Miami-Dade County

Outcome-based contracts → vendor performance differentiation → broader adoption → measurable spend reduction (5-10%) + service-quality improvement. $2.8B pilot × 5-10% = $140M-$280M annual savings if scaled across the three departments — alone absorbs 35-70% of the structural deficit.

One-time setup: ~$3-5M (procurement office staffing + vendor scorecard tooling). Expected ongoing savings: 5-10% of pilot departments' procurement spend ($140M-$280M annually) within 18-24 months. Payback under 12 months. Funding source: County reserves + Bloomberg Philanthropies procurement reform grant if pursued.

'Modular procurement' or 'performance contracting' language gets adopted into existing compliance-bound RFPs without changing evaluation criteria, contract length, or incumbent vendor relationships. Same firms win with newer vocabulary; savings reported on paper but not realized in next year's budget. The H2+ test is whether the vendor pool actually broadens and the procurement-cycle-time KPI actually shortens.

34 jurisdictions × duplicated IT/HR/payroll functions → consolidated consortium with binding fiscal authority → 30-40% admin cost reduction across members → $50M-$150M annual savings to the County alone (municipalities save proportionally). Reduces the coordination overhead that compounds the structural deficit.

24-36 month build; expected $50M-$150M annual savings to County at full scale, with proportional savings to participating municipalities. Requires upfront capital (~$10-15M) for integration platform + governance structure. Net positive within 36 months. Funding: blended state digital modernization grant + County reserves + member contributions.

Consortium becomes a coordination committee without binding budget authority; each municipality insists on customizations that defeat economies of scale; cost reductions don't materialize; consortium dissolves quietly within 5 years (the Florida pattern with regional planning councils). The H2+ test is whether participating jurisdictions actually retire duplicate back-office functions, not just attend joint meetings.

Charter codification → reforms survive electoral cycles → cumulative progress against binding constraint compounds rather than resetting at each administration change → 5-10 year horizon makes structural deficit closure achievable and sustainable beyond the original mayoral champion.

Charter amendment process cost ~$500K-$1M (legal review, ballot preparation, voter education). Indirect fiscal protection: roughly $10-20M annually in innovation infrastructure that would otherwise be vulnerable to political disinvestment by a hostile administration. Returns are protective, not generative — but without it, the other two initiatives' savings are at high regression risk.

Charter amendment passes but enforcement mechanisms are weak; future administrations reduce funding even within mandate language; the Innovation office becomes nominal — a name without staff or authority. The H2+ test is whether the charter language includes specific enforcement triggers (minimum staffing levels, budget allocation floors, performance reporting requirements) rather than purely aspirational language.