a starting point - sustainable pittsburgh · legislative services for allegheny county council. we...

A Starting PointA Strategy for City-CountyService Consolidation

City of PittsburghAllegheny County

Bryce HachAlex LacknerJamie LantinenLucky NarainLaurel ShawMartin Yeung

Carnegie Mellon H. John Heinz IIISchool of Public Policyand Management

August 5, 2004

1

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Acknowledgements 2

Preface 3

High Level Findings 4 – 5and Recommendations

Individual ReportsInformation Technology 6 – 12Tax Collection 13 – 21Public Safety 22 – 32Public Works 33 – 39Parks and Recreation 40 – 47Economic Development 48 – 53

Appendices 54 – 65

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The summer 2004 SystemsSynthesis Project group of theH. John Heinz III School ofPublic Policy and Managementgratefully acknowledges the time,cooperation and supportgenerously provided by thefollowing individuals and groups:

The officials, directors,managers and employees of theCity of Pittsburgh and AlleghenyCounty. We thank them for theirservice to the region, theircontributions to this project, andtheir genuine interest in doing whatis best for the region and theirrespective governments.

Both city and countyadministrations for theiropenness and cooperation, andassistance in conducting ourresearch. In particular we thankBob Kennedy, Director ofOperations and Director of PublicSafety, City of Pittsburgh, as wellas and Ali Detar, Office of theChief Executive, AlleghenyCounty.

The Pittsburgh City Council andthe Allegheny County Council.In particular we thank theHonorable William Peduto and theHonorable Jan Rae, as well asAime Downs, Director ofLegislative Services for AlleghenyCounty Council.

We also thank the many officialsand experts, who took time tospeak candidly with us in

connection with this report (a fulllist is available in the Appendix).

The members of this project’sAdvisory Board, who graciouslyshared their time and knowledge,to help us hone our research.

The dedicated faculty and staffof the Heinz School of PublicPolicy and Management,Carnegie Mellon University forproviding us the training, expertise,tools and logistical support tomake this project possible.

The Honorable Frank J.Lucchino, Madonna Melle, andthe 17th floor of the Frick Buildingfor providing a “home away fromhome” as we conducted ourresearch.

Our advisor, Bob Webb for hispatience and wise counsel.

2

PREFACEPrepared by a group of sixstudents at Carnegie Mellon’sH. John Heinz III School of PublicPolicy and Management,A Starting Point examines theconsolidation of servicesopportunities that exist among theCity of Pittsburgh and AlleghenyCounty.

Currently, a window of opportunityexists for consolidating servicesand functions of the City andCounty. The region has apronounced need for cooperation,cost savings, and increasedefficiency and effectiveness. Overthe course of eleven weeks, theteam gathered all availablereports, interviewed director-leveldecision makers, and conferredwith local experts. This reportwould not have been possiblewithout the support of both Cityand County administrations andCouncils.

In early 2004, members of theteam began discussing with localofficials and leaders the possibilityof a project that could add value tothe current conversation aboutconsolidation of services.Consistently, leaders expressed aneed for an implementationstrategy or approach for movingconsolidation of services forward.They indicated that much researchhad been conducted on what couldbe done.

What had not taken place was auniform analysis of theconsolidation opportunities, and an

identification of a direction forproceeding. Based on thesediscussions, student researchcommenced in late May 2004.

The purpose of this project is toprovide a tool to high-level policyand decision makers to assistthem in their efforts towards theconsolidation of services. Therewere four key objectives of theproject.

First, to provide structure to theconsolidation of servicesdiscussion that would focus on thecritical decision issues. Second, toanalyze the complexity of theconsolidation opportunities in orderto inform a strategy. Thirdly, toprovide specific steps andrecommendations for how toachieve consolidation. Finally, topresent important issues forconsolidation opportunities as awhole.

The following report presents thereader with high-level findings andrecommendations that areimportant to all consolidations.Additionally, the report focuses onsix (6) City and Countydepartments that have beenidentified by the City-CountySummit Report1 as ripeopportunities for consolidation.They are:

• Information Technology• Tax Collection• Public Safety• Public Works• Parks and Recreation• Economic Development

1 “City-County Summit Working Group:Purchasing Working Group Report,”March 26, 2004.

3

HIGH LEVELFINDINGS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS

Several key themes emerged asthe team conducted its research.The findings andrecommendations that follow areessential to understanding theconsolidation of services overall.

Implementation of serviceconsolidations can beginimmediately.

Many of the key implementationsteps listed in this report can beinitiated immediately. In the caseswhere agreement is needed oncommon mission and policy,cooperative discussions can beinitiated.

Recommendation – Beginimplementation of InformationTechnology (IT) consolidation sothat other consolidation effortsmay benefit from a consolidated ITsystem.

Recommendation – Address theimpact of a consolidation of PublicWorks on the consolidation ofParks, since the two services arecurrently inter-twined.

A strict focus on short-term costsavings will limit both short andlong –term benefits ofconsolidation.

Although governmentmanagement and servicedepartments are accustomed toimmediate cost savings as adriving strategy, such a focus may

overlook opportunities that a largerrestructuring represents.

Recommendation – Consider otherimportant benefits that moreefficient systems provide, includingcontainment and reduction ofcurrent costs, long-term savings,and potential for enhancement ofservice provision. A focus onthese benefits may lead toadditional short-term solutions,such as external sources offunding, broader coalitions (i.e.with other governmental entities),and greater innovation inimplementation.

Utilizing and adapting existingmodels for consolidation cangreatly advance implementation.

Over the past several decades,regions across the country haveconsolidated services, and haveresolved similar complexities tothose faced in the consolidationsexamined in this report. Most ofthe directors and staff interviewedhad some awareness andunderstanding of relevant models.

Recommendation – Identifyrelevant consolidation modelswhere the most complex issuesinvolved in the consolidation, suchas defining shared missions andpolicies, union contracts, andcosts, were resolved. Use themodels as a tool in the negotiationof complex issues.

4

The City and County often havecore mission differences inproviding services.

Whether it is a general differencein providing service, or specificdifferences such as answeringdifferent types of homicide calls,the divergence in mission andservice provision are often theperceived roadblocks toconsolidation.

Recommendation – Create inter-agency consolidation task forces.Task forces and advisory boardshave been instrumental in planningfor some consolidations. Twoexamples are: the Criminal JusticePolicy Advisory Board, whichgained consensus for and isoverseeing the restructuring andexpansion of the CriminalIdentification system; and theRegional Cooperation Sub-Committee on InformationTechnology, which put together acomprehensive outline forconsolidation. An importantaspect of their ability to aggregatedifferent missions and services issimply bringing both parties to thetable, and establishing a “spirit ofcooperation.”

Workforce and Organizationalissues are consistently amongthe most complex componentsof consolidation.

Concerns about agreeing uponnew organizational structures andunion contracts were regularlycited as the most complex issuesin the consolidation.

Recommendation – Assign aspecial team of experts inorganizational development andunion issues to address all of thevarious service consolidations, andwork as a consulting body underjoint recognition of the City andCounty to assist all consolidationefforts. The consistency of theseissues presents the opportunity toaddress them holistically, and toallow one consolidation effort tobenefit from another.

5

INDIVIDUALREPORTS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Both Allegheny County and theCity of Pittsburgh have conductedresearch and analysis on the issueof Information Technology (IT)services integration. While bothorganizations over time havestreamlined operations andbecome more productive withfewer resources, the consolidationbetween the two entities has seenonly limited success.

Researching City and County ITsystems presented common,recurring themes. Organizationaland cultural differences havehelped to drive apart rather thanunite County and City IT services.These differences can be traceddirectly to the differing coremissions of both organizations. Assuch, consolidation opportunitieshave been necessitated more bycost considerations rather thanbringing about better, moreefficient government.

Contributing to and perhapsexacerbating these obstacles toconsolidation were several factors.First, significant budget cutbacksthat have both organizationsfocused on maintaining rather thanexpanding or streamlining servicedelivery. Secondly, due toCommonwealth and regulatoryrequirements, Allegheny Countyworks under a disparate commandand control structure from the City.Finally, legal obligations

negotiated in the past in theabsence of a “big picture”consolidation mindset add to thecomplexity and time necessary forconsolidation.

CONSOLIDATION ANALYSIS

Framework

The method of analysis used inthis project is based on aframework composed of thefollowing seven (7) components:

• Legal• Statutory/Regulatory• Financial• Organizational• Workforce• Technology• Model/Agreement

These components were identifiedthrough benchmark research ofconsolidation initiatives in therecent past in Allegheny County,and in other counties across thecountry. They are categories ofissues that are most relevant tothe implementation of a serviceconsolidation.

As the basis for the method ofanalysis, the framework providesthe following:

• structure for theorganization of existingdata on consolidationopportunities

• structure for focusedresearch on theseopportunities;

• and a basis for uniformanalysis and strategy.

The seven components of theframework are used consistently inall aspects of each consolidation

6

analysis in this report, providing auniform method to discuss thevarious unique consolidationopportunities, compare them, andsynthesize information about all ofthem.

Methodology

Within each frameworkcomponent, steps need to betaken in order to consolidate agiven service. Researchersassessed the level of complexityand time commitment that wouldbe required to complete thesesteps. This assessment was donesystematically and took intoaccount uncertainties likely in thereal world. (See appendix for moredetail.)

Results for the analysis of IT are inthe chart below. (Componentswith larger bars will be morecomplex and time consuming tocomplete than components withsmaller bars.)

The sections below give greaterdetail about the insights and vitaldata we gleaned through thecourse of research on this servicearea:

Legal

Many current contracts withvendors for services andequipment have yet to expire orexpire at inopportune times thuspreventing combined City-Countypurchase agreements. Moreover,contractors may not offersignificant savings to the City andCounty when they purchase goodsand services together.

Research and analysis alsoconcluded that contracts andagreements that cannot be brokenor would not be cost-effective tobreak were a leading barrier tomoving forward on several keyconsolidation opportunities, suchas payroll processingconsolidation. Such a decisionwould create performanceefficiencies, but not necessarilycost savings.

Statutory/Regulatory

7

Differences in softwareperformance requirementsbetween the City and the Countyhave served to make mergingsystems and operations difficult.Until these issues are fixed, theefficiencies that combined internetmanagement would bring is onhold.

Moreover, the state funds manymunicipal software purchasesdirectly and state requirementsmay not and often do not matchwith streamlining operationsoverall on the county level. This iscertainly true for the County whichmust manage more statemandates than the City.

Workforce Budget cutbacks and hiringfreezes have not only slowed ITconsolidation efforts, but placedsignificant pressure on both ITorganizations to maintain existingIT services with decreasedresources. This places stress onconsolidation in two ways: (1) newstaff with advanced technical skillscan’t be hired (2) the focus ofconsolidation efforts becomefocused on cost-cutting, i.e.decreasing staff rather thanstreamlining or improving citizenservice. If consolidation is to betruly successful, both sides mustdevelop more comprehensivehuman capital sharing agreementsto bring in new talent and theircreativity to aid not just inconsolidation, but also to addvitality and improve bothorganizations overall.

Organizational Analysis concluded that theservice missions of the City andCounty governments, whilesharing many similarities, are quitevaried and different, with the Cityfocused on running the operationsof Pittsburgh and the Countyfocused on social services andother services not involved in day-to-day operations. This variationdoes not allow for many customer-oriented consolidations, but stillboth IT organizations share manyfunctional similarities that can beconsolidated over time if providedthe resources and focus frompolicy leaders.

This consolidation will becomemore challenging should the Cityand County pursue ideas andproposals for outright ITconsolidation between the twoentities.

FinancialAdditional funding and resourcescould greatly bolster theidentification and implementationof cross-beneficial ITconsolidations (as identified in thetax collection section of thisreport).

As IT spending is a centralizedfunction, it is easy to cut. Withoutupfront investment and policybacking, the benefits of ITconsolidation in terms of improvedservice delivery and cost savingsin the long run cannot be attained.For example, IT spending cuts thatdate back to the early 1990’s laidthe foundation for a fractured ITservice infrastructure. In the long-run, those moves have cost theCounty more money and

8

resources while making upgradesand efficiency gains increasinglydifficult; with over 22 data centers,instead of one or a fewconsolidated servers and backupfacilities.

Technology Both City and County IT managersagree that in terms of technicalfeasibility, there are no technicalissues that cannot be solved withcurrent technology.

Model/AgreementThe City-County Summit Reportand Regional CooperationCommittee Report2, both haveprovided detailed insight intoexisting opportunities with regardsto IT services consolidation. TheSummit Report’s InformationTechnology Working Groupsection, focused very much onproblems at a fundamental levelthat the City and County canremedy in order to facilitateconsolidation.

The Regional CooperationCommittee (RCC) Report detailedspecific actions which could betaken over the short and long termwith regards to IT serviceconsolidation between the City andCounty.

The RCC Report outlined atimeframe and set overarchinggoals for consolidation of ITservices and serves as a model forcontinued consolidation betweenthe City and County. While manyof the short-term goals in the

2 “Regional Cooperation CommitteeReport to City Council,” October 29,2003.

report have been achieved, longer-term targets have not beenpursued or have been delayed.

9

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Consolidation Progression

The team developed a two-pronged implementation strategy.The first prong of the strategy is aconsolidation progression. It is avisual representation of how theframework components interactwith each other in terms ofcomplexity, dependency on othercomponents, and the need formore research. The consolidationprogression (below) demonstrateshow to proceed with theimplementation. Complexity isrepresented by the length of thecomponent bar. Dependency andthe need for more research arerepresented by the sequence ofbar placement.

Legal and organizational concernsare a highlighted priority sinceresearch shows these to be themost challenging obstacles toconsolidate.

10

KEY STEPS

The second prong of the strategyis identification of key stepsimportant to the consolidation.

Our analysis also led to thedevelopment of key steps thatprioritize and target keyopportunities on the road toconsolidation. In order to meetthose objectives, steps must betaken to lay the groundwork tomeet those goals. The graphicbelow succinctly categorizes thesteps we believe should be takenin order for both IT organizationsto better understand and facilitatethe goal of greater cooperationand service integration.

Establish joint organization ITprioritiesResolve common differencesregarding service andresponsibility prioritization, i.e.security and data sharing.Establish specific timetable movingtoward common platforms.

Address legal and regulatoryimpedimentsState regulations on platformrequirements must be addressed.

Develop shared missionCultural and core missiondifferences must be resolved.

Devote more resources toexamine IT consolidationopportunitiesMore research needs to take placeto determine the full impact ofconsolidated IT services.

Policy Working Group

Convenes

Develop shared mission

“Spirit of Cooperation” between both organizations is ultimate goal

Devote more resources to examine issue

Establish joint organizational IT priorities

Address legal and regulatory impediments

11

RECOMMENDATIONS

Focus on long-term gains ratherthan immediate budget savings

• Policy and political leadersshould highlight theimportance of and leverageIT can have in otherconsolidation opportunities.

• Budget cuts in the pasthave contributed to thecurrent IT organization atthe County level whichultimately have resulted ina more costly model.

• Political assistance withcontracts, regulatory issuesand service priorities tohelp get best price/lowestcost will help advanceprocess

Acknowledge the need for acommon vision

• County and City both havedifferent missions for IT,until common “big picture”goals are established,greater opportunities forchange will be missed

Binding legal contract agreementsmust be considered.

• Much like in the area ofpurchasing and 911,overarching strategic plansfor both organizations needto be contractually agreedto with actual timelines toencourage and facilitatemajor consolidation.

12

TAX COLLECTION


Consolidation of the City ofPittsburgh and Allegheny Countytax collection services would resultin improved efficiencies and citizenservice. Benchmark research,independent reports, and City andCounty officials indicate thatconsolidation of tax services wouldreduce redundancy and taxpayerconfusion. Simply put, residents ofthe City receive two bills from twoseparate offices for their localgovernment taxes when they couldreceive one. This report identifiesthe steps that must be taken tomerge real estate tax collectionservices, and illuminates some ofthe obstacles that are preventingthese steps from being taken.

The City and County have differentemphases in the tax collectionprocess. The County focuses oncurrent billing and out-sourcesdelinquent collection. The Cityplaces a strong emphasis ondelinquent tax collection (becauseof the high percentage of residentsthat do not pay their City realestate tax on time)3. A significantaspect of the context for taxcollection is that the City collectsCity of Pittsburgh School Boardtaxes as well. The School Boardhas indicated a willingness tomove to a new collecting entity, if

3 One rough estimate is that half of Cityresidents pay real estate taxes on time.This may be a reflection of the economicstatus of some City residents, and it mayalso be a result of the confusion ofmultiple real estate tax bills.

the costs presented to them areacceptable4.

Models exist for successful realestate (property) tax collectionconsolidation of services inCharlotte, Minneapolis andLancaster County, PA. Minnesotarecognized 30 years ago thebenefits of consolidation ofservices. In 1976, the statelegislature declared that “the localgovernmental units within themetropolitan area areinterdependent… [and that the]problems of urbanization anddevelopment transcend localgovernmental boundaries.”5 As aresult Minneapolis took advantageof economies of scale byauthorizing the County to collectCity taxes. In Pennsylvania, theLancaster County Tax CollectionAuthority has shown that it cancollect both current and delinquenttaxes at a significantly cheaperrate than its individual membermunicipalities could. So thepossibility for savings andefficiencies exists.

The goal of this report is not tojustify the concept of consolidationof services. However, it is relevantto mention some of thejustifications for this premise.Reports, policy analysts and localofficials interviewed are almostunanimous that one tax collectionentity is, in principle, inherentlymore efficient6. In addition to the 4 In 2004, the School Board paid$4,700,000 to the City of Pittsburgh tocollect all School Board taxes. (Source:City County Summit Report, March 2004)5 Minnesota Legislature, 1976.6 This point is made with the caveat that asingle entity can be more efficient, but it

13

potential for reducing mailings(particularly on the delinquent sideof collection), residents can alsobenefit by simplifying tax collectionprocesses. Uniform delinquentcollection processes and uniformservices can also benefit citizensof Pittsburgh.

Data and discussion on merger ofCity and County tax collectionservices is currently limited toproperty tax collection only. Initialmeetings of City and Countyofficials determined that there areno efficiencies to be gained frommerger of earned income taxcollection services7. While it istrue that the County does notcollect this tax, merger of other taxcollection services should not betaken off the table. If bothgovernments understand thebenefits of a merged real estatecollection entity, it makes sensethat a single entity shouldeventually collect all City andCounty taxes.8 However, becauseof the lack of data and discussionon merging other tax collectionservices, the focus of this report isreal estate collection only. Moreresearch is required to determinethe potential for a merger of taxesbeyond real estate.

doesn’t have to be. That is, efficienciesare possible with a single merged taxcollection service than with two, but thatsingle entity may be run more efficientlyby one group than another.7 “City-County Summit Working Groups,Tax Collection Working Group Report”,Sub Committee Meeting Memo, March 1,2004.8 One expert suggested that the state maybe able to handle local earned income taxfor the city, as it already collects it at thestate level. This requires more research.


Framework


• Legal• Statutory/Regulatory• Financial• Organizational• Workforce• Technology• Model / Agreement

These components were identifiedthrough benchmark research ofconsolidation initiatives in therecent past in Allegheny Countyand in other counties across thecountry. They are categories ofissues that are most relevant tothe implementation of a serviceconsolidation.





The seven components of theframework are used consistently inall aspects of each consolidationanalysis in this report, providing auniform method to discuss thevarious unique consolidationopportunities, compare them, andsynthesize information about all ofthem.

14

Methodology

Within each frameworkcomponent, steps need to betaken in order to consolidate agiven service. Researchersassessed the level of complexityand time commitment required tocomplete these steps. Thisassessment was donesystematically and took intoaccount uncertainties likely in thereal world. (See appendix for moredetail.)

Results for the analysis of propertytax collection are in the chartbelow. (Components with largerbars will be more complex andtime consuming to complete thancomponents with smaller bars.)

Property tax collection mergerresearch filtered through ourframework has found the mostsignificant aspects of property taxcollection consolidation to beOrganizational andStatutory/Regulatory. That is, themost complex and time consumingefforts for the merger of real estatetax collection services are likely tobe in Organizational andStatutory/Regulatory componentareas.


LegalContracts with the City’s billingvendor and with the School Boardwould have to be terminated ifCounty took over collection.These are important contracts, butnot significant in terms ofcomplexity, time and cost. By allaccounts these contracts would beable to be cancelled with minimaldifficulty if the County took overcollection

Statutory / RegulatoryThe City-County Summit Reportindicates that certain legislativeinitiatives are required in order fora merger of real estate collectionto progress9. Interviews withexperts suggest thatintergovernmental agreementswould be sufficient to achieveconsolidation of services withoutauthorizing legislation. That said,however, there is still a potentialfor high statutory complexity.

Workforce

9 “City-County Summit Working Groups,Tax Collection Working Group,”Summary points, March 31, 2004

15

A merger of only real estate taxcollection is not likely to impactworkforce significantly. Workforcechallenges would likely beexhibited if and when tax collectionconsolidation involved additionaltaxes beyond real estate. Acomplete merger of offices wouldresult in more significant workforceconcerns. Unions would likelybecome more involved in theprocess beyond real estate.

OrganizationalAnalysis of tax collectionconcludes that severalorganizational changes would berequired regardless of the directionof consolidation, making this asignificant component. Steps likeestablishing acceptable billingdates, uniform payment structures,and communication procedures(see key steps) are not necessarilycomplex individually, but takentogether they are likely to beinvolved.

FinancialRegarding property tax collection,there is not a significant financialchallenge to consolidation.Information technology upgradeswould be required regardless ofthe direction of consolidation.Costs have not been identified ifCounty took over real estate taxcollection. However aninformation technology upgradecost of $219,000 has beenestimated if the City takes onCounty real estate tax collection.More research on costs isrequired.

TechnologyThe City would create anadditional column in theirinformation system to capturecollection of County real estate.(Hardware, software & laborestimate is $219,000). If theCounty took responsibility forproperty tax collection, a moresignificant capital investment maybe required to update Countysystems to handle other Citytaxes. However, specificinformation about changesrequired at the County level needsto be researched.

Model/AgreementNo consensus on direction ofconsolidation, and no discussionor consensus on a model toemulate.

16




The progression of consolidationof real estate taxation takes intoaccount the complexitiespreviously discussed in order togive general strategy forconsolidation. In this strategyprogression, we see that thefinancial component should behandled first. Specifically,research regarding costs forCounty collection must becompleted so that finaldeterminations of direction can bemade. This will make it possiblefor the City and Pittsburgh PublicSchool Board to know exactly howmuch they will pay for a Countyprovided service. Once that

17

research and determination iscomplete, other organizationalpractice details (such as billingdates and communicationprocedures) can be worked on,along with preparation for statutoryapprovals of the merger.Information technology upgradescan be made once procedures aredetermined. Next, workforceliaisons can be instituted, andlastly legal contracts with vendorscan be severed.

The lack of a consensus on thedirection of consolidation, and afailure to address long termconsolidation issues are holdingup a merger. It has been statedthat consolidation of tax collectionservices cannot begin until adecision is made as to thedirection it should go. This is verytrue. This report will later discusswhy this decision has not beenmade and make suggestions in therecommendation section thatfollows.

No logistical considerationspreclude the merger of real estatetax collection. While there arespecific concerns to be addressed,they to not prohibit a merger ofreal estate tax collection.Consolidation of other offices(Economic Development and/or IT)could help facilitate consolidationof tax collection. However, realestate tax collection merger is notdependent on the merger of thoseentities.

18

KEY STEPS

Determine direction ofconsolidation

Our recommendation is to stronglyconsider the long term benefitsthat a County-wide collection entitywould provide.

County should offer a price for realestate collection to the City andSchool Board. This will permit anevaluation of costs by both the Cityand the School Board. It isunclear if the County would beable to provide a cheaper servicethan the 0.0796% of collectionsoutsourcing costs currently paid bythe City (and for the City’scollection of the school board).10

10 City of Pittsburgh Real Estate collectionCost Survey

This should not necessarilypreclude merger of services,however it is necessaryinformation.

Table the question of anindependent tax authority. Theintent of this report was not toevaluate the pros and cons of anindependent authority; the intentwas to highlight the stepsnecessary for service mergers.Some have suggested thatestablishing an independent taxauthority is necessary to completea merger of real estate taxcollection.11 Strictly speaking, thisis not true. It is technicallypossible for a merger of taxcollection services to occur withoutan authority. Further research

11 Competitive Pittsburgh Report, 1996

Determine direction of consolidation

Consider establishing preliminary agreements on key issues

Establish communication and information access procedures

Standardize current billing/collection and delinquent billing/co llection practices

Make required technology upgrades

Propose changes to Councils and School Board

Finalize property tax merger, begin research on other taxes

Begin process of consolidation

19

would be required to evaluate thevalue of creating an additionalauthority.

Consider establishing apreliminary agreement on keyissues

Before moving forward with thelogistical and procedural changesnecessary for a merger of realestate tax collection, the City andCounty should considerestablishing a preliminaryagreement to alleviate the majorconcerns of both entities. Forexample, some officials haveexpressed concern that collectionrates may vary as a result of amerger. It would be beneficial forthe parties to come to apreliminary agreement on aminimum collection rate, anddescribe contingencies if thecollecting entity falls below thatrate. So long as there is concernabout losing money, dedicatedpublic servants will seek to protecttheir government’s revenuesources. This makes sense. Apreliminary agreement wouldpermit managers to set aside thismajor concern and flesh outsmaller organizational details morereadily.

Establish clear communication andinformation access procedures.

Written procedures describingwhen and how requiredinformation would be available tothe partner entity should beestablished. Concerns have beenraised about information access bydepartments of one entity towardthe collecting entity. Again, theseconcerns are relevant and need to

be addressed. They are not,however, insurmountable. Theyjust need to be described andoutlined. Much of the real estatetax information is public, and insome instances web accessible.

Among the communicationprocedures that should be outlined(not a complete list) are:a) Access by separate authoritiesand agencies (i.e. HousingAuthority, Urban RedevelopmentAuthority) to real estate accountsto approve associated state andlocal real estate statusb) Reporting process toparticipating entities for budgetingand statistical analysis purposes

Standardize currentbilling/collection and delinquentbilling/collection practices

There is not a consensus as towhether delinquent or current taxcollection should be merged first.To the extent that they can bemerged simultaneously into asingle entity, greater efficienciesare likely.

Among the standards that need tobe established (not a completelist):

• Define uniform billing date• Billing standards (payment

plans, hardship paymentplans, special billingcapabilities)

• Standardizing timing ofdeclaring tax exempt status

• Pro-rata payment toparticipating entities (City,County and School Board)

• Define uniform date ofdelinquency

20

• Delinquent interest rates,penalties should beestablished

• Assessment appealprocedures should bedetermined

Make required technologyupgrades

Technology changes andupgrades are likely to be able tooccur simultaneously with othersteps.

Propose changes to City andCounty Councils and the SchoolBoard

Finalize property tax collectionmerger and begin research onother tax areas.

With a merger of property taxcollection services, research couldbegin on the potential for other taxcollection mergers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Focus on long term efficienciesand gains.A reassessment of the goal ofconsolidation of services shouldhelp resolve direction of taxcollection consolidation. Despitethe challenges associated withCounty collection of City realestate taxes, our expert interviews,benchmark research, andrecognition of the population shiftsin the region, County collection ofCity taxes makes sense long term.County collection makes sensedespite the fact it probably meansa more difficult and time intensivemerger with uncertain short termbenefits.

The City has successfully acted asa model of consolidation of taxcollection in its collection of SchoolBoard taxes. Notice the directionof this model was from a smallermunicipality to the largergovernment. This reasoning stillholds for merger of real estate taxcollection into the County.Decision makers and mangersshould be aware, however, thatmerger into the County is likely tobe a more complex endeavor thanCity collection of County realestate taxes in the City. While Citycollection of County real estatetaxes would likely be a muchsimpler merger in the short term, itwould be less likely, although stillpossible, that the region wouldbenefit long term. It is unclearwhether other municipalities in theCounty would be willing to haveCity collect their taxes, precludingthe largest economies of scale andefficiencies possible.

Acknowledge the strengths ofboth entities, and address theirconcerns.While a direction toward theCounty makes sense, legitimatequestions and concerns have beenraised about cost, collection rates,and communication. Thesequestions do not preclude amerger, but they should and canbe addressed.

Consider a preliminaryagreement.The agreement should addressmajor collection concerns, andthen begin to discuss details of themerger of services.

21

PUBLIC SAFETY


Because the completeconsolidation of public safetyservices between the City andCounty has been acknowledgedas a very complex undertaking,only a limited number of publicsafety functions have beenaddressed in the recent reports onconsolidation, such as theRegional Cooperation Committeereport, the City-County Summit onConsolidation report, and the Act47 Recovery Plan. This sectionwill focus on those consolidationsaddressed in previous studies,which in this case are seven (7)specific public safety functions.The seven opportunities are:

Arson SquadBomb SquadCriminal Identification (ID)*HomicideTraining AcademiesSWAT TeamWarrant Office

While the complexity of the overallconsolidation of Public Safetyservices anchors the discourse onthese specific functionalopportunities for consolidation,progress and even completion ofother functions within PublicSafety, such as the merging of 911centers, demand a realisticperspective on the consolidation ofPublic Safety services. The modelthat best addresses both thedaunting complexity of a City-County unified command and thepast successes, is a progressive

model that addresses thecomplexity of importantconsolidation issues on a smallscale first. Such a progressivestrategy will unify the respectiveanalyses, of the list ofconsolidations above, throughoutthis section.

* Criminal ID is included in thisreport, although it has beenfunctioning as a joint City-Countyfunction for over 20 years. TheAllegheny County Criminal JusticeAdvisory Board, a jointcommission of all local PublicSafety agencies, has reachedconsensus on a restructuring ofthe consolidated entity, and hassecured a consultant with stategrant funding to devise thestrategic plan for a new CriminalID system, which will be operatedby the County. Because,effectively, a new consolidatedentity is being created, Criminal IDis included in this report.

The structure of the followingsection on Public Safety, takes ona slightly different one in order toaccommodate the differences inthis particular analysis.

22


Framework


• Legal• Statutory/Regulatory• Financial• Organizational• Workforce• Technology• Model/Agreement






The seven components of theframework are used consistently inall aspects of each consolidationanalysis in this report, providing auniform method to discuss thevarious unique consolidationopportunities, compare them, and

synthesize information about all ofthem.

The method of analysis wasprimarily developed, however, fordepartment-scale consolidations ofservices, such as are found in theother sections of this report (PublicWorks, Information Technology,etc.). Because this section onPublic Safety addresses manysmaller consolidations, a completeanalysis was performed for onlythe combination of Arson, Bomband SWAT. The most importantcomponents of consolidation foreach are similar. The otherconsolidation opportunities areanalyzed using the frameworkcomponents (technology,organizational, legal, etc.), butwere not scored and graphedusing the entire method ofanalysis.

Even with a simple analysis of theother consolidation opportunities,however, many common issues forall public safety consolidations areevident. Therefore, it is possible tomake general recommendationsfor all Public Safety consolidations,and to focus on and devise astrategy to approach the apparentidiosyncrasies of all of theconsolidation opportunities.

Although all of the issues listedunder each component in theproceeding section are importantconsiderations for implementationof the various consolidationopportunities, two components inparticular warrant focus andcommitment. These componentsare Workforce and Organizational.The emphasis on the findings inthese two components will be

23

common in the implementationstrategy for Public Safetyconsolidation as well.

Arson, Bomb and SWAT – KeyFindings

The following is an overview of thefindings for each component of theframework with respect to Arson,Bomb and SWAT consolidations:

LegalLiability – each agency, whichcurrently manages its liability,would need assurance of liabilityprotection, given that the otheragency would be providing serviceto constituents in their (former)jurisdiction. No contractual orother legal commitments exist.

Statutory/RegulatoryCity and County Council approvalmay be required in certain areas.State Statutes are not specific toconstrain consolidation. Theposition for any regulatoryargument would be that an attemptis being made to enhance servicethrough consolidation.

WorkforceRegarding union contracts, someofficers could be moved from oneagency (and one union) toanother, pensions are an elementof the issue. Task forces must beestablished throughintergovernmental agreement, oranother form of agreement tomove officers must be reached.

OrganizationalThere are several key differencesorganizationally that will need tobe addressed. For example,differences in urban and suburban

policies must be reconciled oraggregated. Also, managementmust be adjusted if one agencyexpands or doubles to take on aconsolidated unit. In the ArsonSquad, consolidation could lead tothe restructuring of shifts (i.e.expanding to three completeshifts).

Dual experiences of many officersare a great advantage toconsolidation efforts. Forexample, many members of theCity police currently work for theCounty Police, most notably,County Chief Charles Moffatt. Thisprovides County management witha familiarity with City policies andoperations.

One dimension of the currentstructure that contributes to thecomplexity of the consolidation arethe multiple responsibilities oftrained officers. Meeting sufficientlevels of trained officers for thenew consolidated squad is acomplicating factor for theseconsolidations. The trainedofficers in these units have otherresponsibilities with their agencies,therefore, the impact that theirchange of status has on the rest ofthe agency must be understood.

FinancialThe cost to the County forexpansion must be considered. If,as recent reports suggest, theCounty becomes the host of any ofthese consolidated services, theCity will be relieved of the service,and will have immediate costsavings. The County will thenincur costs for the expansion ofservice. If the County charges afee to the City for hosting the

24

consolidated unit and providingservice to the City, cost savings forthe City and total costs for theCounty are not known. In thecases of 911, the merger of Cityand District Courts, and (asproposed) in Criminal ID re-structuring, immediate costsavings are realistic.

Also, costs for vehicles, equipmentand insurance will decrease notincrease.

TechnologyIn the case of Arson, Bomb andSWAT, equipment must becombined. Efficiencies will resultin buying new equipment andtechnology in the longer-term.

Model/AgreementRegarding, the Arson and BombSquads, consolidation of theseunits have been discussed byCounty/City management. In thecase of SWAT, consolidation byCity and County has beendiscussed, as has a joint urbanand rural model, which couldinclude municipal SWAT services.

There are existing models in publicsafety that could serve as a basisfor consolidation of the Arson,Bomb and SWAT functions. Otherconsolidations in public safety aremodels for resolution of keyissues, namely, 911, night court,City/District Courts, and CriminalID.

Additional ConsolidationOpportunities

The following is an overview of thefindings for each component of theframework with respect to the rest

of the Public Safety consolidations,namely:

• Criminal ID• Homicide• Training Academies, and• Warrant Office

LegalAll: Liability – each agency, whichcurrently manages its liability,would need assurance of liabilityprotection if another agencyprovided service to constituents intheir (former) jurisdiction;efficiencies from consolidationshould reduce liability exposure.

No contractual or other legalcommitments exist

Statutory/RegulatoryAll: City Council and CountyCouncil approval is needed

General: Regulatory: statutesaren’t specific to constrainconsolidation; the position for anyregulatory argument would be thatan attempt is being made toenhance service throughconsolidation

General: State Statutes -- are notspecific to control consolidation;Criminal ID example: generallanguage about “reasonable” timeperiod for identificationperformance, exists, however newID system will surpass currentperformance

OrganizationalAll: Many managers are familiarwith both agencies: many Citypolice work for County, e.g.Allegheny Chief Moffatt

25

Academies – training is different inCity and County academies now;the more efficient but morecomplex solution is a merger ofcurriculums for a core curriculum(still could include additionaltraining for respective agencies;and could be extended tomunicipal agencies)

Warrant Office – staff who areworking warrants also performother duties (court scheduling andcentral docketing); shifting ofresponsibilities and composition ofnew consolidated office must bedecided

All: Shared policies – differentpractices of current agencies mustbe reconciled or aggregated sothat important services are notdropped

Criminal ID – new restructuredoffice will be a start-up underCounty administration; the transferor reassignment of current Bureauof Criminal Identificationemployees must be planned

Homicide: Training -- anotherorganizational issue for Homicide,is a significant concern if currentSWAT officers are not transferredover to the new consolidated unit,and other officers need to betrained.

FinancialAll: Cost to County for expansion –if, as recent reports suggest, theCounty becomes the host of any ofthese consolidated services, theCity will have may be permanentlyrelieved of the service, and willhave immediate cost savings,while the County will incur costs

for the expansion of service; ifhowever, the County charges a feeto the City for hosting theconsolidated unit and providingservice to the City through thisunit, cost savings for the City andtotal cost for the County are notknown; in the cases of 911, themerger of City and District Courts,and (as proposed) in Criminal IDre-structuring, immediate costsavings are realisticAll: Costs for vehicles, equipmentand insurance will decrease notincrease

All: Cost of double-taxing Cityresidents – through consolidationCity residents will not longer payfor the SWAT services from boththe City and CountyAll: State funding/incentives –State funds and incentives forconsolidation may be available, aswas the case in the restructuring ofCriminal ID, where grant fundswere received for update andupgrade to computer systems

General: Fees from municipalities– as is proposed for the newCriminal ID system, newconsolidated services could beextended to or include municipalpolice agencies, where fees couldbe generated for the consolidatedunit

TechnologyCriminal ID – restructuring ofCriminal ID will equate to anupgrade of current City services;other needed system upgrades arebeing supported by state grants.

Model/AgreementCriminal ID – state funds haveprovided a consultant to develop a

26

new consolidated identificationsystem under the County, and aplan for integrating regionalarraignment centers [check thiswith Bob]

Academies – decision to providesame curriculum (with exceptionsfor add-on specific training) asother counties and cities have,provides basis for model ofconsolidation

Homicide – other counties providemodel; agreement on model hasbeen difficult

In many cases, overlaps existbetween Arson, Bomb and SWATand the rest of the consolidations.The extent of these overlapsthereby reveals the similaritiesbetween ALL of the public safetyconsolidation opportunities. Thesecommonalities are significant indeveloping a strategy forimplementation of all of the PublicSafety consolidation opportunities.

Methodology – Arson, Bomb &SWAT

Within each frameworkcomponent, steps need to betaken in order to consolidate agiven service. Researchersassessed the level of complexityand time commitment that wouldbe required to complete thesesteps. This assessment was done

systematically and took intoaccount uncertainties likely in thereal world. (See appendix for moredetail.)

Results for the analysis for Arson,Bomb and SWAT consolidationsare in the chart below.(Components with larger bars willbe more complex and timeconsuming to complete thancomponents with smaller bars.)

27



Working from the analysis of thevarious components of the Arson,Bomb & SWAT consolidations,and a uniform evaluation of theircomplexity, a conceptualization ofimplementation strategy for theseconsolidations can be developed.While the evaluations of eachcomponent provide significantinformation for strategydevelopment, the relationshipsbetween the various componentscan be seen more concisely whentwo other variables are added tostrategy development. In additionto the complexity of theconsolidation, the dependency ofone component on another andthe need for more research for thatcomponent add substantially to theunderstanding of the relationshipsbetween the components. Thethree variables used in the

formulation of an initial strategyconcept, therefore, are:

• The complexity of thecomponent

• The dependency betweencomponents

• The need for moreresearch of the particularcomponent

Based on the application of thesethree strategic organizingprinciples, the graph and overviewbelow were created.

Because a complete consolidationanalysis was only competed forArson, Bomb and SWAT, aconceptualization of theimplementation strategy isavailable only for theseopportunities. For the rest of theconsolidation opportunities, anoverview of key strategic points for

28

all of the opportunities is givenbelow.

Arson, Bomb, SWAT

The above consolidationprogression graph represents forhow to address the variouscomponents of a consolidation ofthe Arson Squad, Bomb Squadand SWAT teams, separately.

Consolidations Findingsregarding: Criminal ID, Homicide,Training Academies, and WarrantOffice

Dependencies of components:

Model/Agreement - agreeing upthe model for Homicide and theTraining Academies is critical formoving forward with othercomponents of theseconsolidations.

Need for more research:

The Organizational componentrequires more research in the caseof Homicide; specifically toaddress how investigative unitscan be consolidated withoutconsolidation all police functions(unified command of both City andCounty agencies).

The City-County Summit WorkingGroup on Public Safetyrecommended more research forBomb Squad consolidation.

Model/Agreement -- WarrantOffice requires further investigationof the opportunity forconsolidation; the issue of havingtwo different types of warrants

served by the City and the Sheriffshould be the focus.

Overall Key Steps

Establish standard for resolvingkey issues for all Public Safetyconsolidations beforeimplementing any of the specificconsolidations.Address union concerns bypresenting alternatives for shiftingofficers from one union to another,such as:

• Create task forces throughintergovernmental agreements,where officers remain in theiragency, but serve under thecommand of the task force

• Utilize the model from the 911consolidation, where newofficers and staff are broughtinto the new consolidated entity,and officers being reassignedare given the option of acurtailed pension with theircurrent agency after theirreassignment, or beingreassigned in their currentagency

Initiate a City-County Public Safetyconsolidation Task Force that willresolve accountability issues andfoster agreement on sharedmission and policies of consolidateunits for all consolidation initiatives

Develop strategy for shiftingresponsibilities and officers,considering all public safetyconsolidation. This task is muchmore difficult addressing onechange (consolidation) at a time

29

Investigate opportunities for andseek partnerships with state andfederal agencies which maysupport consolidation efforts.

Execute progressive strategy forPublic Safety consolidation

Much has been learned aboutPublic Safety consolidationthrough the 911 initiative, whereunion/pension, organizational, andco-location issues were resolvedefficiently, and through theCriminal ID initiative, which is nowin its new phase of restructuringfor even greater efficiency andservice provision. Otherexamples, such as the progressivemerging of the City Magistrate withthe Fifth District Court show that

the City is recognizing overlaps injurisdictions, where City residentsare paying two taxes for the sameservice, and where the City canreduce costs substantially. Theseinitiatives can be seen as a firstphase of a progressive strategy for

Public Safety consolidation. Thelessons learned in these initiativeswill inform subsequent phases ofconsolidation, including otherservice consolidation opportunitiesincluded and not included in thisreport.

Some key points regarding theimplementation of theconsolidations from this report areas follows:

Determine direction of consolidation

Consider establishing preliminary agreements on key issues

Establish communication and information access procedures

Standardize current billing/collection and delinquent billing/co llection practices

Make required technology upgrades

Propose changes to Councils and School Board

Finalize property tax merger, begin research on other taxes


30

Criminal ID – although the City andCounty have worked jointly in thisconsolidated venture for manyyears, the new restructuring of thisfunction involves large costsavings for the City, state supportfor consolidation, a new computeridentification system and otheroperational efficiencies, and thepotential to collect new revenues(fees) to enhance operations,involving the municipal policeforces as well; the AlleghenyCounty Criminal Justice AdvisoryBoard was the key consensus-building body in this effort, and canserve a similar role in other PublicSafety consolidations

Arson, Bomb and SWAT – theissues involved in theseconsolidations are apparent to allparties involved; resolution ofabove key issues will significantlyfacilitate the implementation ofthese consolidations; other issuesrequire less time and commitmentto resolve.

Warrant Office and TrainingAcademies – further basicresearch for Warrant Officeconsolidation must be conductedbefore (if) moving forward; if itdoes move forward, Criminal IDwill serve as a good model forimplementation; consolidation ofthe Training Academies isrelatively straight-forwardcompared to other Public Safetyconsolidations – the key isagreeing upon the most efficientmodel for consolidation, whichmay be the creation of a singlecurriculum taught to all officers inthe County (includingmunicipalities potentially) with add-

on specific training for respectiveagencies (City, County, municipal)

Homicide – being the mostcomplex and the most inter-twinedwith other major police functions,more research should be done onmodels and shared policies forurban and suburban consolidation;however, as the RegionalCooperation Committee reportstates, the specialization of thispolice function may facilitate aconsolidation before other areas,such as the other investigativepolice functions (burglary andnarcotics); resolution of thegeneral key issues for PublicSafety consolidation will benefitHomicide consolidation, as will thelearning and cooperation that willresult from the successfulimplementation of the aboveconsolidations.

The same learning andcooperation that will benefitHomicide will benefitconsolidations of other PublicSafety consolidations notaddressed in this report. Strictlyfrom an implementationstandpoint, this progress couldalso facilitate the consolidation ofPublic Safety as a whole,particularly with respect to the keyissues of agreeing upon modelsfor consolidation, organizationalchanges, and union and pensionissues.

31

RECOMMENDATIONS

Utilize the Allegheny CountyCriminal Justice Advisory Boardor create another joint planningboard between the City andCounty to work throughcomplex consolidation issues.

The ACCJAB has been verysuccessful so far, and membersbelieve that the board can play arole in the implementation of theseconsolidations.

Balance immediate cost savings(to the City) with enhancementof system-wide public safetyfunctions.

Although in most cases, the Cityhas the potential to savesignificant amounts of money inthe consolidation of thesefunctions, the costs to constituentswill be greater if any change to anyPublic Safety function is not donewith consideration for other relatedPublic Safety functions and thesystem as a whole.

Seek state support forconsolidation activities.

Using a strategic andcomprehensive approach to PublicSafety consolidation, many shortand long-term efficiencies can beachieved and service can begreatly enhanced, bringingtogether the strengths of City andCounty and other agencies.These results equate to large pay-offs for the state as well.

32

PUBLIC WORKS


At the present, the City andCounty are attending to slightlydifferent needs. Urban andsuburban landscapes possesssome dissimilar requirements withrespect to snow removal, fleetresponsibilities, and streetmaintenance. Privatization isutilized in varying degrees by theCity and County. Public worksfunctions, such as fleetmanagement and asphalt plants,will need to approach privatization,cost savings, and job realignmentin a unified way. The City andCounty have different sets ofequipment and approaches toequipment maintenance. Theunions represented have similarprograms, but they differ intraining, minority representation,and labor problem solvingapproaches.

The information and data forPublic Works was obtained fromthe City-County Summit Report,Regional Cooperation CommitteeReport, and Act 47 Recovery Plan,in addition to interviews withdepartment directors and localexperts. (The full list can be foundin the appendix). Central themeswere found throughout thesesources, including the need tocreate a unified union system,attain the same level ofmaintenance equipment, andintegrate the different maintenanceneeds of the City and County.


Framework








The seven components of theframework are used consistently inall aspects of each consolidationanalysis in this report, providing auniform method to discuss thevarious unique consolidationopportunities, compare them, and

33

synthesize information about all ofthem.

Methodology


Results for the analysis of PublicWorks are in the chart below.(Components with larger bars willbe more complex and timeconsuming to complete thancomponents with smaller bars.)

Legal Currently no overt legal constraintshold back a consolidation of Cityand County public works.However, City and County Councilapproval is imperative.

Statutory/RegulatoryPittsburgh code would need to bechanged. Department ofEngineering and Construction willhave to under Public Works.

WorkforceAlthough City and County have thesame unions, contracts need to beestablished with similar training,minority (which is presently 15%for County and 25% for City)representation, and labor problemsolving for both employees ofpublic works. Tradesmen,teamsters, laborers, and clerkswould need to be brought together.

Organizational A process must be establishedthat can best handle the differentservice needs facing urbanPittsburgh and suburbanAllegheny County as well as theirrespective managerialphilosophies.

The combined Public Works willneed to create a unified dedicatedparks crew for the parks system,expanding on the dedicated parkscrew currently used by the City.

Financial A method of combining the samefleet management, privatizingoutdated services like asphalt is adouble-edged sword of costsavings for City and Countyagainst loss of jobs suchproduction provides.

34

TechnologyA common system needs to beestablished to house and processdata. This system must save datafrom past years and have thecapacity to merge information fromthe two systems. The City’s use ofthe Oracle based Accela Reportingsystem displays a good example.

Model/Agreement Currently, a model forconsolidation has not beenidentified.

35




The graph below is a visualcomparison and chronologicalprogression between majorhurdles to consolidate the publicworks system. Fostering a spirit ofcooperation between the City andCounty is important. Addressingthe differing needs between theurban City and the suburbanCounty have been addressed to a

limited extent in the AgilityAgreement.

However, this practice needs to beexpanded and sustained. Theregulations involved in getting Cityand County approval and supportmay be a direct reflection of howdeveloped the union contracts canbe accomplished and aconsolidated IT managementsystem can be furnished withshared histories. Since no legalconcerns are currently known, ithas little representation on theroad to consolidation.

Since the vast majority of PublicWorks employees are members ofa union, it is imperative that theunion contracts, pension plans,and minority representationstandards be set under a unifiedsystem. Pension issues can bedealt with in the short term byarranging workforces to take bestadvantage of parallel pensionsystems and ultimately blendemployees under a single pension

36

system. It is also crucial thatequipment and personnel areuniformly handled and that adedicated parks crew is created.Finally, creating a united andcohesive IT system that worksequally well among former Countyand City employees is critical.

It is important in the consolidationdecisions that are made to focuson maintaining the strengths ofeach Public Works system. TheCounty Public Works providesservices for suburban districts withgreater land distribution. Thesestrengths should be allowed toexist while working on obstaclesthat face the City and County withrespect to the need to privatizeoutdated services and plants, aswell as potential workforce shiftsthat may occur.

37

KEY STEPS

Work toward a like-minded spirit ofcooperation.Develop a spirit of cooperationbetween the City and Countyoffices of Public Works.

Align purchasing and maintenanceof equipment priorities.Begin purchasing and maintainingsimilar types of equipment acrossCity and County.

Unify union contract and addresspension system differences.Start combining contracts withinunions, including public worksemployees who work on parkmaintenance. Pension systemconcerns can be addressed asindicated above.

Integrate IT systems.Integration of unified public workssystem while maintaining historyfrom both City and Countyrespectively in same location.

Share maintenance equipmentand programs.

Increase City and County staffinteractions.

Merge offices.

Work toward a like -minded spirit of cooperation

Align purchasing and equipment maintenance priorities

Unify union contract and pension plans

Integrate IT Systems

Share maintenance equipment and programs

Increase City and County staff interactions


Full consolidation of both organizations is ultimate goal

38

RECOMMENDATIONS

Emphasize spirit of cooperationas being essential

In the process of consolidation,solicit input from and involve Cityand County employees

Both City and County shouldaccept changes for betterment ofentire community

Acknowledge the strengths ofboth governmentsRecognize that unioncooperation is imperative

From union contracts to pensionplans to minority representation,workers from both the City andCounty need to feel that they arenot being left out of theconsolidation process.

The consolidated City-Countydepartment should operate underone single union system.

Bring together technologysystems

Software will need to be able toincorporate past and present data.

39

PARKS AND RECREATION


At present, neither the City nor theCounty have a clear best practiceby which one park system couldbe assimilated into the other. TheCity Parks and Recreation andCounty Parks and Recreation areboth highly dependent on PublicWorks from the respective Cityand County for maintenance andupkeep. The consolidation ofparks systems is highly dependenton the consolidation of City andCounty Public Works.

Researching Parks and Recreationsystems involved gatheringinformation from the City-CountySummit Report, RegionalCooperation Committee Report, aswell as meeting with officials fromthe City Parks, County Parks,Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy,and Regional Asset District. Therewere central themes found withinthe sources including the need toresolve deferred maintenance, thedesire for a “Green Web” thatinterconnects parks through trailsand paths, and the integration ofan information technology system.Many specific sets of informationand priorities were up tointerpretation depending on thevantage point of any oneorganization.


Framework

The method of analysis used inthis project is based on aframework composed of the

following seven (7) components:• Legal• Statutory/Regulatory• Financial• Organizational• Workforce• Technology• Model / Agreement







Methodology

Within each frameworkcomponent, steps need to betaken in order to consolidate agiven service. Researchers

40

assessed the level of complexityand time commitment that wouldbe required to complete thesesteps. This assessment was donesystematically and took intoaccount uncertainties likely in thereal world. (See appendix for moredetail.)

Results for the analysis of Parksand Recreation are in the chartbelow. (Components with largerbars will be more complex andtime consuming to complete thancomponents with smaller bars.)

The sections below give greaterdetail about the insights and vitaldata gathered through the courseof research on this service area:

LegalLegally there are few concerns.There do not appear to becontracts or liabilities that impedeconsolidation.

Statutory / RegulatoryA third party “Regional ParksCouncil” would add statutorycomplications to a consolidation.Acquiring City and County Councilapproval may be required incertain areas.

WorkforceMany of the workforcecomplexities will be resolved with

the consolidation of the City and

County Public Works departments.The vast majority of the workforceis housed within Public Works.

OrganizationalCurrently, a clear best practicesplan does not exist among the Cityand County. Regional ParksCouncils have been successful inother cities and should be exploredfor this region. Regional ParksCouncils have been effective atproviding high level leadership toparks systems. The AlleghenyRegional Asset District (RAD) ispoised to play an active roll inproviding leadership to the parks.RAD currently funds a significantportion of the 14 regional parks.RAD funds 57% ($14 million) ofthe budget for the County parksand 63% ($5 million) of the budgetfor the City parks. The PittsburghParks Conservancy is also a likelymember for a Regional ParksCouncil because of its expertise.

Consolidation is more challengingacross the smaller non-regionalparks than throughout the Countyand City due to less direct fundingstreams. Decisions will need tobe made regarding the smallerneighborhood parks.

A unified permit system needs tobe established for both the Cityparks and the County regional

parks. The IT systems will need to

41

be consolidated before this so thatall applicants can apply on line.

Currently the City Public Worksuses a Dedicated Parks Crew thatspecializes in parks maintenance.An expanded form of theDedicated Parks Crew from theCity Public Works is needed toprovide top maintenance to theparks system.

FinancialA method of resolving thecombined deferred maintenanceissues among both City andCounty parks needs to bedeveloped. Joining funding fromthe Regional Asset District,general funds, and grant writingwill also need to take place.

TechnologyA consolidated parks managementmodel necessitates a jointinformation technology system toassist with integration. Examplesfor strong parks management ITsystems include the Class systemused by the County and the Oraclebased Accela used by the City.These two systems work inconjunction with the Public Worksdepartments.

Model/AgreementThe City and County can look tomodel cities like Chicago andBoston for well-functioningregional parks systems.Consensus in Pittsburgh needs totake place regarding the modelthat would suit the parks needsand capacity best. It is importantto indicate that these are notmodels that suggest how best tobring together City and Countyparks. Rather, Chicago and

Boston offer excellent examples ofhighly effective parks systems.

Chicago has a strong parks districtwith real management powers,operating with a budget ofapproximately $160 million, theChicago Parks District employsapproximately 3,700 full-time staffto operate 580 parks, numerousother facilities, and relatedprogram services.

Boston has an integrated emeraldnecklace of interconnected trailsand paths for the region to follow.Over the past decade, almost $60million in capital expenditures forparks and waterway improvementshave been in the EmeraldNecklace by the City of Bostonand the Town of Brookline. Theseefforts have included improvedpathways, plantings, and signage,bridge repairs, and the restorationof boardwalks and buildings.

42



The team developed a two-pronged implementation strategy.The first prong of the strategy is aconsolidation progression. It is avisual representation of how theframework components interactwith each other in terms ofcomplexity, dependency on othercomponents, and the need formore research.

The consolidation progressionabove demonstrates how toproceed with the implementation.Complexity is represented by thelength of the component bar.Dependency and the need formore research are represented bythe sequence of bar placement.

The above graph represents avisual comparison andchronological progression betweenmajor hurdles to consolidate theparks system. The regulationssurrounding getting City andCounty approval and support for aconsolidation make the statutorycomponent a needed andpotentially challenging issue forconsolidation from the onset.

The establishment of a RegionalParks Council will be next largeopportunity for consolidation andthe technological integration isanother key challenge following.Since little legal concerns arecurrently known, it has little

43

representation on the road toconsolidation.

Among the seven components,organizationally, the parkssystems will be adjusted the mostwith a consolidation. The largeunified Dedicated Parks Crew andIT system will need to beestablished. Potentially anexpanded Green Web andconcessionaire approach to parksprograms could also beestablished.

A consolidation between the 1,700acres of the City parks and 12,000acres of the County regional parksis feasible but it must be done withan emphasis on maintaining thestrengths of each parks system.

The City parks have a well definedstructured programs like arts,community festivals, Cinema inParks, and sports programs whichattract thousands of Countyresidents each year. The Countyparks provide large green spaceswith strong natural amenitieswhich conversely bring Cityresidents to the County parks.

These strengths should be allowedexist while simultaneously tacklingproblems that plague City andCounty parks alike with deferredmaintenance, grant writing, andtrail interconnecting coordination.

44

KEY STEPS

Consolidating the parks systems ofthe City and the County cannothappen all at once. There arenumerous key steps along the waythat allow this transition to unfold.

Request Approval from AlleghenyRegional Asset District for parksconsolidationThe Regional Asset District (RAD)covers the majority of funding forthe City Parks and the CountyParks and will likely play a key rolein establishing “Regional ParksCouncil”, their compliance to theconsolidation is crucial.

Develop a Regional Parks CouncilA “Regional Parks Council” isestablished in the absence of aclear best practices and uses getlocal authority and buy-in from

both City and Countygovernments. The Regional AssetDistrict and Pittsburgh ParksConservancy are likely key playersin the “Regional Parks Council”because they represent localinterests (rather than stateinterests) and have greatknowledge as to the direction of aconsolidation. Chicago’s ParksDistrict Council is an example ofsuccessful parks council thatoversees a region.

Unify union contract and addresspension system differences.Combine union contracts andaddress pension systemdifferences for small number ofemployees who work specificallyfor Parks and Recreation, and areunaffiliated with Public Works(mostly clerk.) Pension system


Increase City and County staff interactions Begin development of universal Green Web

Begin sharing maintenance programs

Begin joint purchases

Integrate IT systems

Create dedicated expanded parks crew

Merge union contracts and pension plans

Develop Regional Parks Council

Approval for parks consolidation issued

by RAD

45

concerns can be addressed asindicated above.

Expanded dedicated parks crewCreate a Dedicated Parks Crewfrom the Public Works thatoverlooks both City and CountyParks as a unified body.

Integrate information technologysystemsIT systems are integrated so thatrecreational programs can readilyretrieve past and present data.

Align purchasing priorities andeffortsBegin joint purchasing whichincludes the whole regional parkssystem. This allows singlepurchases to be made withoutduplication.

Begin sharing maintenanceprogramsMaintenance programs are sharedfor recreational events in parksreadily available for all 14 regionalparks and City cites.

Increase interaction between Cityand County staffEmployee interactions betweenCity and County Parks andRecreation departments increase,fostering cohesiveness among allemployees.

Begin development of universalgreen webThere is a marked priority betweenboth City and County Parks andRecreation departments is thedevelopment of Green Web.Beginning on this project as Parksand Public Works approachconsolidation, this vision is

magnified to encompass the entireregion.

Merge officesThe offices between the City Parksand Recreation and County Parksand Recreation merge.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Place focus on the 14 regionalparks plus the smaller 171 Citycites.

The smaller parks are underauthority of municipalities and donot receive funding from theRegional Asset District. Theseparks will be consolidated as partof the City-County consolidation.Although, the smallerneighborhood parks in City are notreceiving funding from theRegional Asset District, the willalso be consolidated. Withoutthese smaller parks’ membershipin the consolidation, a two tieredparks system is establishedwhereby these smaller parks willbe neglected. The smaller (non-regional) County parks will beunder the tutelage of theirrespective municipalities.

Priority needs to be placed onan improved parks systemrather than immediate costsavings.

Although long-term savings areevident, a better maintained parkssystem with lively events anddecreased deferred maintenanceissues is the number one priorityfor this consolidation.

46

A “Regional Parks Council”needs to be under authority of alocal consensus

Although a third party representsneither the total interest of the Citynor the County, when bestpractices do not exist, thedevelopment of third party can bea local interest in order to alleviatepotential additions to legalcomplexity and red tape.

Utilize a Dedicated Parks Crewstructure to maintain the parkssystem

The best parks systems in countryinclude Seattle, New York City,Chicago, and Minneapolis. Noneof these parks systems arebifurcated along Parks andRecreation programs and PublicWorks parks maintenance. In allof the nation’s best premier parkssystems, the maintenance of parkssystem is controlled by the parks.However, due to the fact thatPublic Works has shown that therealignment of parks maintenancestaff during winter months to otherPublic Works responsibilities, thebifurcated system appears best forthis region.

Currently the City Public Worksuses a Dedicated Parks Crew thatspecializes strictly on parksmaintenance. An expandedDedicated Parks Crew from PublicWorks is needed to provide topmaintenance to the parks system.A Dedicated Parks Crew providesPublic Works staff ownership forparks upkeep with potential salary-based incentives to the bestmaintained parks.

Strive to create a “Green Web”system for parks.

A Green Web is a key interest forboth the City and County Parks. Aconsolidated parks systeminterconnected with paths andtrails would expand upon thesmaller Green Webs existingseparated in City and County.Although many trails and pathscurrently run parallel to roadsystems, bridging parks acrosssuch a wide ranging system stillhas much work to be researched.

Provide concessionairemunicipal golf courses andwave pools so that parksservices can reverse thedraining of financial assets intomoney generators.

These parks programs do notneed to be privatized but shouldwork in conjunction with privatecorporations to offer top servicewith personal ownership of theseservices.

47

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


The Urban RedevelopmentAuthority (URA) and AlleghenyCounty both strive to promoteeconomic growth in the regionthrough residential redevelopmentprojects, urban developmentprograms to attract largecorporations, and small businessassistance initiatives. Leaderswithin both organizationsrecognize that a merger will resultin a logical one-stop-shop forcitizens and businesses to meet allof their economic developmentneeds. However, variousdifferences exist between thedepartments that must be morethoroughly evaluated in order toachieve a functional consolidationof economic developmentservices. The various differencesrange from the real estate loanreview processes to the diversityof funding streams to the differingtechnological standards in areaslike Geographical InformationSystems (GIS).

Limited research has beenconducted on consolidating theeconomic development functionsof the City and County, however,there seems to be a local interestin exploring the possibilities thatexist in bringing the two together.The City-County Summit WorkingGroup focused some of its effortson Economic Development, as didthe Act 47 Report. There is recenthistory of the two departmentsworking together as evidencedwhen Dr. Mulugetta Birru servedas director of both organizationsfrom 1997 – 2000. Finally, Mayor

Tom Murphy and Chief ExecutiveDan Onorato expressed that theywould like to explore the possibilityof an economic developmentdepartment merger in recent pressrelease (May 2004). 12


Framework





• structure for theorganization of existing

12 Joint Press Release: “MayorMurphy and Executive OnoratoAnnounce Initiative to MergeEconomic DevelopmentOperations,” May 28, 2004.

48

data on consolidationopportunities




Methodology


Results for the analysis ofEconomic Development are in thechart below. (Components withlarger bars will be more complexand time consuming to completethan components with smallerbars.)


LegalNo contracts exist that wouldimpede a consolidation.

Statutory/RegulatoryEven though both City and theCounty are governed by HomeRule charters, experts maintainthat ordinances changes will needto be modified for governmentservice consolidation. If the focusis shifted to governmentconsolidation, then state legislationwill also have to be modified.

WorkforceLabor contracts do not pose achallenge to an economicdevelopment departmentconsolidation. Furthermore, staffsin both departments possesssimilar skill-sets, which negate theneed for additional training. (Apost consolidation analysis wouldprove beneficial to determine theneed for new staff.)

OrganizationalExpert opinion will be required toascertain whether or notauthorities will need to be

49

dissolved and how to manage adissolved authority’s assets. Aswith any merger, issues of differentpolicies, missions, guidelines,organizational cultures andorganizational structures must beresolved. For example, theAllegheny County planningfunction, is a part of the EconomicDevelopment Department. Incontrast, the City PlanningDepartment is a separate entity.In addition, the URA has a RealEstate Loan Review Committeeand the County does not.13

Additionally, a solution must bedeveloped to address concerns ofaccountability in a mergeddepartment.

FinancialBoth Economic Developmentdepartments derive revenue andfunding from local, state andfederal levels. Currently, the URAacquires local funds via taxes. Incontrast, the County obtains localfunds via fees. When theeconomic developmentdepartments merge, they will needto develop a local funding strategythat will either keep the localfunding methods the way they arecurrently or create a coherentstrategy wherein both departmentsuse either funds or fees. The stateand federal funding will largelydepend on the changes toordinances and state legislation.

TechnologyThe primary technological concernrelates to the GeographicalInformation Systems (GIS) that are

13 City-County Summit Report, EconomicDevelopment Working Group Report,March 26, 2004

used in each department. Thestandards between thedepartments in their use of GISare uneven. GIS is not missioncritical to the consolidation of theeconomic developmentdepartments.

Model/AgreementA quasi Economic Developmentmodels existed when Dr. Birrudirected both departments.However, even though he directedboth departments, it was not acomprehensive consolidation.Agreements exist within thedepartments that a mergedeconomic developmentdepartment will result in a moreresponsive entity to serve theneeds of the community.

50



The team developed a two-pronged implementation strategy.The first prong of the strategy is aconsolidation progression. It is avisual representation of how theframework components interactwith each other in terms ofcomplexity, dependency on othercomponents, and the need formore research. The consolidationprogression (above) demonstrateshow to proceed with theimplementation. Complexity isrepresented by the length of thecomponent bar. Dependency andthe need for more research arerepresented by the sequence ofbar placement.

Using the seven-tiered framework,the results displayed in the abovefigure represent levels ofcomplexity. Initially, statutory,legal and organizationcomplexities should be addressed.

Statutory issues should be focusedon to ensure that the jointdepartment can request state andfederal grants as a new entity andmaintain a consistent fundingstream. Organizational concernswill require the most amount oftime; therefore, they should alsobe focused on immediately.Financial concerns primarily relateto local funding streams. The localfunding approach can remain inplace until a working groupdecides on an alternative strategy.Technological matters relate toGIS and can also start laterbecause they are not critical to themerger of the departments. Legaland Workforce issues as theyrelate to contracts were notsignificant to the economicdevelopment consolidation. Themost critical areas of an economicdevelopment merger areorganizational, financial andstatutory.

51

KEY STEPS

Address statutory barriers.Officials should begin drafting thenecessary changes to theordinances in order to expedite themerger. Statutory barriers willimpact the grants provided by thestate and federal agenciesbecause awards are oftencalculated using population andcensus tracts data.

Create a joint managementstructure.A joint management structure willensure that both economicdevelopment departments work inconcert for the development of theregion. The managementstructure will also promote sharingof services (i.e. loan reviewcommittee) and specialized skills(GIS).

Establish a shared missionThe missions and cultures of bothdepartments differ slightly. Bycreating a shared mission, theseissues can be resolved.

Develop comprehensive local,state and federal fundingstrategiesComprehensive funding strategieswill enable the merged departmentto streamline the financial aspectof economic development,including but not limited toreceiving grants and managingbonds and other liabilities.

Identify offices where identicalfunctions are performedBy identifying the offices whereidentical functions are performed;the departments will be able tofacilitate the consolidation bymerging those offices.


Address statutory barriers

Create joint management structure

Establish a shared mission

Develop comprehensive funding strategies

Identify offices where identical functions performed

Determine status of authorities


52

Decide on status of authoritiesEach department maintainsauthorities for areas such ashigher education buildings (in theCity) and authorities for theimprovements of municipalities (inthe County). Some of theseauthorities are not even staffed orequipped for daily operations.However, many authorities dohave assets. The jointmanagement and/or dissolution ofthese authorities should bediscussed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Establish a working group todiscuss the possibility for aconsistent local fundingstrategy.

The group should examine thelocal funding streams, those thatcome from state and federalfunding, as well as fees and taxes,in order to develop acomprehensive funding strategyfor economic developmentactivities in Allegheny County andthe City of Pittsburgh.

Convene a new board ofadvisors to addressaccountability issues.

53

APPENDIX A

THE FRAMEWORKThe method of analysis used in this project is based on a frameworkcomposed of the seven following components: Legal, Statutory/Regulatory,Financial, Organizational, Workforce, Technological, and Agreement/Model.These components were chosen after researching service consolidationinitiatives both in the recent past in Allegheny County, and in other Countiesaround the country. The components of the framework are categories ofissues that are most relevant to the implementation of a serviceconsolidation.

PurposeAs the basis for the method of analysis, the framework provides the following:

• structure for the organization of existing data on consolidationopportunities;

• structure for focused research of these opportunities; and• a basis for uniform analysis and strategy.

The seven components of the framework are used consistently in all aspectsof each consolidation analysis in this report, thereby providing uniformity inthe method of analysis and strategy.

Using the frameworkThe steps in utilizing the framework in the method of analysis and indeveloping implementation steps and strategies for consolidation are asfollows.

Organizing existing research - the findings from available reports and studiesof the respective consolidation opportunities were aggregated using theframework components as categories for all of the data and findings. Thisprocess provided the researchers with an understanding of the consolidationaccording to the components and revealed where more research wasneeded. The seven components of the framework and details for each areshown below

Focused research – given that the purpose of this project was to aggregateexisting information, not execute comprehensive and detailed action plans forimplementation, the researchers next conducted high level and expertinterviews to fill in data gaps for important issues, and to synthesize thefindings so far. The questions that researchers used as a guide are listedbelow.

Generalizing the findings – the combined findings for each consolidation werethen discussed by the team in order to generalize the findings into a listing ofissues potentially found in the various components of the consolidation. Asthe methodology section details more thoroughly, this common listing of thepotential issues became the basis for an objective and systematic evaluation

54

of the complexity of each consolidation. Table 1-2, the Evaluation Matrix,shows the complete breakdown of critical issues within each component.

Evaluation CriteriaThese criteria were evaluated for each service are examined to assesscomplexity and time commitment a given consolidation component.

Model / Agreement

• Clarity of structure of consolidation• Adoption / discussion / existence of a model for given consolidation

Organizational• Accountability• Establish Shared Mission• Merging Staff• Merging Locations / Expansion of one location• Operations (Timetables, billing dates, coordination with other

agencies)• Establish Shared Policies• Changing / Shifting Job Descriptions (Staff serving multiple

responsibilities)• Privatization

Workforce• Existence of union contracts (Would re-negotiation, termination be

necessary? Is it possible to combine, move staff from one to other?)• Existence of non-union staff• Affect on pension system• Need for expansion of staff• Training / Re-Training to different standards; keeping sufficient

expertise• Connection to broader union negotiation / arbitration• Outsourcing

Technology• Establishment / creation of common platform• Need for Immediate Upgrade (Capacity / Functionality)

Financial• Understanding of likely costs and potential cost savings (Costs

related to personnel, new contracts, research required, capitalinvestment, insurance, technology)

• Deferred maintenance issues• Revenue streams (Potential for loss or gain in revenue streams,

possible external funding and grants to facilitate consolidation)• Fees• Intergovernmental transfer changes

55

Legal• Contracts to provide services (length of term and funding stream)• Contracts with service providers (Is termination or re-negotiation

required?)• Increasing liability for adequate service (private lawsuits)

Statutory• Are changes to code required? (Assess number and complexity of

changes)• City and County Council approval• Standards requirements (city / county / state/ federal)• Any state legislative approvals required?

56

APPENDIX BTHE METHODOLOGYThe method of analysis for the project was comprised of two essential activities. The first keydimension was the development of a standardized and uniform framework that allowed for aconsistent analysis of the six consolidation opportunities covered in this report. The next aspect ofthe method of analysis was the creation and evolution of a methodology in which to analyze thedata systematically.

To help structure the analysis, a multi-criteria decision-making process was employed to theresearch. This process quantitatively and visually described the components of the framework interms of complexity and time commitment for the consolidation of an individual service area.

The goal of the methodology was to provide a quantitative, academic rigor to supplement thequalitative analysis. Through this rigor, judgments of the qualitative analysis could be tested. Oneof the key benefits of the analysis is that it permitted a level of standardization not possible withpurely qualitative judgments. For example, each complexity could be referenced via astandardized subjective score chart to generate consistent results across each serviceconsolidation. Realistically, a consolidation of a given service may turn out to be easier or moredifficult than assessed. Therefore, in addition to accounting for variations in assessments ofresearchers, the process accounts for the levels of uncertainty in the scoring process.

Rather than relying on standalone qualitative judgments, the process resulted in a significantlymore disciplined and focused approach through the use of concepts of uniformity and uncertaintyin the data analysis. While this methodology is quantitative in nature, it is important to rememberthis is still inherently a qualitative exercise that facilitates the analysis of the individual componentsof a given consolidation. The results are used to create a visual representation of the feasibility foreach service consolidation.

Methodology Process

1. Analyze the service consolidation using a seven component framework.2. Design a standardized subjective scale to assess the levels of complexity within eachcomponent.3. Assign a ‘most likely score’ using standardized subjective scale.4. Assign a range of scores (upper and lower bounds to probability distributions.5. Normalize scores for each service consolidation analysis by having one person examine thescores of each analysis. (i.e. Check for inconsistencies of scores)6. Assign a probability distribution to the scores: either a triangular or uniform distribution. If aresearcher was confident about their best guess, then a triangular distribution was assigned. If aresearcher was not confident about a best guess, and was only confident with a range of valueswith equally likely probability, a uniform probability distribution was assigned. These distributionswere applied to each component for each consolidation opportunity.7. Simulate 1,000 outcomes using standard forecasting software in Microsoft Excel with eachscore range and associated distribution to account for uncertainties.

8. Extract the mean from the 1,000 simulated distribution results and assign that value to thescore for the respective component.9. Compare the scores for each respective component against each other to evaluate theproportional relationships of each consolidation component.

57

Complexity and TimeCommitment EstimatesMEANS (from simulation) Legal Stat. Work. Org. Tech. Fin. Model

IT 55 30 42 45 22 30 67Parks 10 55 20 60 70 50 40

Public Safety 22 37 53 72 5 50 18Public Works 10 40 60 72 60 20 45

Tax Collection 12 49 17 54 27 35 65Econ. Dev. 25 37 33 75 35 50 60

MIN Legal Stat. Work. Org. Tech. Fin. ModelIT 20 20 30 30 10 20 60

Parks 0 45 10 50 60 40 30Public Safety 15 20 40 60 0 35 15Public Works 0 30 50 60 50 10 40


BEST GUESS Legal Stat. Work. Org. Tech. Fin. ModelIT 65 30 45 35 25 30 75



MAX Legal Stat. Work. Org. Tech. Fin. ModelIT 80 40 50 70 30 40 80



IF1 Triangular, If 0 uniform--- (if uniform, then no mode) DISTRIBUTION Legal Regul. Work. Org. Tech. Fin. Model

IT 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Parks 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Public Safety 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Public Works 1 1 1 1 1 0 0


City County ConsolidationScoring Simulation Analysis

58

Information Technology Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component

(Left to right, they are: Legal, Statutory/Regulatory, Workforce, Organizational, Technology, Financial, Model)

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.016

.023

.031

0

7.75

15.5

23.25

31

30 35 40 45 50

1,000 Trials 1,000 Displayed

Forecast: ITWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

20 35 50 65 80


Forecast: ITLegal

Frequency Chart

.000

.005

.009

.014

.018

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

60 64 68 71 75


Forecast: ITGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.017

.025

.033

0

8.25

16.5

24.75

33

20 25 30 35 40


Forecast: ITFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.012

.018

.024

0

6

12

18

24

10 15 20 25 30


Forecast: ITTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

30 40 50 60 70


Forecast: ITOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

20 25 30 35 40


Forecast: ITReg

59

Tax Collection Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component


Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.021

.028

0

7

14

21

28

25 30 35 40 45


Forecast: TaxFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.005

.009

.014

.018

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

50 58 65 73 80


Forecast: TaxGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

40 46 53 59 65


Forecast: TaxOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

20 24 28 31 35


Forecast: TaxTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.017

.025

.033

0

8.25

16.5

24.75

33

10 14 18 21 25


Forecast: TaxWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.012

.017

.023

0

5.75

11.5

17.25

23

35 44 53 61 70


Forecast: TaxReg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.021

.028

0

7

14

21

28

5 9 13 16 20


Forecast: TaxLegal

60

Public Safety Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component


Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.015

.023

.030

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

35 43 50 58 65


Forecast: PSFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.004

.009

.013

.017

0

4.25

8.5

12.75

17

15 16 18 19 20


Forecast: PSGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.013

.019

.025

0

6.25

12.5

18.75

25

0 4 8 11 15


Forecast: PSTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

60 65 70 75 80


Forecast: PSOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.013

.019

.025

0

6.25

12.5

18.75

25

20 28 35 43 50


Forecast: PSReg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

40 48 55 63 70


Forecast: PSWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.012

.018

.024

0

6

12

18

24

15 19 23 26 30


Forecast: PSLegal

61

Public Works Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component


Frequency Chart

.000

.005

.009

.014

.018

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

40 43 45 48 50


Forecast: PWGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.012

.017

.023

0

5.75

11.5

17.25

23

10 15 20 25 30


Forecast: PWFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

50 55 60 65 70


Forecast: PWTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.012

.018

.024

0

6

12

18

24

60 65 70 75 80


Forecast: PWOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

50 55 60 65 70


Forecast: PWWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

30 35 40 45 50


Forecast: PWReg

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.013

.019

.025

0

6.25

12.5

18.75

25

0 5 10 15 20


Forecast: PSWorks

62

Parks and Recreation Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component


Frequency Chart

.000

.004

.009

.013

.017

0

4.25

8.5

12.75

17

30 35 40 45 50


Forecast: ParksGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

40 45 50 55 60


Forecast: ParksFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.021

.028

0

7

14

21

28

60 65 70 75 80


Forecast: ParksTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.016

.023

.031

0

7.75

15.5

23.25

31

50 55 60 65 70


Forecast: ParksOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.016

.023

.031

0

7.75

15.5

23.25

31

10 15 20 25 30


Forecast: ParksWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.020

.027

0

6.75

13.5

20.25

27

45 50 55 60 65


Forecast: ParksReg

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

0 5 10 15 20


Forecast: ParksLegal

63

Economic Development Complexity and Time Commitment AnalysisSimulation Results for Each Component


Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.013

.019

.025

0

6.25

12.5

18.75

25

20 26 33 39 45


Forecast: EDTech

Frequency Chart

.000

.005

.009

.014

.018

0

4.5

9

13.5

18

50 55 60 65 70


Forecast: EDGen

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.015

.023

.030

0

7.5

15

22.5

30

20 23 25 28 30


Forecast: EDLegal

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.014

.021

.028

0

7

14

21

28

40 46 53 59 65


Forecast: EDFin

Frequency Chart

.000

.007

.013

.020

.026

0

6.5

13

19.5

26

60 68 75 83 90


Forecast: EDOrg

Frequency Chart

.000

.008

.016

.023

.031

0

7.75

15.5

23.25

31

20 28 35 43 50


Forecast: EDWork

Frequency Chart

.000

.006

.013

.019

.025

0

6.25

12.5

18.75

25

20 30 40 50 60


Forecast: EDReg

64

APPENDIX C

LIST OF EXPERT INTERVIEWS

Adams, Mark - Assistant Director, Department of Finance, City of PittsburghBaechle, Andy – Director of Parks and Recreation, Allegheny CountyBaum, Thomas - Lancaster Tax Collection BureauBillotte, Ray - Administrator of Courts District Court of PennsylvaniaCosta,Guy – Director of Public Works, City of PittsburghDavin, Dennis – Director of Economic Development Department, Allegheny CountyDeLoughry, Catherine - Pennsylvania Economy LeagueDettore, Jerry – Deputy Director, Urban Redevelopment Authority, City of PittsburghDonahoe, David, Director of Regional Asset District, Allegheny CountyDonatelli, Tom – Director of Public Works, Allegheny CountyDuane, Ashley – Director of Parks and Recreation, City of PittsburghFees, Richard – Treasurer, City of PittsburghFoerster, Joanne – CitiStat Project Manager, City of Pittsburgh, Office of the MayorFull, Robert - Director, Emergency Management County of AlleghenyGable, Mike – Assistant Director of Public Works, City of PittsburghGambino, Dominik – President, Diversified Municipal ServicesHopson, Clerance – Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, City of PittsburghJanoscko, George – Solicitor, Allegheny CountyJensen, Brian K., Ph.D. – Project Manager, Pennsylvania Economy LeagueJohnston, MaryLou – Assistant Director, Department of Finance, City of PittsburghKaye, Robin – Consultant, Pittsburgh Parks ConservancyKennedy, Robert – Director of Operations and Director of Public Safety, City of PittsburghKlinginsmith, Jim – Executive Vice President, Allegheny County Labor CouncilMadsen, Per – Chief Information Officer, Allegheny CountyMarshall, Tim – Consultant, Pittsburgh Parks ConservancyMcCullough, Charles – Attorney, Tucker & ArensbergMcNeilly, Robert - Chief of Police, City of PittsburghMiller, David - Associate Dean and Professor Public and Urban Affairs, University ofPittsburghOgden, Tom - Chief of Police, Mt. Lebanon MunicipalityPeduto, Bill – Councilmember, City of PittsburghRoddey, James – Former Chief Executive, Allegheny CountyRadley, Mike – Assistant of Director of Parks and Recreation Department, City of PittsburghStephens, David – Chief Information Officer, City of PittsburghStern, Howard – Deputy Director, City Information Systems, City of PittsburghTaylor, Damon – School Board Accountant, City of PittsburghTroy, Dennis – Former Deputy Director of Economic Development, Allegheny CountyWaters, Charles – Pennsylvania Economy LeagueWeinstien, John – Treasurer, Allegheny CountyWeir, Michael – Senior Fellow, Pennsylvania Economy LeagueZapinsky, Ken – Vice President, Pennsylvania Economy League

a starting point - sustainable pittsburgh · legislative services for allegheny county council. we...

Documents