Timeline: + November 2004 Charter Amendment + January 2005 - - PDF document

Consolidation of Services~

........ dy

mission

ddittKJms ~,._

Presentation to th Orange County er Review Com

Good Afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Today, we are here for a public hearing on the final recommendations made by the Orange County/City of Orlando Consolidation of Services Study Commission and my purpose is to

• verview the recommendations that were made by the Commission

and give you the staff's responses to each item.

1

Consolidation of Services Study Commission

• Timeline:

+ November 2004 + January 2005 + Jan. - Feb. 2005

+ April '05-May '06

• May 2006

+ June 27, 2006

+ August 14, 2006

21)0 6 Charter Amendment Implementing Ordinance Committee members appointed 11 Members- County, Orlando and Legislative Delegation Meetings held Final Report Presentation to BCC Presentation to Orlando City Council

First, let me remind you of the events leading up to today ..•.. The 2004 Charter Review Commission proposed a charter amendment which would create a 11 member commission to conduct a study of City of Orlando and Orange County services. This amendment was approved by 63% margin in the November general election. The BCC passed an implementing ordinance in January of 2005 and shortly thereafter, the membership was selected. 5 ot the 11 members were appointed by the county commission, 4 members were appointed by the city commission and 2 members were appointed by the legislative delegation. The Commission held meetings from April 2005 and through May of 2006. Their final report was presented by Chairman Scott Gabrielson to this Board on June 27,2006 and then to the Orlando City Council on August 14,2006.

2

CSSC Recommendations

• Implementing Ordinance:
• Conduct a comprehensive study of

consolidation of City of Orlando and Orange County government services

• Hold at least 4 public hearings
• Provide a report with specific findings and

recommendations regarding:

)> Efficiencies in service delivery )> Economies of scale

J> Opportunities for enhanced intergovernmental

cooperation

)> Other related issues

Under the provisions of the Charter amendment, the Commission was empowered to conduct a comprehensive study

• f the consolidation of City and County government services

and to make specific findings and recommendations regarding efficiencies in service delivery, economies of scale, opportunities for enhanced intergovernmental cooperation between the two local governments and any other related issues. During the course of their deliberations, and as required by the charter amendment, the Commission held four public hearings in various parts of the county.

3

·esse Recommendations

• Implementing Ordinance:

"Within 180 days of the date the re~ort is presented to the County, the BoarCI of County Commissioners shall evaluate the impacts of the Commission Recommendations to County

• perations! hold appropriate

public hearin_gs to obtain Citizen input and imtiate discuss1ons with the City of Orrando regarding implementation."

The Study Commission ordinance states that "within 180 ..........................................

''

The public hearing today is to begin that evaluation.

4

esse Recommendations

• Six Areas of Study:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

Soon after the Commission began their deliberations, they divided their inquiry into six areas of study. They included: I will address these areas in the order given. 5

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation

6

esse Recommendations

• Parks & Recreation
• 1. The Parks & Recreation Department

services should not be consolidated. Response - No Action Needed

7

CSSC Recommendations

• Parks & Recreation
• 2. County, City, OCPS and other partners

should continue efforts to create common parks and recreation areas. Response Variety of ongoing efforts continue- Rec & Roll, YMCA, Field of Dreams, Water Management District partnership, Ivy Lane, Tangelo Park, Moss Park

8

esse Recommendations

• Parks & Recreation
• 3. Establish and/or maintain dedicated

funding sources for development and maintenance of recreation areas. Response

• County currently has dedicated funding source

for acquisition, construction, 0 & M through countywide ad valorem

• Impact fee implemented in March 2006
• Portion of Public Service Tax is dedicated to

parks

9

esse Recommendations

• Parks & Recreation
• 4. Explore opportunities to coordinate efforts in

planning for parks and recreation facilities and services~ Response Work through multidisciplinary staff group that meets on a semi-annual basis to discuss Capital Improvement Projects.

Throughout the course of these deliberations, staff became aware of the value 10

esse Recommendations

• Parks & Recreation
• 5. County and City parks advisory boards

should meet together at least semi-annually to discuss long-term community needs. Response Meeting with advisory boards is currently being scheduled for this summer

11

esse Recommendations

• Parks 8t Recreation
• 6. Continue to expand linkage between existing

and proposed trails. Response

• Cady Way Trail and Baldwin Park Trail

Systems

• Currently working on Shingle Creek Trail
• City's plans for future trails has been

incorporated in Orange County Trail Master Plan

12

esse Recommendations

• Parks 8t Recreation
• 7. Implement a Joint Parks and Recreation

Website as a user-friendly "One-Stop" information center. Resoonse

Staff(ISS, County GIS, CES GIS and Parks & Recreation) is workin9 to establish a GIS layer that will identify and prov1Cie a map to all Orange Coun~ Parks with a list of amenities and recreation activities at each park site and will provide a link for citizens to access the websites of all municipalities within Orange

• County. The project is scheduled to be completed by

June 2008

13

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

14

esse Recommendations

• Transportation
• 1. It

is not appropriate to consolidate transportation services at this time. Response - No Action Needed

15

• esse Recommendations

Transportation

• 2. Continue close coordination in planning

roadways and traffic signalization programs. Response

• The city and county traffic management

systems communicate on a daily basis

• Through MetroPian, the City and County

jointly plan and seek funding on a variety

• f projects that have regional impact

City and County staff share information on traffic and transportation at:

• 1. District 5- traffic Signal Maintaining Agency Group (Twice a Year)
• 2. Quarterly ITS Consortium Meeting
• 3. Traffic Signal Users Group (Quarterly)
• 4. Joint Project Meetings (as needed) to discuss fiber sharing, signal

timing, etc.

• 5. Transportation Plan Orlando Technical Committee (monthly)

16

CSSC Recommendations

• Transportation
• 3. City should join in the County's 3-1-1

Government Information/Services System and identify a stable funding source for the system. Response

• Multil_)le issues and challenges in

combming the two government's information systems

• City presently has an existing system

that combines a number of serv1ces Already coordinate City has a 24/7 system that they are happy with.

17

• esse Recommendations

Transportation

• 4. Continue cooperation in expanding the

provision of emergency power for signalized intersections. Resoonse

• Continue to retrofit traffic signals in a

practical, feasible fashion

• City and County are pursuing an interlocal

agreement to share emergency generators

FDOT has provided regional guidelines for operating traffic signals with generator power. FDOT has also purchased 500 generators for statewide use. County and City have some emergency generators that may be shared as needed.

18

• esse Recommendations

Transportation

• 5. Jointly explore traffic signal standards and

the acquisition of hardware and software to ensure interoperability. Response

• Majority of signals at state roads and intersections

are DOT

• DOT specs to be standardized within 2-3 years
• Presently two different computer systems control

traffic signals- potential for a universal controller

On going efforts continue to develop universal hardware that can communicate between traffic signal controller types.

19

• CSSC Recommendations

Transportation

• 6. Consolidate City and County traffic

management centers after the implementation of the other recommendations. Response There are a variety of challenges inherent in combining different traffic management

• systems. If

desired, these challenges can be discussed in depth at a future worksession.

Recommendation number 6 City has TMC divided into a number of departments Difficult to combine variety of TMCs 20

CSSC Recommendations

• Transportation
• 7. Work with the Sheriff's Office to develop

alternatives to the FHP for clearing traffic accidents in a timely manner. Response Pursue further discussion with the Sheriff's Office

21

esse Recommendations

• Transportation
• 8. Remove freight trains from downtown

Orlando during regular workday business hours. Response Relocation of freight trains is one of the issues being addressed with Commuter Rail.

22

• esse Recommendations

Transportation

• 9. Develop a stable dedicated funding stream

for LYNX. Response Mass transit funding is scheduled to come back to the BCC in early 2007

Dedicated funding for Lynx has been a priority for this Board and a worksession on this issue has already been scheduled for the spring of next year.

23

esse Recommendations

• Transportation
• 10. Develop funding sources for transportation

infrastructure demands. Response

• Legacy Funding
• Impact fees have been raised and are

indexed

• State Transportation Trust Fund
• Rental Car surcharge

24

esse Recommendations

• Transportation
• 11. Utilize the additional capacity of the local
• ption gasoline tax.

Response

If

desired, this issue can be brought for discussion at a future BCC meeting. 25

esse Recommendations

• Transportation
• 12. Continually review funding mechanisms for

equity and adequacy to ensure funding keeps with the true cost of providing transportation infrastructure. Response

• Road building costs are updated

annually based on market escalation

• Impact fees are indexed

26

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

27

esse Recommendations

• Purchasing
• 1. The Purchasing Department services should

not be consolidated.

Response - No Action Needed

28

esse Recommendations

• Purchasing
• 2. Develop a "One-Stop" application

process for M/WBE bus1nesses. Rew.onse A " ne-Stop" application process is under consideration. In the meantime, the City has begun an RFP process to allow on-line applications. In addition, the City and County have a reciprocity agreement recognizing each other's certifications.

29

esse Recommendations

• Purchasing
• 3. County should adopt a procedure

similar to the City's for advertising RFP's.

Response County has developed a system, similar

to the City's, which provides e-mail

notices to vendors registered for a particular commodity when a solicitation for that commodity is issued.

30

esse Recommendations

• Purchasing
• 4. Target new opportunities for the Shared

Interest Cooperative Purchasing Group. Response

The Shared Interest Cooperative Purchasing Group continues to be active in their efforts to facilitate cost savings for various entities through cooperative purchasing.

31

esse Recommendations

• Purchasing
• 5. Increase the dollar level authority of the

Purchasing Departments to speed and simplify the purchasing process.

Response

The City will be conducting a comprehensive review of its purchasing

• perations within the next year which

will include purchasing authority.

32

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

33

esse Recommendations

• Planning
• 1. Planning Department services should

not be consolidated Response - No Action Needed

34

esse Recommendations

• Planning
• 2. Explore creating common elements and

terminology in land use codes

• 3. Increase joint planning for parks, roads,

schools, and otller critical infrastructure needs

• 4. Formalize joint quarterly meetings of

planning staffs to evaluate issues and

• pportunities; study areas with shared

boundaries

• 5. Coordinate methodology for impact fees

35

esse Recommendations

• Planning

Response

• Planning Directors have developed an MOU

addressing a number of these issues which requires quarterly meetings of planning staff. These meetings will consider topics such as mutually beneficial studies and reports, capital improvement plans and design, and code changes.

In addition, the MOU requires notification to each

• ther regarding public hearings for development

adjacent to each other's boundaries.

36

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

37

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• 1. Neither the fire departments nor their

services should be consolidated.

Response -

No Action Needed 38

• esse Recommendations

Fire & Emergency Services

2. Develop a fire service boundary agreement to round

• ff

jurisdictional boundaries and establish service delivery areas.

ResPonse

• City and Coun~

representatives met on several

• ccasions to discuss the development of a fire

service boundary agreement.

• With the possibility of

Amendment 1 passing, discussions ended as both sides needed to further understand the impact that Amendment 1 could bring.

• New mutual aid, special operations and automatic

aid agreements are being negotiated.

39

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• 3. Future technology improvements should

allow interoperability between the two fire department communication centers. Resoonse

• The City of

Orlando recently upgraded to a digital radio system, while Orange County continues to

• perate with an analog system.
• Communications between both the City and County

fire departments operates seamlessly.

40

• esse Recommendations

Fire & Emergency Services

• 3. {cont'd)
• Both jurisdictions have installed

communication/ computer equipment in each other's Communications System, which allows for the continuation of 911

• perations in the event either

Communications Center must be vacated.

41

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• 4. Involve fire and emergency services

representatives in lanCI use/ development planning. Response City and County Fire and emergency service representatives serve on their respective development review committees and provide comments on all comprehensive plans, rezonings and proposed developments.

42

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• Sa. Explore the potential of joint

purchasing of vehicles and equipment.

Response

• Orlando Fire Department utilizes Orange

County Fire Rescue's contract for the purchase of Fire/Rescue vehicles and equipment. 43

• ~-

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• Sb. Establish common radio terminology

and improve accountability practices.

Resoonse Both departments use the same "on scene" firefighter accountability system as well as common emergency evacuation signals. 44

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• Sc. Coordinate emergency response

resources & command procedures.

Response Resources and command procedures are based on National Standards and both jurisdictions continue to coordinate on joint response.

45

esse Recommendations

• Fire & Emergency Services
• Sd. Coordinate emergency response

resources & command procedures.

Response County resources and command procedures are based on National Standards and both parties continue to coordinate on joint response.

46

esse Recommendations

• Recommendations:
• Parks & Recreation
• Transportation
• Purchasing
• Planning
• Fire & Emergency Services
• Water Utilities

47

esse Recommendations

• Water Utilities
• 1. County, City and OUC form joint

committee of high level technical staff and policy makers to evaluate issues in consolidating

Response County, City and OUC continue to have productive meetings, agreements, and sharing with OUC and City

Discussions have begun w/ Mike, Alan Olyler and Rob Teegarden- seeting up Jan meeting to discuss Explore potentials Report back to Boards (via memo)

48

esse Recommendations

• Water Utilities (

cont'd)

• 2. County should implement its Stormwater

Utility Fee

• 3. County should evaluate the adoption of

a countywide Stormwater Utility Fee.

Response- This issue will continue to be a discussion for the Board of County Commissioners.

49

• ------------------ --------------------------------------------

esse Recommendations

• Water Utilities (

cont'd)

• 4. Establish a more formal mechanism to regularly

meeting (County, City, and OUC) and establish a Coordinating Committee to look at compatibility of equipment, etc. Response These utilities departments have met to initiate joint facilities planning.

50

esse Recommendations

• Water Utilities (

cont'd)

• 5. County and City explore joint bio-solids

facility

Response The City is developing a biosolid treatment demonstration project which, if successful, will be developed into a full scale system that includes a renewable power component. Information regarding the system will be shared with the County.

51

.esse Recommendations

• Water Utilities (

cont'd)

• 6. County and City review opportunities to

share laboratory

Response Joint laboratory has been discussed, but there is no interest to combine.

52

Consolidation of Services mission

W'U'iloi\V-"s .....,..,_.___

Presentation to th Orange County

er Review Com

53