The problem
The composite group: a 20–30 unit operator with roughly $60M in system revenue, healthy traffic, and a lean finance team. Like most groups its size, it had never audited utility tariffs store by store, and it treated hourly turnover as a fixed cost of the business rather than a recoverable line.
Utility cost had been drifting for years. Stores sat in the wrong tariff classes, demand peaks went unmanaged, several locations in deregulated markets had rolled onto default supply rates, and metering and sewer charges contained errors nobody owned. Waste service was priced on pickup frequency rather than actual volume. Across a portfolio, no one had compared stores on cost per unit of consumption or per dollar of sales — so the outliers were invisible.
On the people side, the group was paying the full cost of separation — recruiting, onboarding, training hours, lost productivity — dozens of times a year per store, with no pre-tax benefits structure in place to make staying more valuable than leaving.
The approach
Utilities
Every store's utility file was pulled and priced: tariff class verification, demand peak analysis, deregulated-market supply review against default rates, metering and sewer charge error checks, and waste service re-priced on volume versus pickup frequency. Portfolio outliers were flagged by cost per unit of consumption and per dollar of sales, so the worst stores were worked first.
Retention & benefits structure
Separation cost was broken into its components — recruiting, onboarding, training hours, productivity loss — so the true cost of each exit was explicit. A Section 125 pre-tax benefits structure was introduced to fund retention economics below the line, with store participation tracked as a KPI. Where appropriate, below-the-line recovery captured value the group was already owed.
What did not change
No menu changes. No staffing-model changes. No service-standard changes. No changes to guest checkout. The entire recovery came from documents, tariffs, contracts and benefits structure — work that happens in files, not in the dining room.
The outcomes
- ~$60M revenue · 20–30 unitsComposite profile: mid-size multi-unit restaurant group, no operational overhaul underway
- ~4% additional EBITDARoughly $2.4M of annual margin identified from utility billing, tariff and waste recovery plus retention economics funded by the below-the-line structure
- No four-wall changeNo remodels, no menu or pricing moves, no staffing-model or service-standard changes, no guest-facing adjustment
- $0Cost to the operator, at every stage
Anonymized composite — not the published 70-unit diagnostic; results vary. Anonymized composite based on an approved operator file. Your results will differ. For a separate published full-file diagnostic, see the 70-unit case study. Realization depends on tariffs, meters, loss history, participation, contracts and timing.
Frequently asked questions
Is this the same as the 70-unit published case study?
No. This is a separate write-up: an illustrative, anonymized composite focused on utilities and retention economics for a 20–30 unit group. The published 70-unit diagnostic is a distinct full-file study, linked above.
Did stores have to change operations?
No. The recovery came from document and structure work — utility tariffs, billing, meters, waste service terms, and benefits structure — not a four-wall redesign. Menus, staffing models, service standards and the guest checkout were untouched.
Are the numbers a guarantee?
No. Results depend on tariffs, meters, loss history, participation, contracts and timing. The diagnostic is free to the operator and starts from your files, so the first output is a verified number for your group, not a projection.
What would this look like in your restaurant group?
The diagnostic is free to the operator at every stage, and nothing changes inside the four walls.