Florida Department of
Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts
Cost Estimate Report
December 23, 2013
kpmg.com
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
Executive Summary
2
A. Background and Purpose
2
B. Scope and Approach
2
C. Survey Results
5
Background and Purpose
9
A. History
9
B. Objectives
9
Scope and Approach
10
A. Identify Reporting Entities
10
B. Methodology
11
C. Communication
19
IV. Survey Results
21
A. Local Government Entities – Water Management Districts, Cities and
Municipalities, Counties, and Special Districts
21
B. Education Entities – Colleges, Universities and School Districts
31
C. State of Florida – Department of Financial Services
37
D. Transmission of General Ledger Data to Department of Financial
Services
40
The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
© 2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms
affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
I. Executive Summary
A. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The 2011 State of Florida (State) Legislature passed Senate Bill 1292 requiring that a mechanism be provided for
obtaining detailed, uniform reporting of government financial information to promote accountability and
transparency in the use of public funds. To accomplish uniform reporting, Chapter 215.89, Florida Statutes
requires the State’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to propose a Draft Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) to
establish uniform reporting requirements for all units of the government that include state agencies, local
governments, educational entities and entities of higher education (collectively known as Reporting Entities).
The Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by the CFO, proposed a Draft UCOA to meet the
legislative requirements. By January 15, 2014, the CFO is required to present the UCOA to the Governor, the
President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition to the UCOA, the CFO
was tasked with identifying the estimated statewide cost impact for the UCOA adoption and implementation.
DFS engaged KPMG, LLP (KPMG) to determine the statewide cost impact of a UCOA adoption and
implementation, which requires the collection and validation of cost estimates from the Reporting Entities.
B. SCOPE AND APPROACH
KPMG’s approach included three primary workstreams:
Survey Development: Utilized Key Survey technology to develop an electronic survey for more than 2,271
Reporting Entities. Developed a Survey Template designed to gather the required financial information and cost
estimates from the Reporting Entities in a cost-efficient manner.
Data Collection: Monitored the survey collection process and provided reports on response rates, reporting
entity completion rates, pending incomplete surveys, and dates and times of completions.
Data Analysis and Validation: Analyzed and validated cost estimate data as received from Reporting Entities
during the survey process.
For purposes of this project, there are 2,271 Reporting Entities responding to the survey (DFS represented 35
state agencies in a single survey response resulting in 2,305 Reporting Entities) which can be logically separated
into three Reporting Entity Types and eight Reporting Entity Categories:



Local Government – 2,158 local governments consisting of cities and municipalities, counties, special
districts, and water management districts
Education Organizations – 112 education organizations consisting of colleges, universities, and school
districts
State Agencies –35 state agencies represented by DFS in 1 survey
B-1 Survey Approach
KPMG developed a web-based survey tool to administer the electronic survey for the 2,271 Reporting Entities.
The survey tool was delivered by email to the Reporting Entities, and was also accessible through a web-link on
DFS’ Chart of Accounts Project website. KPMG utilized Key Survey technology to administer the survey to the
Reporting Entities. Key Survey provides a robust, sophisticated platform with fully customizable solutions and
unique functionality.
I. Executive Summary
2
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
KPMG designed the survey to capture Reporting Entity cost estimate information through numerous multiple
choice questions, pre-loaded lists, and open response sections. The survey also contained open response
sections for Reporting Entities to provide additional details on cost assumptions or general commentary on
complying with the UCOA.
B-2 Survey Communication
KPMG maintained extensive communication with DFS and the Reporting Entities to enhance survey awareness
and understanding. KPMG conducted the following communication activities related to the survey:





UCOA Project Website – KPMG assisted DFS in adding project-related communication to DFS’ Chart of
Accounts Project website. Communication items included an overview of the UCOA Cost Estimate project,
anticipated frequently asked questions (FAQ’s), as well as contact information for key DFS personnel.
Notification – KPMG’s communications team assisted DFS in sending multiple email notifications to the
Reporting Entities communicating the survey timeline, contact information and link to the survey tool.
KPMG attached a link to FAQ’s to the email distribution to assist the Reporting Entities in completing the
survey. For entities that DFS did not have an email address, DFS sent a letter notifying the Reporting Entities
of the survey process. Other notifications sent to the Reporting Entities included an initial survey awareness
email sent prior to the survey launch, a survey launch email, and multiple survey completion follow-up
reminder emails.
Government Support Organizations – KPMG worked with DFS and the Government Support
Organizations to draft content to be incorporated into newsletters sent by the Government Support
Organizations to the Reporting Entities. The Government Service Organizations included Florida Government
Finance Officers Association (FGFOA), and the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers (FACC).
Newsletter content included general information about the UCOA Cost Estimate project, key project
timeframes, DFS contact information, and web-link to the DFS Chart of Accounts Project website.
Webcasts – KPMG worked with DFS to coordinate and conduct three webcasts for the Reporting Entities to
provide information about the project and a walk through of the survey example to assist entities in
completing the cost estimate survey. The webcast also provided a forum for questions and answers. Each
webcast was designed with 30 minutes of prepared DFS and KPMG remarks, and allowed 30 minutes for a
questions and answers. More than 500 unique log-ons joined the webcasts.
Conference Presentations – DFS presented several presentations during the survey period.
B-3 Survey Pilot and Execution
KPMG conducted a survey pilot to test the survey process with identified Reporting Entities. KPMG piloted the
survey with eight Reporting Entities representing all of the entity categories: city and municipality, county, special
district, water management district, college, university and school district.
KPMG provided a one-week period for the eight pilot Reporting Entities to complete the survey. After the oneweek pilot survey period, KPMG conducted a teleconference with each of the eight entities to obtain feedback
on the survey tool regarding the overall survey experience, functionality, completion time, any issues
encountered, and suggestions. KPMG received positive feedback with few recommendations to enhance clarity
of certain questions. Based on the feedback from the pilot survey, KPMG adjusted certain survey questions to
provide additional clarity, and streamlined certain questions to remove duplication.
After completing the survey pilot, KPMG launched the survey process. KPMG assisted DFS in distributing an
email notification to the Reporting Entities communicating the survey timeline (open for six weeks), contact
information and link to the survey tool. A link to FAQ’s related to the survey was included in the email that
guided the Reporting Entities in completing the survey.
As the Reporting Entities completed the survey, the data was housed on a secure server. The KPMG team
consistently monitored the survey collection process and provided weekly reports to DFS on response rates,
I. Executive Summary
3
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
reporting entity completion rates, and pending incomplete surveys. Surveys were also received from several
Component Units (CU’s) and Direct Support Organizations (DSO’s) that were not originally included in the initial
notification.
B-4 Survey Responses
KPMG received 600 completed surveys – 474 surveys from primary governments and 126 surveys from related
parties including CU’s, DSO’s, and County Constitutional officers. KPMG’s targeted response rate was15%, and
achieved an actual response rate of 21%. The following graph shows the response rate for each of the eight
Reporting Entity Categories based on the number of reporting entities in each group. The average response rate
is 21%, due principally because of a 10% response rate of Special Districts. All other Categories had a response
rate of at least 40%, with Colleges, Universities and School District response rates above 67%.
Exhibit I-1
Response Rate
100%
100%
100%
86%
80%
72%
67%
60%
43%
40%
40%
21%
20%
10%
0%
B-5 Data Analysis and Validation
KPMG conducted a preliminary analysis of the estimated cost for each of the 8 Reporting Entity Categories
identified in the graph above. KPMG received responses from all entities for two categories (Universities and
State Government). KPMG received responses from 2 of the 5 Water Management Districts and 24 of the 28
Colleges. For these four Categories, it was not necessary to stratify the populations to extrapolate an aggregate
cost (see Section III.B.3 for further description on population strata). For the remaining four Categories (Cities
and Municipalities, Counties, Special Districts, and School Districts), KPMG stratified the populations into either 3
or 4 “strata” to enable extrapolation by Reporting Entity Categories. The following table shows each Reporting
Entity Type, Reporting Entity Category and associated strata.
I. Executive Summary
4
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Exhibit I-2
Reporting Entity
Type
Reporting Entity Category
Applicable Strata
Local Government
Cities and Municipalities
4 layers organized by
city/municipality size
3 layers organized by county size
3 layers organized by revenue size
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 layers organized by county size
N/A
Education
Organizations
State Government
Counties
Special Districts
Water Management Districts
Colleges
Universities
School Districts
DFS
KPMG organized the survey results based on Reporting Entity Type, Reporting Entity Category and then further
organized by strata within each Reporting Entity Category to further group survey responses with similar
characteristics (such as population or revenue).
KPMG analyzed the survey results to determine whether individual survey responses were outliers. KPMG used
statistical analysis to summarize and analyze the cost estimate data. KPMG calculated a normal distribution of
survey results and reviewed data outside of the first standard deviation of the mean within each strata. KPMG
reviewed source data from the Reporting Entity’s survey to identify key factors (reported hours or rates)
potentially contributing to cost estimates outside the normal distribution. KPMG further attempted to contact the
entity to confirm or adjust the reported estimates within the response.
C. SURVEY RESULTS
C-1 Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Calculation
The cost for an entity to comply with the UCOA requirements was calculated directly from the entity’s survey
response. Each Reporting Entity provided:


A data transmission method from one of three options:
o Manual crosswalk
o Technology crosswalk
o System modification
The type of resources they intend to use to develop the transmission method from one of three options:
o Internal resources
o Third party resources
o Combination of both internal and third party resources
Each Reporting Entity also provided information detailing the cost to comply with reporting for:



Monthly operating costs for reporting for revenues and expenditure information
Annual operating costs for reporting for balance sheet information
Total operating and capital costs for transition
Responses were analyzed, reviewed by tier, and extrapolated to the population to calculate estimates for the
total population. The cost estimate includes monthly recurring costs, additional annual recurring costs, and one
time transition costs.
I. Executive Summary
5
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
C-2 Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate
The estimated costs to implement the UCOA are shown in the exhibits below. Cities and Municipalities, School
Districts and Special Districts had transition costs higher than other entities. The estimated recurring and
transition costs for Local Government Entities are:
Exhibit I-3
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual Cost Estimate
Detail by Type of Local Government Entity
Cities and
Municipalities
Water
Management
Districts
Special
Districts
Counties
Monthly Costs
$
951,382
$
412,781
Annualized Monthly Costs
$ 11,416,578
$
Annual Costs
$
2,583,363
Total Recurring Costs
Transition Costs
$
Total
1,921,478
$
1,784
$
3,287,424
4,953,368
$ 23,057,736
$
21,408
$ 39,449,090
$
2,383,990
$
6,394,302
$
1,784
$ 11,363,439
$ 13,999,942
$
7,337,358
$ 29,452,038
$
23,192
$ 50,812,530
$ 13,786,605
$
5,405,450
$ 16,885,569
$
56,582
$ 36,134,206
The estimated recurring and transition costs for Educational Entities are:
Exhibit I-4
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual and Five Year Cost Estimate
Detail by Type of Education Entity
Colleges
School
Districts
Universities
Total
Monthly Costs
$
127,452
$
123,237
$
295,670
$
546,358
Annualized Monthly Costs
$
1,529,423
$
1,478,841
$
3,548,036
$
6,556,300
Annual Costs
$
395,834
$
197,384
$
2,007,004
$
2,600,221
Total Recurring Costs
$
1,925,257
$
1,676,225
$
5,555,040
$
9,156,521
Transition Costs
$
3,008,894
$
1,840,611
$
31,505,036
$
36,354,541
I. Executive Summary
6
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
The estimated recurring and transition costs for the State are:
Exhibit I-5
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual Cost Estimate
Detail for DFS
State Agency
Costs
LOGER
Costs
Total
Monthly Costs
$
786
$
1,748
$
2,534
Annualized Monthly Costs
$
9,432
$
20,976
$
30,408
Annual Costs
$
1,787
$
40,320
$
42,107
Total Recurring Costs
$
11,219
$
61,296
$
72,515
Transition Costs
$
43,197
$
37,363
$
80,560
The overall costs summarized by Reporting Entity Type are:
Exhibit I-6
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Summary of Overall Costs
Local
Education
State of
Governments
Entities
Florida
Total
Recurring Annual Costs
$
50,812,530
$
9,156,521
$
72,515
$
60,041,566
One Time Transition
$
36,134,206
$
36,354,541
$
80,560
$
72,569,307
I. Executive Summary
7
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
The average one time and annual recurring costs by Reporting Entity Type are:
Average Cost by Reporting Entity
Exhibit I-7
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$-
One-Time
I. Executive Summary
Annual Recurring
8
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
II. Background and Purpose
The Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS) engaged KPMG, LLP (KPMG) to determine the statewide
cost impact of a Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA) adoption and implementation, which requires the collection
and validation of cost estimates from the Reporting Entities.
A. HISTORY
The 2011 State of Florida (State) Legislature passed Senate Bill 1292 requiring that a mechanism be provided for
obtaining detailed, uniform reporting of government financial information to promote accountability and
transparency in the use of public funds. To accomplish uniform reporting, Chapter 215.89, Florida Statutes
requires the State’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to propose Draft UCOA to establish uniform reporting
requirements for all units of the government that include state agencies, local governments, educational entities
and entities of higher education (collectively referred to as the “Reporting Entities”) to meet the legislative
requirements. By January 15, 2014, the CFO is required to present the UCOA to the Governor, the President of
the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In addition to the UCOA, the CFO was tasked
with identifying the estimated statewide cost impact for the UCOA adoption and implementation.
B. OBJECTIVES
KPMG administered an electronic web-based survey to collect, analyze, validate, and summarize UCOA cost
estimates from Reporting Entities. Key project objectives include:



A formalized draft Project Plan and Methodology;
Survey development and distribution to Reporting Entities;
A summary of the audit/validation results
This report focuses on the cost estimate study and will help enable DFS to present a UCOA recommendation to
the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by January 15,
2014.
II. Background and Purpose
9
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
III. Scope and Approach
To meet DFS’s needs, KPMG’s scope included three primary workstreams:
Survey Development: Utilized Key Survey technology to develop an electronic survey for more than 2,000
Reporting Entities. Developed a Survey Template designed to gather the required financial information in a costefficient manner.
Data Collection: Monitored the survey collection process and
provided reports on response rates, reporting entity completion
rates, pending incomplete surveys, and dates and times of
completions.
Data Analysis and Validation: Analyzed and validated cost
estimate data as received from Reporting Entities during the
survey process.
Exhibit III-1
Survey
Development
UCOA
KPMG analyzed survey data using the Statistical Package for
Data Analysis
Data
Social Sciences (SPSS). KPMG organized the survey results
and
Collection
Validation
based on Reporting Entity Category and then further organized
by strata within each Reporting Entity Category to further group
survey responses with similar characteristics (such as
population or revenue). KPMG used statistical analysis to summarize and analyze the cost estimate data
according to multiple strata. Within each stratum, KPMG calculated the normal distribution of survey results to
identify outlier data or data outside of the first standard deviation from the mean. KPMG conducted further
analysis to adjust or confirm outlier data with the applicable Reporting Entity.
A. IDENTIFY REPORTING ENTITIES
For purposes of this project, there are 2,271 Reporting Entities responding to the survey (DFS represented 35
state agencies in a single survey response resulting in 2,305 Reporting Entities) which can be logically separated
into three Reporting Entity Types and eight Reporting Categories:



Local Government – 2,158 local governments consisting of cities and municipalities, counties, special
districts, and water management districts
Education Organizations – 112 education organizations consisting of colleges, universities, and school
districts
State Agencies –35 state agencies represented by DFS in 1 survey.
Local Government entities follow uniform accounting procedures promulgated by DFS in the Uniform Accounting
System Manual. Many of the Reporting Entities also have affiliated Component Units (CU’s) or Direct Support
Organizations (DSO’s). These entities will be required to report CU or DSO financial information separately from
the Reporting Entity at the CU or DSO entity level.
During the planning process, DFS and KPMG identified a population of Reporting Entities’ CU’s and DSO’s that
needed to be included in the survey process. DFS did not have a comprehensive list of these Component Units
and Direct Support Organizations. KPMG believed that certain primary governments would not provide the
underlying detail chart of accounts for these entities. To capture the cost of these entities, the survey
instructions requested the Reporting Entity to identify any outside organizations with separate general ledger
information that are part of the Reporting Entity’s annual financial reporting. The Reporting Entity was then
requested to either add any incremental costs or forward a separate survey to the CU or DSO.
III. Scope and Approach
10
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B. METHODOLOGY
KPMG utilized the following five-phased approach to accomplish the project objectives:
I. Project
Kick-Off &
Planning
II. Survey
Development
III. Data Collection
IV. Data Analysis & Validation
V. Report
Production &
Presentation
Project Management and Communications
KPMG leveraged the use of technology and effective survey analysis to achieve desired outcomes with
consideration of the State’s allocated resources for this project. The three key phases (Survey Development,
Data Collection, and Data Analysis & Validation) of the methodology are discussed in further detail in the sections
below.
B-1 Survey Development
1. Survey Technology
The project administered an electronic survey to 2,271 Reporting Entities. To accomplish this task KPMG used a
web-based survey tool. The survey tool was delivered via email to Reporting Entities, and was also accessible
through a web-link on DFS’ Chart of Accounts Project website.
KPMG utilized Key Survey technology to administer the survey to the Reporting Entities. Key Survey provides a
robust, sophisticated platform with fully customizable solutions and unique functionality. KPMG developed a
survey template with advanced logic that presented questions based on the responses given to the previous
questions. KPMG used the following survey tool capabilities throughout this project:




Configured survey questions as mandatory or
optional
Enabled Reporting Entities to start a survey,
save, and return to complete at a later time
Created standard survey data and questions
with multiple choice questions, preloaded
lists and free response for commentary
Configured the design of the survey template
to include the DFS logo
III. Scope and Approach




Allowed survey questions to branch based on
predefined paths (such as Crosswalk option versus
Modify Financial System option)
Provided access to real-time built-in survey completion
statistics (e.g. how many have started or completed)
Extracted survey responses in various file formats
Distributed survey through email and DFS Chart of
Accounts Project website
11
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
2. Survey Development
The Survey collected the following information:




Reporting Entity Category
Contact information
Financial information
Cost estimate information


Assumptions or comments significant to the cost
estimate information
Statutory requirements that would be prohibitive in
modifying the Reporting Entity’s existing financial
accounting system to the UCOA reporting structure
3. Survey Pilot
Working with DFS on the survey technology and specifications, KPMG built the survey to achieve the agreed
upon requirements. After the initial build, KPMG conducted a survey pilot to test the survey process with
identified Reporting Entities. KPMG piloted the survey with eight Reporting Entities representing all of the entity
categories surveyed: city and municipality, county, special district, water management district, college, university
and school district.
KPMG provided a one-week period for the eight pilot Reporting Entities to complete the survey. After the oneweek survey period, KPMG conducted a teleconference with the eight entities to obtain feedback on the survey
tool regarding the overall survey experience, functionality, completion time, any issues encountered, and
suggestions.
KPMG received positive feedback with few recommendations to enhance clarity of certain questions. Based on
the feedback from the pilot survey, KPMG adjusted certain survey questions to provide additional clarity, and
streamlined certain questions to remove duplication. KPMG also removed a question from the pilot survey
related to an entity’s productivity rate based on pilot feedback and discussions with DFS. KPMG instead applied a
standard productivity, or capacity rate in the cost estimate calculations.
B-2 Data Collection
After completing the survey pilot and pre-launch activities, including developing and finalizing the survey and
drafting communication materials, KPMG commenced activities to launch the survey process. DFS distributed an
email notification to the Reporting Entities communicating the survey timeline, contact information and link to the
survey tool. A link to FAQ’s was attached in the email that guided the Reporting Entities in completing the
survey.
As the Reporting Entities completed the survey, the data was housed on a secure server. The KPMG team
consistently monitored the survey collection process and provided weekly reports to DFS on response rates,
reporting entity completion rates, and pending incomplete surveys.
KPMG used a six-week survey period for Responding Entities to complete the survey. While the link to the
survey remained active, KPMG monitored the number of surveys started and completed. At the half-way mark of
the survey period, KPMG identified the Responding Entities that had either not started the survey or had not
completed the survey. Using the list provided by KPMG, DFS sent survey reminder emails to the identified
Reporting Entities in an attempt to increase the survey response rate.
III. Scope and Approach
12
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
KPMG received 474 primary government responses from the population of 2,271. A distribution of surveys
received is as follows:
Exhibit III-2
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Survey Response Rate and Count by Reporting Entity
Survey
Response
Category
Cities
Total by
Category
177
Counties
Special Districts
Water Mgmt
Response
Rate
415
43%
44
66
67%
162
1,672
10%
2
5
40%
Colleges
24
28
86%
Universities
12
12
100%
School Districts
52
72
72%
1
1
100%
474
2,271
21%
State Agency *
* One survey response included the costs for the 35 State Agencies
The following graph shows the response rate by Reporting Entity Category. The average response rate is 21%,
due principally to a Special District response rate of 10%. Besides Special Districts, all other Categories had a
response rate of at least 40%, with Counties, Colleges, Universities and School District response rates above
65%.
Response Rate
100%
100%
Exhibit III-3
100%
86%
80%
72%
67%
60%
43%
40%
40%
21%
20%
10%
0%
III. Scope and Approach
13
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B-3 Data Analysis and Validation
KPMG’s data analysis team began to analyze and validate cost estimate data as received from Reporting Entities
during the survey process. The survey data was exported from the survey tool and analysis was conducted using
the SPSS.
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Calculation
The cost for an entity to comply with the UCOA requirements was calculated directly from the entity’s survey
response.
Each Reporting Entity provided:

A data transmission method from one of three options:
Exhibit III-4

Data Transmission Method
Description
Manual Crosswalk
Manually crosswalk financial information from the existing chart
of accounts to UCOA reporting structure
Technology Crosswalk
Use technology to automate the crosswalk process from the
existing chart of accounts to the UCOA reporting structure
System Modification
Modify existing financial accounting system and chart of
accounts to mirror the UCOA reporting structure
The type of resources they intend to use to develop the transmission method from one of three options:
Exhibit III-5
Resource Type
Description
Internal Resources
Reporting Entity staff
Third Party Resources
Third Party service provider
Internal/Third Party Resources
(Both)
Both Reporting Entity staff and Third Party service provider
resources
KPMG used survey time and expense data by Resource Type to calculate cost estimates per Reporting Entity.
KPMG then attributed the cost estimates to the appropriate Data Transmission method as reported in each
Reporting Entity’s survey. In addition to each Reporting Entity identifying Data Transmission method, and
Resource Type, the Reporting Entity provided information detailing the cost to comply with reporting for:



One time operating and capital costs for transitions
Monthly operating costs for reporting for revenues and expenditure information
Annual operating costs for reporting for balance sheet information
III. Scope and Approach
14
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
KPMG’s cost calculations for the three resource classes is explained below:
Internal Resources
KPMG multiplied the hourly rate for each internal staff position by the number of hours for each work effort (one
time, monthly and annual), adjusted for a fringe rate, if requested by the entity, and adjusted for a capacity factor
of 89%. The capacity factor is a measure of productive employee time. The 89% capacity factor is based on an
estimated 28 days (224 hours) out of the office each year for a combination of holidays and paid time off. After
the conclusion of the pilot survey process, it was decided that this rate would be included in each calculation.
Third Party Resources
Reporting Entities could provide fixed fee or time and material information for using Third Party resources. For
fixed fee estimates, KPMG added the reported costs for each work effort (one time, monthly and annual). For
time and materials estimates, KPMG multiplied the hourly rate for each third party resource by the number of
hours for each work effort (one time, monthly and annual). KPMG also added any reported one time costs or
travel costs for each work effort to the calculated amounts.
Both
KPMG added the cost calculations for the Internal Resources and Third Party Resources when a Reporting Entity
Indicated using “Both” resource types.
KPMG conducted a preliminary analysis of the estimated cost for each of the Reporting Entity Types by
Reporting Entity Category. The cost estimates were aggregated by Reporting Entity Category. KPMG received
responses from all entities within two of the Reporting Entity Categories (Universities and State Government).
KPMG received responses from 2 of the 5 Water Management Districts and 24 of the 28 Colleges. For these
four Categories, it was not necessary to stratify the populations to extrapolate an aggregate cost. For the
remaining four Categories (Cities and Municipalities, Counties, Special Districts, and School Districts), KPMG
stratified the populations into either 3 or 4 “strata” to enable extrapolation by Reporting Entity Category. The
following table shows each Reporting Entity Type, Reporting Entity Category and associated strata.
Exhibit III-6
Reporting Entity
Type
Local Government
Education
Organizations
State Government
Reporting Entity Category
Applicable Strata
Cities and Municipalities
4 layers organized by
city/municipality size
3 layers organized by county size
3 layers organized by revenue size
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 layers organized by county size
N/A
Counties
Special Districts
Water Management Districts
Colleges
Universities
School Districts
DFS
KPMG used a stratified sampling methodology to determine whether we received a representative sample by
strata.
KPMG received 601 completed survey responses, including a response from DFS. The survey data also included
a response from a regional planning commission that was not included in the distribution of surveys. It was not a
part of the identified reporting categories and has been excluded from analysis, resulting in a total of 600 surveys
used to estimate the cost of the UCOA.
III. Scope and Approach
15
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
As illustrated in Exhibit III-7, the survey database includes responses from 474 primary governments and 126
responses from related parties. The related parties include CU’s, DSO’s and County Constitutional Officers. The
related party governments are added to the respective primary government to determine the total cost for the
primary government sample. The total cost for the primary government, including the related party entities, is
the basis for the cost extrapolation. Exhibit III-7 breaks out the survey responses by strata, or tier. The tiers for
each Reporting Entity Category are further explained in Section IV Survey Results of this report.
Exhibit III-7
UCOA Survey Responses
Tier 1
Cities and Municipalities
Response Rate
Counties
Response Rate
Special Districts
Response Rate
Water Management Districts
Response Rate
Colleges
Response Rate
Universities
Response Rate
School Districts
1
100%
6
100%
5
19%
Response by Strata
Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4
6
53
117
55%
66%
36%
16
22
94%
51%
3
13%
154
Related
Total
Party
177
5
44
44
162
-
2
-
10%
2
40%
24
24
8
12
26
52
43
86%
12
100%
6
Response Rate
State
100%
1
Response Rate
100%
15
31
83%
65%
1
474
Total Survey Responses used in the UCOA Cost Estimation
126
600
KPMG received a response from 474 primary government Reporting Entities, allowing the survey data to achieve
the intended confidence interval.
III. Scope and Approach
16
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
As identified earlier in the approach, KPMG used statistical analysis to summarize and analyze the cost estimate
data according to four strata. Within each Reporting Entity Type and strata, KPMG calculated a normal
distribution of survey results and conducted further analysis on data outside of the first standard deviation from
the mean.
KPMG normalized data collected and conducted the statistical analysis for each Reporting Entity Type and
associated strata. For collected data falling into the second or third standard deviations, KPMG’s data analysis
team conducted additional analysis to validate the cost estimates reported. KPMG utilized the following data
validation process for cost estimates where further analysis was required:






Analyzed financial cost estimates provided by each
Reporting Entity, as well as the underlying
assumptions made by the entity in preparation of the
estimates
Compared personnel effort estimates (hours) of each
Reporting Entity to the other entities within the strata
(for Manual Crosswalk, Technology Crosswalk and
Financial System Modification)
Compared salary information by classification of each
Reporting Entity to the other entities within the strata
Compared fringe benefit rate multipliers of each
Reporting Entity to the other entities within the strata
Compared technology costs (one time acquisition
cost and annual licensing fees) of each Reporting
Entity to the other entities within the strata (for
Technology Crosswalk option)
Compared in-house personnel crosswalk costs of
each Reporting Entity to the other entities within the
strata






Compared third-party crosswalk costs of each
Reporting Entity to the other entities within the
strata
Compared overall total crosswalk costs of each
Reporting Entity to the other entities within the
strata
Compared technology modification/upgrade costs
of each Reporting Entity to the other entities
within the strata (for Financial System
Modification option)
Compared in-house personnel cost estimates for
COA redesign within the financial system of each
applicable Reporting Entity to the other entities
within the strata (for Financial System
Modification option)
Conducted an analysis of the results from the
comparisons (above) and attempt to correlate
cost estimate information to Reporting Entity
type, size, and financial information reported
Reviewed applicable cost related commentary
From the data analysis activities identified above, KPMG identified the Reporting Entities that reported cost
estimates that inconsistent with the other entities within their strata population. For these Reporting Entities,
KPMG followed-up with each entity to better understand the cost estimates provided. If the Reporting Entities
chose to revise their cost estimates during the follow-up process, KPMG re-ran the statistical analysis to
determine their revised position on the normal distribution curve. KPMG analyzed the distribution curve to
identify the average annual rate. In addition, KPMG identified any key areas observed for the Reporting Entities
outside of the normal distribution curve.
KPMG did not audit information provided by Reporting Entities and does not express an opinion on any financial
information as defined in FS Chapter 473. This project is not intended to be an audit, examination, attestation,
special report or agreed-upon procedures engagement as those services are defined in AICPA literature
applicable to such engagements conducted by independent auditors.
III. Scope and Approach
17
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Additional Data Analytics
KPMG’s approach was based on an
Exhibit III-8
anticipated survey response rate of 15%.
Data Validation
The planning and communication effort
No
resulted in a favorable overall response rate
Response
Validated
Total
of 21%, excluding component unit
responses. KPMG used statistical analysis to
City
23
4
27
summarize and analyze the cost estimate
College
3
4
7
data. KPMG calculated a normal distribution
County
10
5
15
of survey results and reviewed data outside
of the first standard deviation of the mean.
School District
12
5
17
KPMG’s planned approach was to validate up
Special District
86
5
91
to 125 survey responses. To concentrate
University
2
2
effort on the largest outliers, KPMG sampled
136
23
159
all responses in excess of two standard
deviations above the mean. KPMG selected
a sample of 25 below the mean. No
responses fell two standard deviations below the mean. KPMG performed additional procedures including
contacting the entity to confirm or adjust the estimates within the response.
KPMG validated over 159
Exhibit III-9
responses. The responses
Data Validation Impact on Survey
validated included 81
Hours/
Fringe
Other
samples of the high cost
estimates and 78 samples
FTE
Rate
Costs
None
Total
of the low cost estimates.
City
9
1
13
23
KPMG also validated
College
1
2
3
responses from the special
County
4
6
10
districts and the component
units responses from the
School District
1
11
12
contacts listed for more
Special District
2
59
3
22
86
than one entity. KPMG was
University
1
1
2
successful in collection of
15
60
6
55
136
136 entities and noted
changes to 81 entities
based on discussions with
the survey respondent. Exhibit III-9 illustrates the number of adjustments made by adjustment type: number of
work hours or staff (Full-Time Equivalency (FTE’s)), fringe rate, or other costs (i.e. duplicate costs reported).
III. Scope and Approach
18
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Reporting Data Analysis and Validation Results
Based on the activities conducted above, KPMG reported a summary of our analysis to DFS. The summary
included the following elements reported by strata (and Reporting Entity category within each strata):




List of Reporting Entities that completed
the survey
List of Reporting Entities reporting cost
estimates for Manual Crosswalk,
Technology Crosswalk and Financial
System Modification
List of Reporting Entities reporting cost
estimates within one standard deviation
from the mean (and therefore no further
analysis was required)
List of Reporting Entities reporting cost
estimates outside one standard deviation
from the mean (in which KPMG conducted
further analysis and validation activities)




List of Reporting Entities KPMG conducted follow-up
communication and results (whether or not the entity
revised their cost estimate). For those entities
remaining two or more standard deviations from the
mean, KPMG reported discrepancies identified
during the analysis, validation and follow-up process.
Recap of methodology used to further analyze and
validate the Reporting Entities where further analysis
was required
Summary of the cost estimates reported (in total,
and for Manual Crosswalk, Technology Crosswalk,
and Financial System Modification option)
Summary of calculated cost estimates (in total, and
for Manual Crosswalk, Technology Crosswalk, and
Financial System Modification options)
C. COMMUNICATION
Effective communication from KPMG to DFS, the Government Support Organizations (GSO’s) and the Reporting
Entities was critical to the project’s success before the survey launch, during the survey administration process
and during the data analysis and validation activities. KPMG conducted the following communication activities
during the survey period.
C-1 UCOA Project Website
KPMG assisted DFS in adding project-related communication to DFS’ Chart of Accounts Project website.
Communication items included an overview of the UCOA Cost Estimate project, webcasts, anticipated
frequently asked questions (FAQ’s), as well as contact information for key DFS personnel.
C-2 Notification
KPMG’s communications team assisted DFS in sending multiple email notifications to the Reporting Entities
communicating the survey timeline, contact information and link to the survey tool. KPMG attached a link to
FAQ’s to the email distribution to assist the Reporting Entities in completing the survey. For entities that DFS did
not have an email address, DFS sent a letter template notifying the Reporting Entities of the survey process.
Other notifications sent to the Reporting Entities included an initial survey awareness email sent prior to the
survey launch, a survey launch email, and multiple survey completion follow-up reminder emails.
C-3 Government Support Organizations
KPMG worked with DFS and the GSO’s to draft content to be incorporated into newsletters sent by the GSO’s
to the Reporting Entities. Newsletter content included general information about the UCOA Cost Estimate
project, project timeframes, DFS contact information, and a web-link to the DFS Chart of Accounts Project
website. GSO’s included:


Florida Association of Counties
Florida Association of Court Clerks
III. Scope and Approach
19
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report


Florida Government Finance Officers Association
Florida League of Cities
C-4 Webcasts
KPMG worked with DFS to coordinate and conduct three webcasts for the Reporting Entities to receive
additional information about the UCOA Cost Estimate project and provide a forum for questions and answers.
Each webcast was designed with 30 minutes of prepared DFS and KPMG remarks, and allowed 30 minutes for
questions and answers. The Webcasts were held on the following dates with the number of unique log ins
indicating the attendance:



September 16, 2013
September 23, 2013
October 3, 2013
216 unique log ins
178 unique log ins
144 unique log ins
C-5 Help Desk Activities and Statistics
DFS provided a “Help Desk” available to Reporting Entities during the survey period to answer questions about
the survey or webinars. DFS received 79 phone calls and 251 emails.
III. Scope and Approach
20
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
IV. Survey Results
This section presents the results of the UCOA Survey and explains how the extrapolations were used to
populate cost estimates for all government entities subject to the UCOA legislation. KPMG summarized the
results into three types:



Local Government Entities – Cities and Municipalities, Counties, Special Districts, and Water Management
Districts
Education Entities – Colleges, Universities and School Districts
State Government
This section summarizes the survey stratification, results, data validation and analysis and extrapolation for each
category within the type of governmental entity. Within each of the three types, KPMG aggregated the ongoing
and nonrecurring extrapolated costs. Finally, KPMG aggregated the cost for all three of the types in Section IV –
C1. of this report.
A. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES – WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A-1 Cities and Municipalities
DFS provided KPMG with a list of 415 Cities and Municipalities in the State of Florida. The population and
revenues of these entities are of a broad range.
Cities and Municipalities Tier Structure
and Responses
Exhibit IV-1
City Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Cities and municipalities range from very small
populations to very large populations and revenues.
1
1
1.0000
Tier 1
KPMG analyzed the cities and municipalities
11
6
1.8333
Tier 2
comparing ranges of revenues and populations to
80
53
1.5094
Tier
3
determine an appropriate grouping of cities and
323
117
2.7607
Tier 4
municipalities. The two largest cities in Florida using
these characteristics are: 1) the consolidated
415
177
governments of the City of Jacksonville and Duval
County (2013 estimated population of 832,000) and
2) the City of Miami (2013 estimated population
420,000). Pursuant to the responses and the population of the entities KPMG stratified the population into four
tiers, as follows:




Tier 1 – Because the City of Jacksonville has characteristics of both a city and a county, we put the City of
Jacksonville in a tier by itself.
Tier 2 – The next eleven largest cities and municipalities have a 2013 estimated population between 140,000
and 800,000 and with a similar scope of operations.
Tier 3 – Eighty cities and municipalities with 2013 estimated populations between 25,000 and 140,000 and
with generally similar characteristics.
Tier 4 – The remaining 323 cities and municipalities with 2013 estimated populations less than 25,000.
The survey responses included 177 from cities and municipalities in Florida. The survey responses also included
4 component units that were added to their primary government for aggregation. The total city and municipality
IV. Survey Results
21
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
response rate for the survey was 43%. KPMG calculated extrapolation factors based on dividing the total tier
population by the tier responses received. KPMG used the extrapolation factors to project survey response
costs to the entire tier population.
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the City and Municipality survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Resources Type
Manual
69
Technology
Modify
36
72
Internal
102
Third Party
10
Both
65
Cities and Municipalities Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG reviewed the survey responses received by calculating the estimated costs for compliance with the
UCOA requirements. KPMG used data collected from the Cities’ and Municipalities’ surveys and calculated the
estimated nonrecurring one time costs, recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual
costs for balance sheet accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations for monthly recurring, annual recurring, one time transition
and total costs. KPMG selected survey responses with costs outside the accepted deviation for further analysis.
For entities outside of the normal distribution, we performed the following:



KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
KPMG contacted individual noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
Exhibit IV-2
The Cities and Municipalities surveys
required further review of 27 responses.
The results of data validation and analysis
included 17 entities that did not require a
change and 10 entities that required
adjustment to the submitted survey
responses as directed by the entities.
After the changes were updated, the
costs were extrapolated to the tiered
population and estimated costs were
projected to the entire city and
municipality population.
IV. Survey Results
City and Municipality Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Annual
Tier 1
$
1,037,774
$
28,864
$
33,434
Tier 2
$
1,601,513
$
43,452
$
68,313
Tier 3
$
3,455,746
$
242,667
$
751,711
Tier 4
$
1,664,988
$
172,626
$
467,287
$
7,760,020
$
487,609
$
1,320,745
22
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Cities and Municipalities UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the Cities and Municipalities by multiplying the survey response costs by the
respective extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey
responses received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with
the UCOA implementation.
Exhibit IV-3
City and Municipality
Extrapolated Cost
One Time
Monthly
Total
Average
Total
Average
Total
Annual
Average
Tier 1
$
1,037,774
$
1,037,774
$
28,864
$
28,864
$
33,434
$
33,434
Tier 2
$
2,936,106
$
266,919
$
79,662
$
7,242
$
125,240
$
11,385
Tier 3
$
5,216,220
$
65,203
$
366,289
$
4,579
$
1,134,658
$
14,183
Tier 4
$
4,596,504
$
14,231
$
476,566
$
1,475
$
1,290,032
$
3,994
$
951,382
$
2,583,363
$ 13,786,605
IV. Survey Results
23
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
A-2 Counties
There are 67 counties in the State of Florida. Duval County is part of a consolidated government with the City of
Jacksonville. For purposes of this project, Duval County was included in the responses that are aggregated with
Cities and Municipalities leaving 66 counties that comprise the County totals.
County Tier Structure and Responses
Counties range from very small populations to very
large populations and revenues. The population and
revenues of Florida Counties range from Miami-Dade
County with a 2013 estimated population of
2,583,000 to Liberty County with a 2013 estimated
population of 8,500. To extrapolate the results of the
survey to an estimate for all Counties, KPMG
grouped the Counties into three tiers. Pursuant to
the responses and the population of the entities
KPMG stratified the population into three tiers, as
follows:



Exhibit IV-4
County Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Tier 1
6
6
1.0000
Tier 2
17
16
1.0625
Tier 3
43
22
1.9545
66
44
Tier 1 – Six counties with 2013 estimated populations greater than 925,000. The five largest counties all
have populations in excess of one million. (Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, Orange, and
Pinellas) The next largest county’s estimated 2013 population is 643,000.
Tier 2 –The next seventeen largest counties have a 2013 estimated population in excess of 200,000 and
have a similar scope of operations (Lee, Polk, Brevard, Volusia, Pasco, Seminole, Sarasota, Marion, Manatee,
Collier, Lake, Escambia, Osceola, St. Lucie, Leon, Alachua, and St. Johns).
Tier 3 – The remaining 43 counties have 2013 estimated populations less than 200,000 and have generally
similar characteristics.
The responses to the county survey were tiered based on population which correlates to the revenues of the
entity. The survey population of the county primary government is 66. KPMG received surveys from 44 county
governments or 67% of Counties. KPMG calculated extrapolation factors based on dividing the total tier
population by the tier responses received. KPMG used the extrapolation factors to project survey response
costs to the entire tier population.
In addition to the 44 surveys from County Governments,
Exhibit IV-5
KPMG received surveys from 44 component units. Of the 44
County Tax Collector Surveys
component unit surveys received, 28 were from County Tax
Survey Response Costs
Collectors. County Tax Collectors are typically one of five (in
One
Time
Monthly
Annual
addition to Property Appraiser, Clerk of Courts, Supervisor of
Tier 1
$
26,243 $
3,651 $
4,429
Elections, and Sheriff) constitutional officers in County
Tier 2
$ 171,920 $
22,733 $
41,734
Government. No other type of constitutional officer accounted
Tier 3
$ 289,970 $
42,395 $ 196,444
for more than 4 surveys. The Tax Collectors separately
reached out to DFS and shared their perspective on the UCOA
$ 488,133 $
68,779 $ 242,607
process. Due to the high number of Tax Collector survey
responses received, KPMG separated them from the other
component units and extrapolated the cost estimates for the
Tax Collectors and added their cost to the County totals. Exhibit IV-5 shows the Tax Collector survey response
costs. As mentioned above, the Tax Collector costs are included in the County totals.
IV. Survey Results
24
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the County survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Manual
16
Technology
15
Modify
13
Resources Type
Internal
26
Third Party
1
Both
17
County Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG reviewed the survey responses received by calculating the estimated costs for compliance with the
UCOA requirements. KPMG used data collected from the County surveys and calculated the estimated
nonrecurring one time costs, recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual costs for
balance sheet accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations for monthly recurring, annual recurring, one time transition
and total costs. KPMG selected survey responses with costs outside the accepted deviation for further analysis.
For entities outside of the normal distribution, KPMG performed the following:



KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
KPMG contacted individual noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
The County surveys, including Tax
Collectors, required further review of 15
responses. The results of data validation
and analysis included 11 entities that did not
require a change and 4 entities that required
adjustment to the submitted survey
responses as directed by the entities. After
the changes were updated the costs were
extrapolated to the tiered population and
estimated costs were projected to the entire
County population.
IV. Survey Results
Exhibit IV-6
County Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Annual
$
418,252
$ 2,821,949
$ 1,017,565
$
$
$
32,526
154,123
110,767
$
26,429
$ 1,597,673
$
337,691
$
$
297,416
$
4,257,766
1,961,794
25
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
County UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the Counties by multiplying the survey response costs by the respective
extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey responses
received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with the UCOA
implementation.
Exhibit IV-7
County
Extrapolated Cost
One Time
Monthly
Total
Average
Total
Average
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
$ 418,252
$ 2,998,321
$ 1,988,878
$ 5,405,450
$
$
$
69,709
176,372
46,253
$
$
$
32,526
163,755
216,499
$
412,781
$ 5,421
$ 9,633
$ 5,035
Annual
Total
Average
$
26,429
$ 1,697,528
$
660,033
$ 4,405
$ 99,855
$ 15,350
$ 2,383,990
.
A-3 Special Districts
The Department of Financial Services provided KPMG with a list of 1,672 Special Districts in the State of Florida.
These Special Districts include:




Community Development Districts (CDD’s)
Authorities (e.g., Utility Authorities, Health and Hospital Authorities, Aviation Authorities, Sports Authorities,
Port Authorities, Housing Finance Authorities, Housing Authorities, Transit Authorities)
Fire Control Districts, Library Districts, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, Mosquito Control Districts
Redevelopment Agencies
Special District Tier Structure and Responses
These Special Districts have a wide variation of size,
service delivery and staffing. CDD’s include large
entities with professional staff as well as small entities
that use the services of a professional management
company that manages multiple Special Districts. Two
management companies that completed the UCOA
Survey manage 10 and 59 Special Districts respectively.
To extrapolate the results of the survey to an estimate
for all Special Districts, KPMG grouped the Special
Districts into three tiers. Pursuant to the responses and
reported annual revenues of the entities KPMG stratified
the population in three tiers as follows:



Exhibit IV-8
Special District Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Tier 1
27
5
5.4000
Tier 2
24
3
8.0000
Tier 3
1,621
163
9.9448
1,672
171
Tier 1 – Twenty-seven Special Districts reported FY2012 revenues greater than $100,000.
Tier 2 – The next 24 largest Special Districts reported FY2012 revenues in excess of $50,000.
Tier 3 – The remaining 1,621 Special Districts reported FY2012 revenues up to $50,000.
The total response for the Special Districts was 162, or 10% of the 1,672 Special Districts. However, one survey
response included the effort for 10 CDD’s and included them as a single line item. KPMG increased the total
IV. Survey Results
26
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
surveys submitted to reflect all 10 CDD’s as submitting a response for extrapolation purposes. KPMG calculated
an extrapolation factor based on dividing the total tier population by the tier responses received. KPMG used the
extrapolation factor to project survey response costs to the entire tier population.
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the Special District survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Resources Type
Manual
101
Technology
Modify
28
33
Internal
102
Third Party
Both
54
6
Special District Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG reviewed the survey responses
received by calculating the estimated
costs for compliance with the UCOA
requirements. KPMG used data collected
from the Special Districts surveys and
calculated the estimated nonrecurring one
time costs, recurring monthly costs for
revenue and expense accounts, and
annual costs for balance sheet accounts.
Exhibit IV-9
Special District Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Annual
Tier 1
$
80,074
$
13,195
$
104,406
Tier 2
$
68,418
$
3,439
$
6,298
Tier 3
$
1,599,414
$
183,283
$
581,221
KPMG calculated the mean and standard
$ 1,747,905 $
199,917 $
691,926
deviations for monthly recurring, annual
recurring, one time transition and total
costs. KPMG selected survey responses
with costs outside the accepted deviation for further analysis. For entities outside of the normal distribution,
KPMG performed the following:



KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
KPMG contacted individual noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
The Special Districts surveys required further review of 91 responses. The results of data validation and analysis
included 27 entities that did not require a change and 64 entities that required adjustment to the submitted
survey responses as directed by the entities. After the changes were updated the costs were extrapolated to
the tiered population and estimated costs were projected to the entire Special District population.
Special District UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the Special District by multiplying the survey response costs by the
respective extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey
responses received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with
the UCOA implementation.
IV. Survey Results
27
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Exhibit IV-10
One Time
Total
Average
$
432,397
Tier 2
$
Tier 3
Tier 1
Special District
Extrapolated Cost
Monthly
Total
Average
$
16,015
547,345
$
22,806
$ 15,905,827
$
9,812
$
1,921,478
$ 16,885,569
$
Total
2,639
$
Annual
Average
71,255
$
563,795
$
$
27,514
$
1,146
$
1,822,709
$
1,124
$
6,394,302
20,881
$
50,385
$
2,099
$
5,780,121
$
3,566
A-4 Water Management Districts
There are five water management districts in the State of Florida. They are as follows:





Northwest Florida Water Management District
South Florida Water Management District
Southwest Florida Water Management District
St. Johns River Water Management District
Suwannee River Water Management District
Water Management District Tier Structure and
Responses
Due to the small size of the entity population a single tier
was utilized to review the entity responses. Two of the
five entities responded – Northwest Florida Water
Management District and St. Johns River Water
Management District. KPMG calculated an extrapolation
factor based on dividing the total tier population by the tier
responses received. KPMG used the extrapolation factor
to project survey response costs to the entire tier
population.
Exhibit IV-11
Water Management District Responses
Total
Tier 1
Extrapolation
Sample Factor
5
2
5
2
2.5000
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the Water Management District survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Resources Type
IV. Survey Results
Manual
1
Technology
0
Modify
1
Internal
1
Third Party
0
Both
1
28
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Water Management District Data
Validation and Analysis
Exhibit IV-12
Water Management District Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Annual
KPMG reviewed the survey responses
received by calculating the estimated
$
22,633 $
714 $
714
Tier 1
costs for compliance with the UCOA
requirements. KPMG used data
$
22,633 $
714 $
714
collected from the Water Management
Districts surveys and calculated the
estimated nonrecurring one time costs,
recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual costs for balance sheet accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations and noted that neither of the two surveys received were
outside of normal distribution.
Water Management District UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the Water Management District by multiplying the survey response costs by
the respective extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey
responses received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with
the UCOA implementation.
Exhibit IV-13
Water Management Districts
Extrapolated Cost
One Time
Monthly
Total
Average
Total
Average
Tier 1
$
56,582
$
56,582
IV. Survey Results
$
11,316
$
1,784
$
1,784
$
357
Annual
Total
Average
$
1,784
$
1,784
$
357
29
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
A-5 Aggregate Costs for Local Government Entities
The following chart summarizes the aggregate costs for local government for the estimated recurring monthly
costs for revenue and expense accounts, the estimated recurring annual costs for balance sheet accounts and
the estimated nonrecurring one time costs.
Exhibit IV-14
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual Cost Estimate
Detail by Type of Local Government Entity
Cities and
Municipalities
Monthly Costs
$
951,382
$
412,781
Annualized Monthly Costs
$ 11,416,578
$
Annual Costs
$
2,583,363
Total Recurring Costs
Transition Costs
IV. Survey Results
Special
Districts
Counties
$
Water
Management
Districts
Total
1,921,478
$
1,784
$
3,287,424
4,953,368
$ 23,057,736
$
21,408
$ 39,449,090
$
2,383,990
$
6,394,302
$
1,784
$ 11,363,439
$ 13,999,942
$
7,337,358
$ 29,452,038
$
23,192
$ 50,812,530
$ 13,786,605
$
5,405,450
$ 16,885,569
$
56,582
$ 36,134,206
30
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B. EDUCATION ENTITIES – COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS
B-1 Colleges
The Florida College System includes the following 28 colleges:
Exhibit IV-15
Florida College System
Chipola College
Broward College
College of Central Florida
Daytona State College
Eastern Florida State College
Edison State College
Florida Keys Community College
Florida Gateway College
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Gulf Coast State College
Hillsborough Community College
Indian River State College
Lake-Sumter State College
Miami Dade College
North Florida Community College
Northwest Florida State College
Palm Beach State College
Pasco-Hernando Community College
Pensacola State College
Polk State College
Santa Fe College
Seminole State College of Florida
South Florida State College
St. Johns River State College
St. Petersburg College
State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota
Tallahassee Community College
Valencia College
College Tier Structure and Responses
Exhibit IV-16
KPMG received surveys from 24 of 28 Florida Colleges. Due
to the high response rate it was not necessary to tier the
College population. KPMG calculated an extrapolation factor
based on dividing the total tier population by the tier
responses received. KPMG used the extrapolation factor to
project survey response costs to the entire tier population.
College Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Tier 1
28
24
28
24
1.1667
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the College survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Resources Type
IV. Survey Results
Manual
12
Technology
Modify
11
1
Internal
10
Third Party
0
Both
14
31
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
College Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG analyzed the survey responses received by calculating the estimated costs for compliance with the UCOA
requirements. KPMG used data collected from the Colleges surveys and calculated the estimated nonrecurring
one time costs, recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual costs for balance sheet
accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations for monthly recurring, annual recurring, one time transition
and total costs. KPMG selected survey responses with costs outside the accepted deviation for further analysis.
For entities outside of the normal distribution, KPMG performed the following:



KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
KPMG contacted individuals noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
The College surveys required further
review of 7 responses. The results of data
validation and analysis included 6 entities
that did not require a change and 1 entity
that required adjustment to the submitted
survey responses as directed by the
entities. After the changes were updated
the costs were extrapolated to the
population and estimated costs were
projected to the entire College population.
Exhibit IV-17
College Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Tier 1
Annual
$
2,579,052
$
109,245
$
339,286
$
2,579,052
$
109,245
$
339,286
College UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the College by multiplying the survey response costs by the respective
extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey responses
received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with the UCOA
implementation.
Exhibit IV-18
One Time
Total
Average
Tier 1
$
3,008,894
$
3,008,894
IV. Survey Results
$
107,461
Colleges
Extrapolated Cost
Monthly
Total
Average
$
127,452
$
127,452
$
4,552
Total
Annual
Average
$
395,834
$
395,834
$
14,137
32
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B-2 Universities
The Florida University System consists of 12 universities including:
Florida International University
Exhibit IV-19
Florida University System
New College of Florida
Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University
University of West Florida
Florida Atlantic University
University of Central Florida
Florida State University
University of South Florida
Florida Gulf Coast University
University of North Florida
Florida Polytechnic University
University of Florida
University Tier Structure and Responses
Exhibit IV-20
Due to the small size of the entity population a single tier
was utilized to review the entity responses. All 12 of
Florida’s Universities submitted a survey response.
University Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Tier 1
12
12
12
12
1.0000
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the University survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Manual
0
Technology
12
Modify
0
Resources Type
Internal
10
Third Party
0
Both
2
University Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG reviewed the survey responses received by calculating the estimated costs for compliance with the
UCOA requirements. KPMG used data collected from the University surveys and calculated the estimated
nonrecurring one time costs, recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual costs for
balance sheet accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations for monthly recurring, annual recurring, one time
implementation and total costs. KPMG selected survey responses with costs outside the accepted deviation for
further analysis. For entities outside of the normal distribution, KPMG performed the following:


KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
IV. Survey Results
33
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report

KPMG contacted the individual noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
The University surveys required further review of two of the responses. The results of data validation and
analysis included one entity that did not require a change and one entity that did require an adjustment to the
submitted survey response as directed by the entities. After the change was made, the cost calculations were
updated.
Exhiit IV-21
University Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Total
Average
Total
Average
Tier 1
$
1,840,611
$
1,840,611
$
153,384
$
123,237
$
123,237
$
10,270
Total
Annual
Average
$
197,384
$
197,384
$
16,449
University UCOA Cost Extrapolation
Since 100% of the universities submitted survey responses, it is not necessary to extrapolate the UCOA costs.
The sum of the survey responses equals the total estimated one time, monthly and annual costs for Florida’s 12
universities.
IV. Survey Results
34
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B-3 School Districts
There are 72 school districts in the State of Florida. Each of the 67 counties has a school district. In addition
there are 5 other districts. They are as follows:





Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Lab School
Florida Atlantic University Lab School
Florida School for the Deaf and Blind
Florida State University Lab School
University of Florida Lab School
School District Tier Structure and Responses
School Districts are structured and tiered based on the
county populations. For Counties KPMG used three tiers.
The School Districts range from very small populations and
revenues to very large populations and revenues. To
extrapolate the results of the survey to an estimate for
school districts, KPMG grouped the Districts into three
tiers. Tier 1 includes the 6 Tier 1 counties plus Duval
School District, which was included with the Duval
County/City of Jacksonville consolidated government. The
tiers are as follows:



Exhibit IV-22
School District Responses
Extrapolation
Total
Sample Factor
Tier 1
7
6
1.1667
Tier 2
17
15
1.1333
Tier 3
48
31
1.5484
72
52
Tier 1 – Included the six Tier 1 Counties plus Duval County School District. Duval County was included in
the City and Municipality population because of the consolidated government of City of Jacksonville and
Duval County.
Tier 2 – Included the 17 Tier 2 Counties.
Tier 3 – Included the 43 Tier 3 Counties plus the 4 Lab Schools (FAMU, FAU, UF and FSU) and the Florida
School for the Deaf and Blind.
The responses to the school district survey were tiered based on population which correlates to the revenues of
the entity. The survey population of the School Districts is 72. KPMG received surveys from 52 School Districts
or 72%. KPMG calculated extrapolation factors based on dividing the total tier population by the tier responses
received. KPMG used the extrapolation factors to project survey response costs to the entire tier population.
In addition to the 52 surveys from the School Districts, KPMG received surveys from 43 component units.
KPMG noted that 27 of the 43 component unit survey responses were from the School District of Palm Beach
County. All 27 Palm Beach School District component units were Charter Schools.
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission methods and resource
types selected by the School District survey respondents.
Data Transmission
Resources Type
IV. Survey Results
Manual
20
Technology
Modify
20
12
Internal
27
Third Party
1
Both
24
35
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
School District Data Validation and Analysis
KPMG reviewed the survey responses received by calculating the estimated costs for compliance with the
UCOA requirements. KPMG used data collected from the School District surveys and calculated the estimated
nonrecurring one time costs, recurring monthly costs for revenue and expense accounts, and annual costs for
balance sheet accounts.
KPMG calculated the mean and standard deviations for monthly recurring, annual recurring, one time transition
and total costs. KPMG selected survey responses with costs outside the accepted deviation for further analysis.
For entities outside of the normal distribution, KPMG performed the following:



KPMG analyzed the detail data points provided in the survey response to determine the data points that
caused the response to be outside of the normal distribution.
KPMG prepared a list of questions to discuss with the person who submitted the survey.
KPMG contacted individuals noted in the survey response by phone to confirm or adjust the survey
responses.
The School District surveys required
further review of 17 responses. The
results of data validation and analysis
included 16 entities that did not require a
change and 1 entity that required
adjustment to the submitted survey
responses as directed by the entity.
After the change was updated the costs
were extrapolated to the tiered
population and estimated costs were
projected to the entire School District
population.
Exhibit IV-23
School District Surveys
Survey Response Costs
One Time
Monthly
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Annual
$ 22,730,717
$ 3,085,938
$
961,303
$
$
$
63,248
123,936
52,584
$
$
$
199,737
448,851
817,160
$ 26,777,958
$
239,767
$
1,465,748
School District UCOA Cost Extrapolation
KPMG estimated the total costs for the School District by multiplying the survey response costs by the
respective extrapolation factor. The extrapolation factor is determined by dividing the count of tier survey
responses received (sample population) by the tier total population in order to estimate the costs associated with
the UCOA implementation.
Exhibit IV-24
One Time
Total
Average
School District
Extrapolated Cost
Monthly
Total
Average
Total
Annual
Average
Tier 1
$ 26,519,170
$
3,788,453
$
73,789
$
10,541
$
233,026
$
33,289
Tier 2
$
3,497,396
$
205,729
$
140,461
$
8,262
$
508,698
$
29,923
Tier 3
$
1,488,470
$
31,010
$
81,420
$
1,696
$
1,265,279
$
26,360
$
295,670
$
2,007,004
$ 31,505,036
IV. Survey Results
36
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
B-4 Aggregate Costs for Education Entities
The following chart summarizes the aggregate costs for education entities for the estimated recurring monthly
costs for revenue and expense accounts, the estimated recurring annual costs for balance sheet accounts and
the estimated nonrecurring one time costs.
Exhibit IV-25
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual and Five Year Cost Estimate
Detail by Type of Education Entity
Colleges
School
Districts
Universities
Total
Monthly Costs
$
127,452
$
123,237
$
295,670
$
546,358
Annualized Monthly Costs
$
1,529,423
$
1,478,841
$
3,548,036
$
6,556,300
Annual Costs
$
395,834
$
197,384
$
2,007,004
$
2,600,221
Total Recurring Costs
$
1,925,257
$
1,676,225
$
5,555,040
$
9,156,521
Transition Costs
$
3,008,894
$
1,840,611
$
31,505,036
$
36,354,541
C. STATE OF FLORIDA – DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES
DFS provided KPMG with the State’s estimated cost for making the changes necessary to implement and
maintain the uniform chart of accounts reporting requirements. This includes the one time costs for updating the
LOGER system to support posting the reporting entities information on the web and for the staff needed to
process the monthly and annual reporting on behalf of the state agencies activity.
State Tier Structure and Response
A single tier was utilized to review the State survey response.
As explained in Section B.3 above, the following is a summary of the data transmission method and resource
type selected by the State of Florida.
Data Transmission
Manual
0
Technology
1
Modify
0
Resources Type
Internal
1
Third Party
0
Both
0
IV. Survey Results
37
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
State Data Validation and Analysis
Exhibit IV-26
Analysis of the State survey response was
not necessary because the population is one
and DFS assisted in preparing the survey.
DFS Cost Estimate
One Time
Monthly
Annual
Tier 1
2,534
$
42,107
$
80,560 $
2,534
Since the State is a single entity, there is no
need to perform an extrapolation calculation.
The State survey response costs equal the total estimated one time, monthly and annual costs.
$
42,107
State UCOA Cost Extrapolation
$
80,560
$
Aggregate costs for the Department of Financial Services
DFS provided KPMG with the State’s estimated cost for making the changes necessary to implement and
maintain the uniform chart of accounts reporting requirements. This includes the incremental costs for updating
the LOGER system and for the staff needed to process the monthly and annual activity.
The following chart summarizes the aggregate costs for the DFS entities for the estimated recurring monthly
costs for revenue and expense accounts, the estimated recurring annual costs for balance sheet accounts and
the estimated nonrecurring one time costs.
Exhibit IV-27
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Annual Cost Estimate
Detail for DFS
State Agency
Costs
LOGER
Costs
Total
Monthly Costs
$
786
$
1,748
$
2,534
Annualized Monthly Costs
$
9,432
$
20,976
$
30,408
Annual Costs
$
1,787
$
40,320
$
42,107
Total Recurring Costs
$
11,219
$
61,296
$
72,515
Transition Costs
$
43,197
$
37,363
$
80,560
IV. Survey Results
38
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
C-1 Cost Estimate Summary
The following chart summaries all three types (Local Governments, Education Entities and the State of Florida).
Exhibit IV-28
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Summary of Overall Costs
Local
Education
State of
Governments
Entities
Florida
Total
Recurring Annual Costs
$
50,812,530
$
9,156,521
$
72,515
$
60,041,566
One Time Transition
$
36,134,206
$
36,354,541
$
80,560
$
72,569,307
IV. Survey Results
39
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
D. TRANSMISSION OF GENERAL LEDGER DATA TO DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES
Average Costs
The following exhibit presents the
average recurring and nonrecurring
survey costs for surveys received
from each Reporting Entity
Category. KPMG noted trends in
the average costs calculated as
follows:
Exhibit IV-29
Uniform Chart of Accounts Implementation
Average Survey Cost by Reporting Entity
Cities and Municipalities





Annual
Recurring
One-Time
$
43,842
$
40,520
Counties
$
96,767
$
125,700
The average School Districts
Special Districts
$
10,222
$
18,076
one time implementation costs
are significantly more than all
Water Mgmt Districts
$
11,316
$
4,638
other categories. The School
Colleges
$
107,461
$
68,759
District average of $514,961 is
Universities
$
153,384
$
139,685
335% of the next highest
School Districts
$
514,961
$
83,518
category,
Universities
State
$
80,560
$
72,513
($153,384) and 404% of the
average of the eight entity
Average
$
127,314
$
69,176
categories ($127,314). Four of
the
52
school
districts
(Hillsborough, Orange, Osceola,
and Pinellas) reported one time costs in excess of $1,000,000, including one estimate of more than
$10,000,000. If the costs for these four entities are removed from the calculation, the average one time cost
for the remaining 48 school districts surveyed would be $75,616.
The average one time implementation costs for Counties, Colleges and Universities are higher than the other
entity categories. These entity categories all had significant component units in their calculation which
reflect a more complex reporting structure.
The average one time
implementation costs for
Special Districts and Water
Average Cost by Reporting Entity
Exhibit IV-30
Management Districts are
approximately 10% of the
$500,000
entity
average
which
$400,000
reflects a less complex
$300,000
structure and generally
$200,000
smaller
financial
$100,000
organization.
$The average recurring costs
for
Counties
and
Universities
are
Exhibit IV-30
approximately 200% of the
average entity category.
This is consistent with a
higher concentration of
One-Time
Annual Recurring
component units which
increases
the
annual
reporting requirements.
The average annual costs for Special Districts and Water Management Districts are less than 30% of the
entity average which reflects a less complex structure and generally smaller financial organization.
IV. Survey Results
40
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Crosswalk Method
The Survey provides three methods to transmit data from the local government general ledger to a central
repository:



A manual crosswalk
A technology crosswalk
Modifying the general ledger system so that no crosswalk is needed.
Exhibit IV-31
Data Transmission Method
Technology
System
Modification
36
72
16
15
13
44
101
28
33
162
1
2
Manual
Cities and Municipalities
Counties
Special Districts
69
Water Mgmt Districts
Colleges
Universities
School Districts
1
12
20
11
12
20
1
1
12
State of Florida
-
-
Total
219
123
132
Percent
46%
26%
28%
Total
177
24
12
52
1
474
Each survey respondent indicated the method it intended to use to provide the crosswalk. KPMG summarized
the primary government survey responses on Exhibit IV-31. KPMG analyzed the crosswalk solution by entity.
KPMG also analyzed the crosswalk solution by size of entity using the Tier identified in the cost extrapolation.
Based on the results of analysis, KPMG noted the following:




46% of government entities intend to use a manual crosswalk to transmit data to DFS. The percent of
governments using technology crosswalk and system modifications were 26% and 28%.
Education entities that intend to use a technology solution totaled 49%, which is approximately twice the
ratio of the remaining governments. County governments also had a rate of 34% intending to use
technology. This is consistent with a technology application for larger and more complex entities, financial
staff and technology staff.
In general, while the manual crosswalk will require less effort upfront than either the technology crosswalk
or system modification, the manual crosswalk will generally require more effort over the long term. For the
categories of governments that KPMG stratified to extrapolate the estimated costs to comply with the
UCOA disclosures, we compared the survey results by organization size.
For Cities and Municipalities, KPMG noted that nearly half of the survey respondents in the smallest
category indicated that they intended to modify the system. This is consistent with the notion that smaller
IV. Survey Results
41
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report



systems would require less effort to modify and would have a quicker payback to the government. As there
is only one Tier 1 city/municipality, (Jacksonville) Tiers 1 and 2 are combined for this analysis.
For Counties, KPMG noted that half of the largest counties indicated that they intended to use a technology
crosswalk. This is consistent with increased technology resources at the largest institutions.
For Special Districts, KPMG noted a majority of the highest revenue Special Districts indicated they intended
to modify their system(s) while the majority of the lowest revenue Special Districts indicated they intended
to use a manual crosswalk, consistent with increased technology resources at larger entities.
For School Districts, KPMG also noted that the largest School Districts indicated that they intended to use a
technology crosswalk. Again, this is consistent with increased technology resources at the largest
institutions. However, the smallest School Districts indicated that they intended to use a manual crosswalk,
indicating a limitation of technology resources.
Exhibit IV-32
Data T ransmission Method
Manual
Technology
Crosswalk
Crosswalk
System
Modification
Cities and Municipalities
Tier 1 & 2
57%
29%
14%
Tier 3
40%
30%
30%
Tier 4
38%
15%
47%
Tier 1
33%
50%
17%
Tier 2
38%
31%
31%
Tier 3
36%
32%
32%
Tier 1
20%
20%
60%
Tier 2
33%
33%
33%
Tier 3
61%
16%
23%
Counties
Special Districts
School Districts
Tier 1
0%
67%
33%
Tier 2
40%
47%
13%
Tier 3
45%
29%
26%
KPMG further reviewed the associated costs of the three Data Transmission Methods. Based on survey results,
KPMG calculated average costs by Reporting Entity and a weighted average cost for the entire population for
One Time, Monthly, and Annual Recurring costs. The Manual Crosswalk has the lowest associated One Time,
Monthly, and Annual costs. The Technology Crosswalk has the highest associated One Time, Monthly, and
Annual costs. Smaller and less complex organizations generally indicated using a Manual Crosswalk for data
transmission. Larger and more complex organizations generally indicated using a Technology Crosswalk for data
transmission.
Exhibit IV-33
Data Transmission Method - Weighted Average Costs
One Time
Manual
Cities and Municipalities
Tech
$
20,889
Counties
$
Special Districts
$
Modify
$
57,275
$
33,012
30,740
$
3,674
$
95,841
$
131,528
27,146
$
14,186
Water Mgmt Districts
$
2,215
$
-
$
20,417
Colleges
$
137,363
$
75,733
$
97,634
Universities
$
-
$
153,384
$
-
School Districts
$
6,880
$
165,004
$
265,686
State Agency
$
-
$
80,560
$
-
Average
$
8,352
$
67,338
$
53,517
IV. Survey Results
42
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Exhibit IV-34
Data Transmission Method - Weighted Average Costs
Monthly
Manual
Cities and Municipalities
Tech
$
2,977
Counties
$
Special Districts
$
Modify
$
1,683
$
1,942
4,695
$
7,360
$
6,858
724
$
2,785
$
1,081
Water Mgmt Districts
$
277
$
-
$
437
Colleges
$
5,186
$
4,088
$
2,051
Universities
$
-
$
10,270
$
-
School Districts
$
767
$
2,118
$
1,221
State Agency
$
-
$
2,534
$
-
Average
$
1,181
$
3,241
$
1,597
Exhibit IV-35
Data Transmission Method - Weighted Average Costs
Annual
Manual
Cities and Municipalities
$
Counties
Special Districts
Water Mgmt Districts
Colleges
Universities
School Districts
Tech
Modify
4,763
$
12,220
$
4,628
$
8,939
$
25,472
$
86,562
$
4,702
$
3,213
$
2,121
$
277
$
-
$
437
$
17,814
$
10,949
$
5,073
$
-
$
16,449
$
-
$
12,903
$
11,180
$
3,793
State Agency
$
-
$
42,107
$
-
Average
$
5,592
$
8,509
$
5,650
Type of Resource
The Survey provided three resource options to complete the crosswalk and data conversion:



Internal Resources
Third Party Resources
Both Internal and Third Party Resources
IV. Survey Results
43
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Each survey respondent indicated the resources for the data conversion would be internal resources, third party
resources or some combination of internal and third party resources. KPMG summarized survey responses on
Exhibit IV-36. KPMG analyzed the type of resources by entity. KPMG also analyzed the crosswalk solution by
size of entity using the Tier identified in the cost extrapolation. Based on the results of our analysis, KPMG noted
the following:


59% of governments intend to complete the crosswalk and data conversion using internal resources, while
only 4% of governments intend to rely on third party resources and 37% intend to rely on both internal and
third party resources.
Comparison of results by Reporting Entity Category indicate that cities and municipalities, and special
districts intend to use internal resources at a higher rate than the average, while colleges and universities
had a higher rate of both internal and third party resources than the average. As the process becomes more
complex because of decentralization of operations, entities will tend to need additional third party resources
to supplement existing staff.
Exhibit IV-36
Crosswalk and Data Transmission Resource Type
Internal
Third-Party
Both
Cities and Municipalities
Counties
Special Districts
Water Mgmt Districts
102
10
65
Total
177
26
1
17
44
102
6
54
162
-
1
2
1
Colleges
10
-
14
24
Universities
10
-
2
12
School Districts
27
24
52
State of Florida
1
1
-
-
Total
279
18
177
Percent
59%
4%
37%
1
474
For the categories of governments that KPMG stratified to extrapolate the estimated costs to comply with the
UCOA disclosures, we compared the survey results by organization size.



For both cities and municipalities, and counties, KPMG noted that the largest counties had a higher utilization
of only internal resources. This is consistent with larger nominal staffs that would be more realistic to not
rely on third party. For smaller cities and municipalities, the rate of entities relying on both internal and third
party staff tended to be larger because of generally very limited staff size.
For Special Districts, KPMG noted that revenue size did not correlate to the type of resources used. Sixty
percent of both the highest revenue and lowest revenue Special Districts intended to use internal staff only.
The remaining approximately 40 percent intended to use both internal and third party resources.
For School Districts, KPMG noted that about half of the districts intended to use internal staff and half of the
districts intended to use both internal and third party resources. This is a slightly higher rate of both internal
and third party resources which is generally because of the decentralization and complexity of accounting
functions in school districts.
IV. Survey Results
44
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Exhibit IV-37
Crosswalk and Data T ransmission Resource T ype by T ier
Internal
Third-Party
Both
Cities and Municipalities
Tier 1 & 2
71%
0%
29%
Tier 3
55%
4%
42%
Tier 4
58%
7%
35%
Tier 1
83%
0%
17%
Tier 2
56%
0%
44%
Tier 3
55%
5%
41%
40%
Counties
Special Districts
Tier 1
60%
0%
Tier 2
33%
33%
33%
Tier 3
60%
3%
37%
Tier 1
50%
0%
50%
Tier 2
47%
0%
53%
Tier 3
55%
3%
42%
School Districts
KPMG further reviewed the associated costs of the three Resource Options. Based on survey results, KPMG
calculated average costs by Reporting Entity and a weighted average cost for the entire population for One Time,
Monthly, and Annual Recurring costs. The Internal resource option has the lowest associated One Time,
Monthly, and Annual costs. The Both resource option has the highest associated One Time, Monthly, and
Annual costs. Smaller and less complex organizations generally indicated using Internal resources. Larger and
more complex organizations generally indicated using Third Party/Both resource options.
Exhibit IV-38
Resource Type - Weighted Average Costs
One Time
Internal
Third Party
Both
Cities and Municipalities
$
86,344
$
3,613
$
27,016
Counties
$
47,322
$
35,585
$
143,881
Special Districts
$
1,306
$
2,384
$
25,070
Water Mgmt Districts
$
2,215
$
-
$
20,417
Colleges
$
63,450
$
-
$
138,897
Universities
$
95,804
$
-
$
57,581
School Districts
$
22,076
$
2,151
$
413,344
State Agency
$
80,560
$
-
$
-
Average
$
6,530
$
11,008
$
74,285
IV. Survey Results
45
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
Exhibit IV-39
Resource Type - Weighted Average Costs
Monthly
Internal
Third Party
Both
Cities and Municipalities
$
15,201
$
279
$
1,331
Counties
$
5,583
$
11,303
$
6,714
Special Districts
$
461
$
749
$
2,302
Water Mgmt Districts
$
277
$
-
$
437
Colleges
$
4,474
$
-
$
4,608
Universities
$
7,750
$
-
$
2,520
School Districts
$
2,136
$
22
$
1,949
State Agency
$
2,534
$
-
$
-
Average
$
999
$
1,410
$
2,810
Exhibit IV-40
Resource Type - Weighted Average Costs
Annual
Internal
Third Party
Both
Cities and Municipalities
$
28,292
$
786
$
4,338
Counties
$
15,251
$
27,876
$
71,066
Special Districts
$
1,401
$
1,420
$
7,977
Water Mgmt Districts
$
277
$
-
$
437
Colleges
$
9,039
$
-
$
17,779
Universities
$
10,462
$
-
$
5,987
School Districts
$
4,241
$
215
$
23,419
State Agency
$
42,107
$
-
$
-
Average
$
2,417
$
3,494
$
12,368
PROJECT SUMMARY
The purpose of this project was to estimate the costs associated with implementing the UCOA reporting
requirements.
KPMG conducted a detailed survey to a population of 2,271 governmental Reporting Entities and received a total
of 600 completed surveys. The responses included each Reporting Entity’s estimated costs for UCOA
implementation. Each Reporting Entity reported their estimated costs separately for the following three cost
elements:



One time implementation costs
Monthly recurring costs for income and expenditure reporting
Annual recurring costs for balance sheet reporting
IV. Survey Results
46
Florida Department of Financial Services
Uniform Chart of Accounts Cost Estimate Report
KPMG used the cost estimate data in the completed surveys to extrapolate to the entire population of 2,271
Reporting Entities. The following chart shows estimated costs for the implementation of the UCOA reporting
requirements:
Exhibit IV-41
Estimated UCOA Reporting Costs
One-time implementation costs
$
72,569,307
Monthly recurring costs for income and expenditure reporting $
Annual recurring costs for balance sheet reporting
$
3,836,316
14,005,768
Total recurring annual costs
60,041,566
IV. Survey Results
$
47