Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-02 I FIN A L 12:00 Noon October 9, 1992 Room 5/6, County Office Building 1): Call to Order. 2): Joint Meeting with City Council. a) Ivy Landfill, Presentation by Joyce Engineering b) City-County Resource Sharing Analysis, Discussion. c) Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 3). Adjournment Edward H. Ba n, Jr. Samuel Mill COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060 Forrest R. Marshall. Jr. Scottsville David P. Bow rman Charlottesvill Charles S. Martin Rivanna Charlotte Y. umphris Jack Jouett Walter F. Perkins White Hall M E M 0 RAN DUM Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, CMC~~~ October 16, 1992 Board Actions of October 9, 1992 At the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and Char- lottesville City Council on October 9, 1992, the two organizations ag eed to discuss further the concept of combining certain services pr vided by the departments of Parks and Recreation, Inspections an Purchasing. The Board and City Council requested their respec- ti e staffs to prepare a detailed analysis of the feasibility of this proposal. The next joint meeting of the Board and City Council was eduled for Friday, November 13, 1992, at City Hall. cc: Richard E. Huff, II Robert B. Brandenburger Roxanne White -' . ~ I 0- ~ ~ 2- .'. ~ / '1Z./uCI/&{8 . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board Robert W. Tucker, Jr., of supervisors d ~ County Executive ~I October 8, 1992 County-city Resource Sharing ttached for your review before our noon meeting on Friday, October with City Council is a report regarding possible sharing of epartmental resources. The report considers three departments or ivisions for shared services which include the Departments of nspection, Parks and Recreation and the Division of Purchasing. ifferences between respective departments are identified as well s general issues that should be considered. Some suggested omprovements to service are also made. If you would like to pursue ny of these suggestions beyond those proposed, we are recommending hat an "outside" entity such as the Center for Public Service be mployed to analyze these issues further in order to avoid any "turf" issues among the various departments. have any questions, please feel free to contact me. ttachment I ~ FUTURE CITY-COUNTY RESOURCE SHARING The County Executive and City Manager were requested by the May.pr and Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to prepare for the Cit Council and Board of Supervisors a preliminary information pie<e outlining issues to be considered in any future function con olidation discussions. In any discussion of consolidation of Cit~-County functions, the first issue is to decide what goals sho, ld be achieved by the consolidation. Four which immediately comE to mind are: to provide better service to the citizen to reduce the cost of the operation to have better intergovernmental cooperation to reduce the duplication of effort The following three functional areas were selected for exal~ination since the City and County both provide these services and a fourth one will be proposed later. To gain the following information all three departmental or div sion managers in each jurisdiction wer~ interviewed. The iSSl es listed below merely point out the differences in services and do not address the advisability of consolidation nor do they est,blish any level of importance of the issue itself. Iss,es to be considered: Inspections Service~ The County does not currently have a housing maintenance inspection program and the City does. The type and volume of construction activity varies in the City and the County. The governing bodies place different emphasis on various aspects of the programs. Zoning and inspection procedures require different responses in the City and County. The County has eighteen full-time people with a budget of $630,000 and the City has seven full-time people with a budget of $317,000. It 's possible this function may lend itself to contracting out ratler than consolidation. Purchasing Issues to be considered: The City operates a warehouse and the County does not. The County does purchasing for the schools and the City generally does not. Savings from volume purchases. Both organizations currently accrue savings by purchasing off state purchasing contracts. Some cooperative purchasing is now taking place, i.e. fuel. City has six full-time employees and the County has three. City's budget is $266,000, and the County's is $lll,OOO. It is possible this function may lend itself to one governmental ~nit contracting with the other or to have more cooperative purchasing. Parks and Recreation . Issues to be considered: The possibility of eliminating the differential fees for recreation and parks services. The levels of maintenance may be different. The City provides school ground maintenance and the County does not. The City provides maintenance to the Downtown Mall. The County performs some functions which are provided by the Public Works Department in the City. The City and County currently share some resources in both park maintenance and recreation programs. The.City has fifty-five full-time employees and the County has thirteen. The City's budget is $3,599,000 and the County's is $847,000. Current joint operations, i.e. Rivanna Park. A fourth program that may be considered for possible consolidation is social services since both City and County provide this function and the programs are very similar. r I There are also some general issues which may require d~scussion if consolidation is pursued. They are: Differences of philosophy in the delivery of services in the City and the County. Differences in pay systems and fringe benefits of current employees. The need for additional support service, i.e. legal, accounting, personnel for the receiving organization. The development of the system of reporting and accounta- bility (governance). It is recommended that if both governing bodies wish to Iursue any or all of these possibilities that the detailed studies recessary for ultimate decision-making be produced by a group or <rganization outside of City and County government. Council and loard of Supervisors may want to consider a "blue ribbon" panel of citizens, an organization like the Center for Public Service at (VA or a consulting type organization.