar or the same tasks. These can often be Yes •
consolidated and assigned to a single person.
• Redesigned, New technology offers opportunities LU vpttf1ttcc4A „Uf M I ,uLtLLca
to automate tasks
Task 2.6 — Development of Proposed Process Diagrams that will present Optimized
Business Processes or Activities Based on Industry Best Practices
Page 7 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
At EMA we have conducted over 400 business process analysis projects for our clients in municipal
government. Through this work we have identified many best practice strategies. We will apply these in
this step. The proposed processes will be in the same format as those listed in the previous activities.
These will be submitted to Miami Beach for review and comment.
Task 2.7 - Development of Proposed Work Flow Diagrams that Describe Optimized
Work Flows
EMA will work with Miami Beach staff to identify ways to streamline work flows by looking at the
business processes, the touch points between different work groups (internal Miami Beach and
external), and the application of specific technologies or technology integrations. Optimized work flows
will be presented and discussed with Miami Beach staff.
Miami Beach will find that some of the improved work flows can be implemented immediately while
others will be dependent on the implementation of the ERP.
Task 2.8 - Development of Proposed Data Flow Diagrams that Reflect and Support
the Optimized Business Processes
The data flow diagrams will be updated to reflect the new business processes and work flows developed
above. EMA will also make recommendations of specific data elements that should be used in reports, as
stand-alone performance measures or should be included in calculated performance measures. A good
example of performance measure is the development of indices. Indices can be defined that assign a
relative level of effectiveness or efficiency to a City process. These can be used with Miami Beach's
continuous improvement process to measure improvement
Once the business process diagrams are updated, they can be used to quickly communicate with the
ERP vendor how the system needs to be configured. These will also serve as operating procedures and
training material.
Task 2.9 - Development of Business Process Requirements
A proven approach for successfully implementing new technology is to clearly define the needs and
then work with the selected vendor to tailor their solution to these needs.
For this task EMA will analyze and synthesize the work to date, and discuss the specifications in a
working session with the Miami Beach project team and the ERP vendor.
In the course of reviewing and discussing these functional requirements, EMA will capture — and
supplement— reviewers' perspectives on how Miami Beach optimized business processes may change
as a result of implementing the new system.
EMA will work with the Miami Beach Project Manager to identify a format and schedule for progress
reports that best meets the needs of the project. EMA will provide these reports in the desired format
and with the desired frequency.
Page 8 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
Deliverables
Progressive Deliverables Development Manages Risk and Provides Basis for
Informed Decisions
We create deliverables in an incremental
fashion. While the specifics vary by task, Draft, in
Data general we will first collect information 'Feedback
(through interviews, walk-throughs,
EMA c tes all projec liverables in 4A, ,Incremental
workshops, etc.). The information manner
collection will be followed by an analysis step
conducted by the Miami Beach / EMA team.
The results of this analysis will be presented in draft form (typically to the Miami Beach project team
and other key staff as appropriate) for review, discussion, and feedback. Finally, the draft will be
updated to reflect the discussion.
This incremental approach keeps the team well informed and focused on the deliverables. It ensures that
there are no surprises.
Deliverable Description
Project Kick-off Meeting and Present project plans and procedures to Miami Beach project team for review
Documentation and approval in a project kick-off meeting and provide narrative and/or
documentation of said kick-off meeting.
Status Reports Produce and submit status reports to the designated project manager and
Miami Beach project team monthly.
Workshops and Customer Conduct workshops and interviews with Miami Beach work groups and staff
Interviews and Documentation as needed to identify and define existing business processes and provide
narrative and/or documentation of said workshops and interviews.
Initial Version of Existing Process Develop and deliver initial version of process diagrams that reflect the
Diagrams various business processes and activities.
Initial Version of Existing Work Develop and deliver initial version of work flow diagrams
Flow Diagrams
Draft Proposed Work Flow Revise draft proposed business work flow diagrams. Based on the Eliminate,
Diagrams Reduce, Shift, Redesign process with additional workshops and interviews as
needed
Final Proposed Work Flow Develop final version of proposed business work flow diagrams for
Diagrams submission to Miami Beach project manager and project team
Follow-up Workshops and Conduct follow-up workshops and customer interviews as needed to present,
Customer Interviews review, and modify draft version of business process models and provide
Documentation narrative and/or documentation of said workshops and interviews
Draft Proposed Business Process Revise draft proposed business process models with additional workshops
Page 9 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
Deliverable Description
Models and interviews as needed
Final Proposed Business Process Develop final version of proposed business process models for submission to
Models Miami Beach project manager and project team
Final Review Meeting with Project Schedule and conduct review meeting with project team to hand off all
Team and Documentation project related deliverables
User Acceptance Test Scripts Documented UATS designed to assure desired functionality is implemented
(UATS) correctly
User Acceptance Testing Sign off sheets after completion of UATS
Oversight
Defect Log Template Updated log of system issues discovered during system implementation and
testing
Page 10 of 9 Pages
(Exhibit A—EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
EXHIBIT B
This is EXHIBIT B,consisting of I pages,referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated ,
Client's Responsibilities
Article 2 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties.
B2.01 In addition to other responsibilities of Client as set forth in this Agreement,Client shall at its expense:
A. Provide EMA with all criteria and full information as to Client's requirements for the Project, including design
objectives and constraints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility, and expandability, and any budgetary
limitations; and furnish copies of all design and construction standards which Client will require to be included in the
drawings and specifications;and furnish copies of Client's standard forms,conditions,and related documents to EMA.
B. Furnish to EMA any other available information pertinent to the Project including reports and data relative to
previous designs,or investigation at or adjacent to the Site.
C. Following EMA's assessment of initially-available Project information and data and upon EMA's request, furnish
or otherwise make available such additional Project related information and data as is reasonably required to enable EMA to
complete its Basic and Additional Services.
D. Give prompt written notice to EMA whenever Client observes or otherwise becomes aware of the presence at the
Site of any Constituent of Concern, or of any other development that affects the scope or time of performance of EMA's
services,or any defect or nonconformance in EMA's services,the Work,or in the performance of any Contractor.
E. Authorize EMA to provide Additional Services as set forth in Part 2 of Exhibit A of the Agreement as required.
F. Arrange for safe access to and make all provisions for EMA to enter upon public and private property as required
for EMA to perform services under the Agreement.
G. Examine all alternate solutions, studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents
n other advisors or consultants as
obtaining advice of an attorney, insurance counselor, and presented by EMA (including g y,
Client deems appropriate with respect to such examination)and render in writing timely decisions pertaining thereto.
H. Provide reviews, approvals, and permits from all governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve all phases
of the Project designed or specified by EMA and such reviews, approvals, and consents from others as may be necessary for
completion of each phase of the Project.
I. Provide,as required for the Project:
1. Accounting,bond and financial advisory,independent cost estimating,and insurance counseling services.
2. Legal services with regard to issues pertaining to the Project as Client requires, Contractor raises, or EMA
reasonably requests.
J. Advise EMA of the identity and scope of services of any independent consultants employed by Client to perform or
furnish services in regard to the Project, including, but not limited to, cost estimating, project peer review, value
CONSULTANTing,and constructibility review.
K. Attend job related meetings.
L. Provide EMA with the findings and reports generated by the entities providing services to Client pursuant to this
paragraph.
I
i
Page 1 of 1 Pages
Exhibit B--Client's Responsibilities
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
EXHIBIT C
This is EXHIBIT C, consisting of 2 pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated ,
Payments to EMA for Services and Reimbursable Expenses
Article 2 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties:
ARTICLE 2--—Client's Responsibilities
C2.01 Compensation For Basic Services
A. Client shall pay EMA for Basic Services set forth in Exhibit A,as follows:
1. An amount equal to the cumulative hours charged to the Project by each class of EMA's employees times
Hourly Rates for each applicable employee for all Services performed on the Project, plus Reimbursable Expenses and
EMA's Consultants'charges,if any.
2. EMA's Reimbursable Expenses Schedule and Hourly Rates are attached to this Exhibit C as Appendix 1.
3. Total compensation for Services under paragraph C2.01 is estimated to be$1,995,000 based on the following
assumed distribution of compensation:
a. Project Management $1,050,000
b. Energov BPA $ 675,000
c. Human Resources BPA $ 95,000
d. Finance BPA $ 45,000
e. Billing BPA $ 130,000
f. Contract Negotiation Assistance $ 130,000
g. Reimbursable Expenses $ 300,000
4. EMA may alter the distribution of compensation between individual phases of the work noted herein to be
consistent with Services actually rendered, but shall not exceed the total estimated compensation amount unless
approved in writing by Client.
5. Amounts billed for EMA's Services under paragraph C2.01 will be based on the cumulative hours charged to
the Project during the billing period by each of EMA's employees times Hourly Rates for each applicable employee,
plus Reimbursable Expenses and EMA's Consultant's charges.
6. Hourly Rates will be adjusted upwards rds by 3/ annuall y (as of April 1st) to reflect equitable changes in the
compensation payable to EMA.
C2.02 Compensation For Reimbursable Expenses
shall a EMA for all Reimbursable Expenses at cost. Amounts payable to EMA for Reimbursable
A. Client pay P PY
Expenses will be travel and other Project-related expenses actually incurred by EMA.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Exhibit C—Basic Services—Standard Hourly Rates Method of Payment
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
C2.03 Other Provisions Concerning Payment
A. Whenever EMA is entitled to compensation for the charges of EMA's Consultants, those charges shall be the
amounts billed by EMA's Consultants to EMA times a factor of 1.25.
B. Estimated Compensation Amounts
1. EMA's estimate of the amounts that will become payable for specified Services are only estimates for
planning purposes, are not binding on the parties, and are not the minimum or maximum amounts payable to EMA
under the Agreement.
2. When estimated compensation amounts have been stated herein and it subsequently becomes apparent to
EMA that a compensation amount thus estimated will be exceeded, EMA shall give Client written notice thereof.
Promptly thereafter Client and EMA shall review the matter of Services remaining to be performed and compensation
for such Services. Client shall either agree to such compensation exceeding said estimated amount or Client and EMA
shall agree to a reduction in the remaining Services to be rendered by EMA, so that total compensation for such
Services will not exceed said estimated amount when such Services are completed. If EMA exceeds the estimated
amount before Client and EMA have agreed to an increase in the compensation due EMA or a reduction in the
remaining Services, EMA shall be paid for all Services rendered hereunder.
C. To the extent necessary to verify EMA's charges and upon Client's timely request,EMA shall make copies of such
records available to Client at cost.
i
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Exhibit C—Basic Services—Standard Hourly Rates Method of Payment
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
This is EXHIBIT D, consisting of 1 pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated ,
Insurance
Paragraph 6.05 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties.
D6.05 Insurance
A. The limits of liability for the insurance required by paragraph 6.04.A and 6.04.13 of the Agreement are as follows:
1. By EMA:
a. Workers' Compensation: Statutory
b. Employer's Liability--
1) Each Accident: $1,000,000
2) Disease,Policy Limit: $1,000,000
3) Disease,Each Employee: $1,000,000
C. General Liability--
1) Each Occurrence(Bodily Injury and
Property Damage): $1,000,000
2) General Aggregate: $29000,000
d. Excess or Umbrella Liability--
1) Each Occurrence: $5,000,000
2) General Aggregate: $5,000,000
e. Automobile Liability--
1) Combined Single Limit
(Bodily Injury and Property Damage):
Each Accident $1,000,000
f. Professional Liability—
1) Each Claim Made $3,0009000
2) Annual Aggregate $3,000,000
Page 1 of 1 Pages
Exhibit D-Insurance
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
This is EXHIBIT E, consisting of 1 page,referred to in and part of the
Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated ,
Dispute Resolution
Paragraph 6.09 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties:
[NOTE: Select one of the two alternatives provided]
E6.09 Dispute Resolution
A. Mediation. Client and EMA agree that they shall first submit any and all unsettled claims, counterclaims, disputes,
and other matters in question between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof("Disputes")to
mediation by the American Arbitration Association following the Construction Mediation Rules. If such mediation is
unsuccessful in resolving a Dispute, then (a)the parties may mutually agree to a dispute resolution of their choice, or
(b)either party may seek to have the Dispute resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Page 1 of—1 Pages
(Exhibit E—Dispute Resolution)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
APPENDIX C
EMA&Tyler Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 07/24/2014
. & Tyler TOTAL
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR to October 1, 2015 $ 3,878, 877
EMA$1,146,013.00 &Tyler$2,732,864.00
(CMB need to add your current Eden
maintenance bill to this amount)
CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1, 2015 $ 2,645.626
EMA$ 849,001.00 &Tyler$ 1,796,625
Tyler Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 07/24/2014
Assumption: Tyler contract is signed August 2014
Disclaimer: Estimates are based on services delivery
TaWName 3Duration Start i v
E_L ��E_r.� Alf !M .€ tit __R
Contract Signed O days Mon 9/1/14 Mon 9/1/14 --s+ll1 _
Financials Suite 239 days Mon 11/3/14 Thu 10/1/15 -
EnerGov Suite 326 days Fri 1/2/15 Fri 4/1/16 - —"---
Payroll/HR Suite 262 days Fri 10/2/15 Mon 10/3/16 !,
Utility Billing&Mi— 285 days Tue 10/4116 Mon 11/6/17 I 4
Revenues
A.1 Overall High Level Project Gantt Chart:The Exact Start and Finish Dates to be negotiated with the City upon further
discussion.
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR to October 1, 2015=$2,732,864.00 (CMB need to add your current
Eden maintenance bill to this amount)
Typically unless they negotiate something else, software license fees for all the new software is due
100% 30 days after the execution of the contract (October 2014). For cash flow purposes this is
how it will be or whatever is worked out.
Software: $ 1,378,860.00
Software Cost
Munis $ 373,450.00
EnerGov $ 1,005,410.00
Total $ 1,378,860.00
Services: $1,294,004
For Services assume EnerGov would start Jan 2015 this is a 15 mo implementation; for cash flow
purposes may take 75% of$859,100 and $54,400 for 2015 and 25% for each in 2016.
EMA,INC.—Wason 7/24/2014 1
Service Cost
EnerGov Professional Services $ 859,100 75% _ $ 644,325
EnerGov Est Travel $ 54,400 @ 75% _ $40,800
Munis Service: $1,480,398.00
Total Tyler Services : $1,480,398.00 $ 41,800.00
Total of 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services Total $1,522,198 @ 40% _ $ 608,879
$41,800.00
Total $ 1,294,004
Maintenance: CMB should have current bill
Tyler proposes that CMB pay the prorated Eden maintenance (they should have that recent bile.
Referencing the above revised timeline, the contract sign is 09/01/14. Thus, CMB would pay their
normal Eden maintenance thru August 2014 and start new Munis maintenance on Sept 2015.
Other: $60,000
OSDBA (used right away) $30,000
Munis Disaster Recovery (starts 6 months after contract sign) $30,000
Total = $60,000
CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1, 2015= $ 1,796,625
Services: $ 1,294,004.00
Service Cost
EnerGov Professional Services $ 214,775
EnerGov Est Travel $ 13,600
Munis Services: $1,480,398.00
Total Tyler Services : $1,480,398.00 $ 41,800.00
Total of 3rd Party Hardware, Software and Services Total $1,522,198 @60% _ $913,319.00
$41,800.00
Since this is a 3 year project subtract 40%
Total $ 1,141,694
Maintenance: $ 647, 631.00
Munis $ 398,632.00
EnerGov$248,990.00
Total = $ 647, 631.00
Other: $ 7,300.00
Payroll Tax Table Updates $ 1,000.00
CAFR $ 6,300.00
Total = $ 7,300.00
EMA,INC.—Wason 7/24/2014 2
f
EMA Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 07/24/2014
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR October 1, 2015 = $1,146,013.00
CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1, 2016 = $ 849,001.00
Labor Expenses
pre 10/2015 $955,010.81 $191,002.16 $1,146,012.97
post10/2015 $707,501.19 $141,500.24 $849,001.43
$1,995,014.40
EMA,INC.—VMason 7/24/2014 3