United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research O
Laboratory <*.
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-84-158 Nov. 1984
&ER& Project Summary
City of Tampa: Management
Analysis and Report System
(MARS)
David L. Tippin, Elton Smith, James I. Gillean, and Robert M. Clark
This three-volume report describes
the development and implementation
of a management analysis and report
system (MARS) in the Tampa, Florida,
Water and Sanitary Sewer Depart-
ments. Original system development
was based on research conducted in a
smaller water utility in Kenton County,
Kentucky. MARS will help both the
Water and Sanitary Sewer Departments
control costs and manage expanding
service requirements more effectively
and efficiently.
The objectives of MARS were (1) to
provide computer programs that pro-
duce a MARS (compatible with the
original research) for Tampa's Water
and Sanitary Sewer Department; (2) to
investigate the problems of scaling up
from a small to a large system, including
the problems of interfacing utility opera-
tions with a city financial reporting
system; (3) to provide the mechanisms
for establishing a self-sustained finan-
cial base for a wastewater utility (the
water department of Tampa is already
an enterprise system); (4) to convert the
originally developed programs from an
IBM 370* to a small stand-alone com-
puter used only by the Water and Sewer
Departments; and (5) to verify the
system's satisfactory operation through
practical application in Tampa.
The computer programming was ac-
complished with American Standard
COBOL operating on a Prime Computer.
This combination was chosen because
of its widespread use and stand-alone
capability.
•Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
MARS was able to meet project
objectives and satisfy the reporting
requirements of the Tampa Water and
Sanitary Sewer Departments with in-
formation furnished monthly. The sys-
tem is considered proven because it has
produced reports as required in a stand-
alone environment. However, substan-
tial difficulties were encountered in
interfacing MARS with the city's finan-
cial reporting system (FIN).
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Municipal Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, Cincinnati. OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in <
separata report of the same title (see
Project Report ordering information at
back).
Introduction
The Tampa Water and Sanitary Sewer
Departments have developed and imple-
mented a management analysis and
report system (MARS) designed to help
control costs and manage expanding
service requirements. MARS is based on
research conducted at the Kenton County
(Kentucky) Water District No. 1 (KCWD)in
which a cost analysis system (CAS) and a
financial report system (FRS) were suc-
cessfully developed and implemented.
This report discusses xhe 2-year research
effort—scaling up the cost and financial
reporting systems to the Tampa Water
Department and extending the concept to
the Tampa Sewer Department. A key
feature of this research was modification
of the programs, originally developed to
run on a large IBM mainframe computer
in a time-sharing environment, to fit on a
stand-alone computer (Prime). Volume I
-------
is a general description of the project and
provides background conditions and re-
sults. Volume II is an operations manual,
and Volume III is a programming manual.
A prime feature of the Safe Drinking
Water Act of 1974(PL-93-523) is that the
economics and cost of water supply and
delivery must be considered before regu-
lations are promulgated. In a 1974 study
of water utilities, data were collected so
that fundamental factors that affect the
costs of water supply and utility man-
agement could be compared. After ana-
lyzing the data flow and information
transfers from a number of large and
small utilities, a technique, based on a
matrix concept, was developed and tested
by means of a water supply simulation
model developed by the EPA Drinking
Water Research Division in Cincinnati.
This data collection and analysis tech-
nique was further refined at KCWD
(Development and Application of a Water
Supply Cost Analysis System, J. I. Gillean,
W. L. Britton, Jr., J. H. Brim, and R. M.
Clark, EPA-600/2-80-012a and 012b,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268).
Because of the success at the KCWD,
EPA decided to verify the system's use-
fulness at a larger water utility, and
Tampa was selected as the site. The
Tampa Water Department had partici-
pated in EPA's 1974 cost studies, was
aware of the successful application of the
CAS at the KCWD, had recently expanded
its treatment facilities, and was looking
for a tool to assist in controlling costs. The
Sanitary Sewer Department had also
expanded, andtheiroperational costs had
increased.
Sanitary Sewer Department
The Tampa Sanitary Sewer Depart-
ment, with 300-plus full-time employees,
provides wastewater collection and treat-
ment to persons and industries in the city
and in nearby unincorporated areas. A
system includes 130 pump stations and
ejector stations drawing sewage from the
service area; more than 1400 miles of
12-to60-in.-diameter collection and trans-
mission lines for the gravity system, a
number of 4-in. force mains; metering at
major interceptors or pumping stations
and at the intake junction to the waste-
water treatment facilities.
Generally, Tampa wastewater is pro-
cessed through the Hooker's Point treat-
ment plant with some flow receiving
various levels of treatment at intermedi-
ate locations. Three Tampa users have
pretreatment facilities: the Woodcrest,
Juanita, and National Gypsum plants.
Several residential developments have
package plants serving a treatment func-
tion.
Water Department
The self-supporting Tampa Water
Department, with about 250 full-time
employees, supplies more than 419,500
people through 100,000 metered .ac-
counts (both residential and industrial)
within an 84-square-mile service area.
The Hillsborough River is the main raw
water source (30 to 100 MGD). The main
treatment facility, on the river, can treat a
maximum of 100 MGD during periods of
hard water/low coloration and a mini-
mum of 75 MGD during periods of
relatively soft water/high coloration. To
serve a growing population, the city
completed the Morris Bridge treatment
plant and constructed 29 wells (500-ft-
deep) each producing a maximum of 2
MGD. This facility, with a maximum
treatment capacity of 40 MGD, provides
water during high-demand periods.
The Matrix Concept
Regardless of physical structure, all
water utility systems can be divided into
the functions of acquisition, treatment,
and delivery (Figure 1). For example, a
well or a well field, rather than a reservoir,
could be the source of raw water. Expan-
sion of this concept allows costs to be
identified both for specific functions
(acquisition, treatment, and delivery) and
for subf unctions. An acquisition subf unc-
tion might include source of supply,
reservoir, pumps, transmission lines; a
delivery subfunction, pumps, storage
tanks, transmission, distribution.
By properly identifying these sublevels
(including every part of the physical
system with no overlapping areas) and by
allocating costs to them, the complete
physical utility becomes a group of cost
centers. The cost center can be as small
or as large as the utility wishes. As the
water moves from its source to its desti-
nation, costs can be allocated to the
water. In Figure 1, for example, acquisi-
tion consists of all costs for acquiring and
moving raw water to the treatment plant.
When the water is treated, it is assigned a
treatment cost. The cost of treating the
water can be added to the acquisition
cost, which will be the cost for producing
water at that point. Cost is also incurred
by additional pumping within the treat-
ment plant to move the water into the
delivery area. Even though the pumping
unit in the example is at the treatment
plant, its purpose is to move water into
the delivery area and is therefore con-
sidered a subfunction of delivery. Trans-
mission and distribution costs are accu-
mulated in each zone. The transmission
costs are those for moving water to zones
1 and 2. Distribution costs include those
for the network of mains and laterals that
deliver water to customers within zones.
An analysis of-fhe system in Figure 1
reveals that part of the cost for pump No.
2 is allocated to move water through zone
1 to zone 2, and another portion of the
cost is incurred in delivering water
through the laterals to customers in zone
1. Similarly, the transmission mains
include both a transmission cost element
and a delivery cost element. Storage costs
are assigned only to the zone in wh ich the
storage facility is located because no
element of this cost is applied to any other
zone.
Two types of costs were identified as
the technique was refined. One type was
associated directly with the operating
functions of acquisition, treatment, and
delivery, whereas the other type could not
be identified with any specific operating
function. The latter nonoperating costs
(which include billing, accounting man-
agement, etc.) were placed in a separate
category called support services, as
shown in Figure 1.
Within this general concept, two basic
types of information are required. If one
thinks of a matrix of information, then on
the horizontal axis are listed the specific
functions of acquisition, treatment, de-
livery, and support services. These func-
tions can be subdivided into the smallest
component desired (for example, an indi-
vidual pump), and they are related directly
to the physical delivery system depicted
in Figure 1. On the vertical axis of the
matrix are the financial data that identify
the cost items for operating the'utility—
labor, power, etc., generally recorded by a
chart of accounts. Documentation of costs
in this format makes it possible to retrieve
and display the various levels or types of
information desired. For example, the
labor costs for treating water can be
determined by examining the first cost
category listed within the treatment
function.
Output Reports
The first step in developing MARS was
to identify the desired outputs. Four levels
of cost reports were designed to provide
information for specific levels of man-
agement, ranging from more detailed (for
line supervision) to summary reports (for
top administrators).
-------
r
Water Mains
& Materials
Support Service Costs, Interest Costs, and Tax Costs
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of a typical water utility.
The Level IV report was developed to
provide detailed cost information. The
Level III report relates the detailed cost by
the general, standardized categories of
acquisition, delivery, etc. The Level II
report compares actual expenditures with
budgeted amounts and with expenditures
for the previous year. The Level I report
summarizes the cost data and identifies
the cost per million gallons (S/MG) of
revenue producing water (RPW) (RPW is
the amount of water from which revenue
was derived) for the major cost centers
and the total cost of the system. Costs for
the previous month, the previous year,
and the budgeted amounts are also
compared on the Level I report.
Cost Coding System
The cost coding system includes the
chart of account numbers for the financial
reporting system and the special code
required for MARS. Three groups of
numbers are required. The first group
designates the general assignment to the
National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissions(NARUC) chart of accounts.
The second group identifies the cost
centers that generate the expense. The
first digit of the cost center number
identifies the function; the second, the
subfunction; and the last two, the unit.
The subfunction (second digit) and identi-
fication (third and fourth digits) appear
only in the Level IV report.
The third group of numbers is a two-
digit series corresponding to the 12
standard cost categories used in the Level
III summary reports.
Cost Allocation
MARS can fulfill its function only when
all cost data are charged to the appropriate
cost centers. This task is done by identify-
ing the correct cost center when the data
are entered on the source document—
that is, payroll time card, requisition from
stock form, etc. Exceptions to this pro-
cedure occur when the cost center infor-
mation is not obtained or when a general
cost cannot be identified to a specific
center. To deal with such exceptions, an
allocation concept assigns-costs to ap-
propriate cost centers.
MARS Application to
Wastewater
Conceptually, the adaptation of MARS
to a wastewater operation proved no
more difficult than its application to a
water utility except for the initial definition
of terms. As a water supply tool, MARS
was designed to accumulate detailed cost
into the four major functions of acquisi-
tion, treatment, delivery, and support
services. This structure of four major cost
categories was maintained throughout
the entire study for the water supply
application. For wastewater application,
these terms are not appropriate. For
example, the basis for productivity in the
water supply application is revenue-
producing water; in wastewater, there is
no equivalent value. Therefore in devel-
oping the terms for wastewater utility
functions, the following two groups were
selected:
A. Collection - All costs associated with
moving wastewater to
the treatment facility.
Treatment-All costs associated with
removing the impurities
-------
from wastewater and
with preparing the impuri-
ties for disposal.
Disposal - All costs associated with
disposing of the liquids
and solids after treat-
ment.
Support - All costs associated with
Services support activities related
tothe utility that are nota
part of the above three
areas.
B. Collection - All costs associated with
moving wastewater to
the treatment facility.
Treatment-All costs associated with
Liquid the liquid portion of the
treatment process where
impurities are being re-
moved.
Solid - All costs associated with
the solids portion of the
treatment process where
the impurities are being
conditioned.
Support - All costs associated with
Services support activities related
to the utility that are not a
part of the above two
areas.
The differences in the liquid and solid
treatments (Approach B above) are illus-
trated in Figure 2, which depicts the
wastewater treatment process in the
Tampa plant. The processes in the vertical
stack of boxes on the left side of Figure 2
describe the liquids treatment since they
are all related to handling liquids and
removing their impurities. The horizontal
lines identifying function, such as sludge
thickening and drying beds, are associ-
ated with solids that have been removed
from the liquid wastewater. With this
method, definitive costs can be obtained
from the different treatment processes
and can be identified on all levels of
reports as associated with liquid and/or
solids treatment. The problem with this
approach is the requirement for recording
detailed source data. Record keeping may
become difficult because two processes
sometimes occur at the same physical
location.
Approach A has the advantage of being
able to identify the treatment process to
any detail desired(including separation of
the liquids and solids) in Level IV of the
MARS report. The only disadvantage is
that it does not identify the liquids and
solids cost in the higher level reports but
accumulates them into a total treatment
cost. Tampa Sanitary Sewer Department
personnel preferred Approach A because
they believed it provided more flexibility
in identifying the treatment cost based on
the process configurations most mean-
ingful to them. Treated wastewater was
selected as the expression for productivity
(unit value) to be used in MARS since it
represents the actual flow through the
treatment facility.
All other problems associated with
MARS application to wastewater are
similar to those that may be expected in
application of MARS to any utility. For
example, some of the output reports from
the sewer and water departments were
structured differently.
The reporting differences reflected
individual management philosophies as
flaw Sewage Influent
much as differences between water and
wastewater operations.
Tampa's Financial Reporting
System (FIN)
FIN was developed to streamline input
requirements by using on-line terminals
that validate and edit input data as they
enter into the data base files. The ob-
jective of FIN is to provide the detailed
information required for the highest levels
of management and budgeting. FIN is
based on Florida's standardized system of
accounts and each coding element has its
unique meaning and identification within
the city's financial system.
The data for FIN originate from many
different sources, such as the Purchasing
Department. Figure 3 shows the general
data flow through FIN and some of its
Screening &
Grit Removal
Primary
Sedimentation
Tanks
-
-*. Anaerobic -j. S'ud-
°*~~ ZZ
Carbonaceous
Sedimentation
Tanks
Nitrification
Sedimentation
Tanks
Denitrification
Filters
Post Aeration &
Chlorination
n
j (HAS)
.1 (WAS)
1
Thickeners — Aerobic
— j 1 Digesters
'JRASJ \(WASJ
-I J
ge >• Sludge
'^ Removal
Aluminate
1. Sludge __^ e
Ly'?9 Remova
Beds
Pnfymor
Figure 2.
Tampa Bay
Schematic of Hooker's Point Wastewater Treatment Plant in Tampa, Florida. Ft AS
refers to recycled activated sludge; WAS, to waste activated sludge.
4
-------
(Source Data)
Payroll Time Cards
Equipment Usage
Cards
Stock Issues
Purchase
Requisitions
Authority to Pay
Forms
P.O. Corrections
Journal Entries
Misc. Forms, i.e..
Central Garage
Billing, Depreciation
Entries, etc.
-
—
Interface
Programs
*
FIN Accounting
System
Programs
(Output Reports)
FGL 040-General Ledger
Daily Activity Report
FGL 042-General Ledger
Account Balance
Report
FGL 042A -General Ledger
A ct ivit y/ Object
Summary
FGL MSB-Fund, Dept.,
Object Code Weekly
Expenditure Summary
FGL M90-Fund/ Object
Weekly Expenditures
Summary
FGL 440-General Ledger
Monthly A ctivity
Report
FPL 040-Financial
Statement
CIP 040-Job/ltem
Detail Transactions
CIP 045-WO/Capital
Improvements
Recapitulation
Summary
Figure 3. General flow diagram for Tampa's financial reporting system (FIN).
output reports. FIN coding uses a pyramid
structure in which a transaction enters at
the lowest level and is automatically
accumulated through higher levels of
activities. The information varies with the
type of transaction, but all of the latter
normally share the common key fields
that interpret and categorize the data.
These fields create the account number
and consist of the fund, department, etc.
The system enables management to
identify and accumulate data on like items
from all budgeting elements for the fiscal
cycle. Management in turn can solicit
bids valid for specific periods, establish
firm prices, and identify individual vendors
for various purchases.
The overall concept of FIN is to establish
a detailed data base on a daily basis.
thereby creating a voluminous and com-
plex system. Within FIN, the budget is
developed to the lowest level of a product
code. For example, consider purchasing a
75W, inside frosted, 130V incandescent
lamp. If this item is budgeted but the
department decides later to purchase a
clear lamp rather than a frosted one, a
budget change is required. The system
may thus require numerous budget
changes each month.
FIN was primarily developed from the
standpoint of accounting and fiscal man-
agement, not from that of an operational
department. Such an overall approach
may be the best for the city, but a system
developed in this manner generally lacks
the type of information useful to opera-
tional management. For example, the
major systems developed for FIN include
revenue and cash management, expendi-
ture management (accounts payable),
purchasing, inventory management, and
fixed assets. All of these systems are
certainly important to a department, but
they do not include cost-center informa-
tion for managing departmental opera-
tions.
FIN's original development included
coding flexibility at departmental levels
using the job/item fields. However, to
make proper use of this flexibility, the
department needs an in-depth under-
standing of FIN. Without major modifica-
tions, it would be difficult to obtain from
FIN much of the information needed for
day-to-day management of a water and
wastewater department.
-------
Computer Selection
A computer selection committee was
appointed consisting of a consultant and
a representative from the Sanitary Sewer
Department, the Water Department, and
the Management and Information System
Department (city computer center). The
objective of the committee was to identify
for Tampa's Water and Sanitary Sewer
Departments the best computer hardware
and operational software to support both
the MARS project and other applications
within these departments. The Prime
computer was selected based on its
reliable and proven software—an especi-
ally important factor in the development
of new programs such as MARS.
MARS Report
The MARS reports are specifically
designed for top utility management.
They contain operating and maintenance
cost data summarized into major opera-
tional categories along with additional
information useful in evaluating the
operations of the entire utility.
An example of a Level I report for the
Water Department appears in the com-
puter print-out shown in Figure 4. The
first five rows contain cost data expressed
on a productivity basis with dollars per
million gallons of water ($/MG) for the:
(1) current month, current year, (2) pre-
vious month, current year, (3) current
month, previous year, (4) year-to-date,
current year, and (5) year-to-date, pre-
vious year. These unit costs may be
compared to facilitate a trend analysis.
The next two rows contain the total
costs for the current month and year-to-
date, and the last two rows provide a
percentage of total cost for each function
for the current year-to-date and the
previous year-to-date. This information
provides an indication of shifts in cost
and/or trends in areas where expenses
are changing.
Production unit cost information is pre-
sented at the bottom of the page, along
with percent of budget funds remaining.
The production unit for the Water Depart-
ment is classified as "revenue-producing
MONTH ENDINO: JAN 31. 1982
SUMMARY OF SYSTEMS INFORMATION
FOR
TAMPA MATER DEPARTMENT
(LEVEL. I)
PAGE:
CATEOORV
ACQUISITION
PURIFICATION
DELIVERY
SUPPORT
•****••
DEBT
EXPENSE
DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
UNIT COST «/MO
CURRENT MONTH •
PREVIOUS MONTH
CURRENT MONTH
PREVIOUS YEAR
CURRENT YEAR (VTD)
PREVIOUS YEAR (VTD)
TOTAL COST
CURRENT MONTH «
YEAR TO DATE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
CURRENT YEAN (YTD)
PREVIOUS YEAR (YTDI
9.21 »
7.28
B. 96
124 97 •
159. 23
143. 64
228. 16 •
173. 07
22O. 46
202.83 •
70. 62
96.69
138. 67 •
137. 93
164. O9
101. 74 •
96. O6
96.33
823. 60
666. 21
730. 37
13.312.49 • 207. BIB. 07 • 379.413.33 * 337.328.68 • 263. B6O. 13 • 169.176.94 « 1372.911.68
6O. 43O. 23
1. 23X
968. 306. 22
19. 67X
I486. 111. 17
30. 1BX
631.783. 36
13. 24X
1106. 1O6. 74
22. 47X
630.723. 91
13. 22X
4923. 463. 83
10O. OOX
TREATED UATER (MO)
REVENUE PRODUCING WATER (MO)
CURRENT MONTH 16B7. 431
YEAR TO DATE 734O. 196
PREVIOUS Y-T-D 7261, 631
»••****•*»*•»••**•
CURRENT MONTH
YEAR TO DATE
PREVIOUS Y-T-D
1662. 910
474O. 982
6894. 831
UNACCOUNTED FOR UATER (MO)
CURRENT MONTH 24. 321
YEAR TO DATE 799.214
BUDOET REMAINING (X)
YEAR TO DATE
6*. 10
Figure 4. Level I status report for Tampa Water Department.
6
-------
water," (the Sanitary Sewer Department
uses "Billable Q," or billed sewer line
flow into the treatment facility).
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on
the MARS experience in Tampa.
1. MARS was less adaptable to the
Tampa utilities than anticipated, for
the following reasons:
a. MARS was originally developed
using the KCWD and other wate
utilities as models, but FIN was so
inflexible that the original MARS
and some basic developmental
concepts had to be modified to
function with FIN.
b. Because of the size of the Tampa
utility's operation, significantly
more data entered this system
than in the smaller KCWD. Con-
sequently, MARS required larger
system files for data processing
and storage, along with different
data handling techniques.
c. Modifying the original computer
programs from a batch mode on
the large main-frame computer to
an automatic interactive mode on
a small computer proved difficult.
These modifications combined
with conceptual program changes
required careful planning and
considerable additional program-
ming effort.
2. The MARS concepts are transfer-
able, as demonstrated by adapting
the original four levels of the KCWD
reports to both the Water and
Sanitary Sewer Departments in the
same general format.
3. Adapting MARS to the Tampa
wastewater operation was no more
difficult than applying it to the
Tampa water utility. The Tampa
application disclosed enough differ-
ences between water and waste-
water operations to merit water-
unique and wastewater-unique
programs in future applications. If
the water and wastewater opera-
tions can be integrated under a
single fiscal manager, it may be
possible to use one group of pro-
grams.
4. The use of Prime 250 or equivalent
computer hardware for the MARS
application is evidenced by success-
ful operation on the Prime com-
puter. Since a financial reporting
system already existed in Tampa,
MARS consisted only of the cost
analysis and management informa-
tion module. The processing time
on the computer will probably
require approximately 1 or 2 days
per month (if monthly reports are
required), leaving the computer idle
for the remainder of the month
except as a means of data storage.
However, both Tampa departments
have numerous other computer
programs that were intended to
operate on the same computer
system. Thus in a situation that
requires only the cost analysis
module of MARS, justifying the use
of a small computer is questionable.
A more reasonable option may be to
operate this system on remote, time
sharing hardware.
5. The ease or difficulty of adapting
MARS to other water and waste-
water utilities depends on site-
specific conditions. Solving the
MARS/FIN interface at Tampa con-
sumed more time than was origin-
ally anticipated.
6. MARS assisted in detecting data
errors that existed in FIN. The MARS
programs edit each FIN expense
item to ensure that the code is
correct with respect to the require-
ments of MARS. If the code is
erroneous, the item is listed for
correction. To maintain a balance,
data corrected in MARS must also
be corrected in the original system
(FIN) that feeds data into MARS.
7. The value of MARS for Tampa Water
and Sanitary Sewer Departments
has not yet been completely evalu-
ated because the MARS reports
have been available for only a short
period.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Cooperative Agreement CR-
807440 by the City of Tampa Water and
Sanitary Sewer Departments under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
•OSGPOs 1984-559-111-10730
-------
David L. Tippin is with City of Tampa Water Department. Tampa. FL 33602; Elton
Smith is with City of Tampa Sanitary Sewer Department, Tampa, FL 33602;
James I. Gillean is with ACT Systems, Inc., Winter Park, FL 32289; and Robert
M. Clark (also the EPA Project Officer, see below) is with Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
The complete report consists of three volumes entitled "City of Tampa: Manage-
ment Analysis and Report System (MARS):
"Volume I (Case Study)," (Order No. PB85-106 177; Cost: $14.50, subject to
change).
"Volume II (Operations Manual)," (Order No. PB 85-106 185; Cost: $14.50,
subject to change).
"Volume III (Programming Manual)." (Order No. PB 85-112 241; Cost:
$46.00, subject to change).
The above reports will be available only from
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES P,
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
5S 8W«teVIB>1 "*""
y'KUiSW'W'
------- |