COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS FOR PROPERTY TAXATION PRESENTERS PANEL GUESTS DON KENT LARRY WARD RIVERSIDE COUNTY TREASURERTAX COLLECTOR ASSESSOR - COUNTY CLERK RECORDER KAN WANG JIM STEWART PROPERTY TAX SYSTEMS IT OFFICER THOMSON REUTERS SR PROJECT MANAGER DEBBIE BASHE TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR IT OFFICER JUNE 11, 2014 Riverside Property Tax Profile Tax Year Potential Revenue Statistical Basis 2013-2014 $2.265 Billion general levy $529 Million special assessment $212.97 Billion property tax roll 906, 329 secured assessments 34,356 unsecured assessments 2012-2013 $2.244 Billion general levy $516 Million special assessment $204.88 Billion property tax roll 904,479 secured assessments 34,711 unsecured assessments 2011-2012 $2.246 Billion general levy $513 Million special assessment $205.18 Billion property tax roll 903,905 secured assessments 36,578 unsecured assessments Riverside Challenges Mainframe System from 1972 • 40+ Year old technology • Diminishing expertise • Increase cost of ownership • Inability to facilitate changing processes • Many ancillary and manual systems Program Vision & Mission Vision: Modernize solutions that empower the county to deliver exceptional services to the public ACO ACR TTC Mission: Unite and collaboratively implement a new integrated property tax system Program Sponsorship Program Governance  Executive Steering Committee       Elected Officials - Sponsors Departmental Executives – Executive Stakeholders County IT CIO & ACIO County Executive Office CREST Program Manager Thomson Reuters Project Manager  Steering Committee with Team Leads     Elected Officials - Sponsors Departmental Executives - Executive Stakeholders CREST Program Manager CREST Project Team Leads  Sponsors Status Meeting    Elected Officials - Sponsors Thomson Reuters Managing Director & Project Manager CREST Program Manager  Executive Status Meeting    Departmental Executives – Executive Stakeholders Thomson Reuters Executives & Project Manager CREST Program Manager CREST Team Structure Program Approach 2 Step Approach First Step: Process Analysis & Design  Ensure the project is People and Process driven, not technology driven Second Step: System Development & Implementation  Ensure system selection and development aligns and fulfills defined business requirements Step 1 – Analysis & Design To-Be Design As-Is Analysis 6,775 Business Requirements Step 1 – Analysis & Design Business Requirements General 82 TTC 1,451 ACO 1,752 ACR 3,490 TTC ACR ACO General 6,775 Business Requirements Step 1 – Analysis & Design Release Version Target Dates Notes Gap Fit/ Complete Process Change CREST * 10.00.00 * February 2014 Customer Integration Testing - CIT (Test 1/3) 1,485 3,042 242 437 August 2014 Pre UAT (Test 2/3) Final UAT (Test 3/3) 212 February 2016 Post Go-Live Release 392 10.00.01 Post GoLive Release Total 5,810 (965 closed) 6,775 Business Requirements Step 2 – Development & Implementation Source: Rational Edge Dec 2002 Program Management Competing Constraints Quality “Failure is not an option!” Assess, Collaborate, Mitigate Risk Scope ~6,775 Requirements CREST ~40 staff Plus vendor teams Staff Budget 10 years ~$90 million Time Contractual Go-Live Feb 2015 Program Management Execution Strategy Work Streams (Sub-Projects) Data Conversion Infrastructure Build-Out Quality Assurance Vendor Development & Configuration E-Gov Reports Development Communications User Training System Integration Post Go-Live M&O Program Streams Program Key Phases Aug-Sept 2014 V10.01 Pre-UAT Nov-Dec 2014 V10.01 UAT Jan 2015 V10.02 Release Jan-Feb 2015 Go-Live Apr-Aug 2014 Conversion Round 13 Jun-Jul 2014 Train-theTrainer Jan-Jun 2013 Schedules Revised Aug-Nov 2013 Conversion Round 11 Aug-Feb 2014 Workshops Nov-Apr 2014 Conversion Round 12 Mar-Jun 2014 V10.00 CREST Integration Testing (CIT) Program Current Status Where are we today…  Dev & Config: v 10.0 Release & Baseline Configuration  Data Conversion: Conversion Round 12 / 15  Quality Assurance: CREST Integration Testing (CIT) Round  User Training: Training Curriculum Development  System Integration: EMC Documentum & GIS Integration     Implementation & Testing Reports Development: Development Infrastructure: Production Environment Build Out & Performance Benchmarking E-Gov: Integration & Content Development Post Go-Live M&O:IT Service Management Planning & Design Test Strategy 4 – Resolution Disposition Status TR Engineering 6 – Resolution Status TFS ID TR Product/Design 3 – Triage Issues 2 – Load Issues 5 – Defects File Share 7 – Sync TR TFS TR BA Teams C o l l a b o r a t e File Share Statuses New – Manatron = (2/3) CREST confirmed new issue for TR BA triage Pending – Manatron = (4/5) TR BA confirmed and triaging Open – CREST = (7) CREST & TR BA confirmed back to CREST Open – TFS = (6) TR BA confirmed ‘defect’ TFS item Escalation - CCB = Change Control Board for decision/change order CREST HP-QC 1 - Log Issues Status 8 – Track and Verify CREST Teams Go-Live Strategy  Downtime  Currently the plan is to target 4 weeks of blackout period  Analyzing mission critical operations and mitigation during blackout period Mainframe to be in Read-Only state  Decisions on posting payments during blackout period  Go-Live Strategy  Process Considerations  Billing in old system and collecting in new system  Which processes are typically done in February that may have to be delayed? IPP Notices  Addenda   Additional requirements to be delivered post go-live  Developing workarounds for post go-live functionality Recommendations Key Success Factors Three departments’ elected officials united and committed to the success of the project ACO ACR TTC CREST Team PM Dedicated and focused CREST team throughout the whole program life cycle Leads Leads Leads Recommendations Key Success Factors 5,000,000 Additional NCC Funding Requirement 4,500,000 Use of Existing Property Tax System Designation 4,000,000 Committed multi-year budget throughout the project life FY 2017 Funding Required 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 6,000,000 FY 2015 Funding Required 5,000,000 Additional NCC Funding Requirement Use of Existing Property Tax System Designation 4,000,000 PTAF Scenario 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Recommendations Phased vs Big Bang Recommendations Balance of time in Step 1 between As-Is and To-Be As-Is To-Be Recommendations Vendor & County Operational Frameworks County – Project Lifecycle Vendor –Product Release Lifecycle Analysis Analysis Design Develop Analysis Design Test Design Develop Analysis Develop Test Design Develop Test time Test time Screen Demonstration Info Center Screen Demonstration Payment Plan Thank You! Questions? Contact Information Kan Wang [email protected] Tel: 951.955.0350 Debbie Bashe [email protected] Tel: 951.955.3993