September 2, 2022
Dear Orange County Residents:
On April 26 of this year, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners voted to place a one-centsales tax referendum on the November 8, 2022 ballot. If passed by voters, the revenue raised by the sales
tax would be earmarked solely for transportation projects in our County.
Florida law requires the state’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability(OPPAGA) to conduct a performance audit of Orange County. OPPAGA selected the firm of McConnell
Jones LLP to complete this audit. The objectives of the audit were to evaluate the program associatedwith the proposed one-cent sales tax based on the following tasks:
•
•
•
•
•
•

The economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the program
The structure or design of the program to accomplish its goals and objectives
Alternative methods of providing services or products
Goals, objectives, and performance measures used by the program to monitor and report programaccomplishments
The accuracy or adequacy of public documents, reports, and requests prepared by the County,
which relate to the program
Compliance of the program with appropriate policies, rules, and laws

It is with great pride that we share the results of the performance audit. The audit found Orange County
met all six-audit tasks for the proposed sales surtax. In making this determination, OPPAGA evaluated
25 subtasks and Orange County either “met” (21) or “partially met” (4) 100 percent of these subtasks.
This means there were no subtasks that were determined “not met”. We have demonstrated that Orange
County has sufficient policies and procedures in place to deliver the transportation projects needed
should Orange County voters approve the one-cent transportation surtax.
Finally, the audit recognized and reinforced that Orange County is prepared to receive and responsibly
spend the funds by following our written policies and procedures. We stand ready to carry out and deliver
the transportation projects needed to move our County to the next level.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at Mayor@ocfl.net with any questions regarding the contents of
the audit.
Sincerely,

Jerry L. Demings
Orange County MayorPERFORMANCE AUDIT OF

Orange County
FINAL REPORT
August 31, 2022

Overview of Performance Audit Findings
Orange County
August 31, 2022
Overall, Across 25 Areas, the County Met Expectations in 21 Areas andPartially Met Expectations in 4 Areas
Did the County Meet
Subtask Expectations?

Overall
Conclusion

Yes

Partially

No

Economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the program (7)

Met

6

1

0

Structure or design of the program (2)

Met

2

0

0

Alternative methods of providing program services or products (4)

Met

3

1

0

Goals, objectives, and performance measures (3)

Met

3

0

0

Accuracy or adequacy of public documents, reports, and requests
prepared by the County (5)

Met

3

2

0

Compliance with appropriate policies, rules, and laws (4)

Met

4

0

0

21

4

0

Issue Area (Number of Subtasks Examined)

All Areas (25)Results in Brief -------------------------In accordance with s. 212.055(11), F.S., andGovernment Auditing Standards, McConnell& Jones LLP conducted a performance auditof the Orange County programs within theadministrative unit(s) that will receive funds
through the referendum approved by
Resolution adopted by the Orange County
Board of Commissioners on April 26, 2022.
The performance audit included an
examination of the issues identified below.
 The
economy,efficiency,oreffectiveness of the program.
 The structure or design of the program toaccomplish its goals and objectives.
 Alternative methods of providing
program services or products.
 Goals, objectives, and performancemeasures used by the program tomonitorandreportprogramaccomplishments.
 The accuracy or adequacy of public
documents, reports, and requests
prepared by the County or which relate
to the program.

Compliance of the program withappropriate policies, rules, and laws.

Findings for each of the six issue areas werebased on the extent to which the programs
met expectations established by audit
subtasks. Overall, the audit found that
Orange County met expectations in all 6
areas. Of the 25 total subtasks, the audit
determined that the County met 21 andpartially met 4.
A summary of audit findings by issue area ispresented below. A more detailed overview
of the findings can be found in the Executive
Summary.

Findings by Issue Area ----------------Economy, Efficiency, or Effectiveness of
the Program
The MJ Team reviewed the Public Works
Department,
andthePlanning,
Environmental & Development Services
Department’s Transportation Planning
Division as one (1) program, that will benefit
from the Transportation System Sales Surtax(“surtax”) and determined that all programiOverview of Performance Audit Findings

Orange County
minimizes overlapping functions, and has noexcessive administrative layers. Since the
COVID pandemic began, vacancy andturnover rates have been considerably
higher nationally. Of the program areas
reviewed, the Highway Construction Divisionof Public Works has the highest vacancy rate
at 33 percent. Overall, the key Public Works
divisions have a vacancy rate of 16 percent.
County administrators are well aware of thechallenges faced in filling vacancies. The
County regularly reviews staffing levels witha view to right-size the County’s staff. A
consultant study is underway to determine
how best to staff the growing personnel
needs assuming the sales tax referendum
passes. This study will evaluate whether new
staff should be County or contractor
employees, and how best to divide theresponsibilities among each group.

managers use various reports and data on aregular basis and that the information isadequate to monitor program performanceand costs. The program reviewed isperiodically evaluated using performance
information and other reasonable criteria toassess performance and cost. These periodic
evaluations
includebothinternal
evaluations
relatedtoestablishedperformancetargets
andexternal
evaluations from funding sources such as the
Florida Department of Transportation. We
reviewed findings and recommendations inrelevant internal and external reports on
program performance and cost noting that
program administrators took reasonable andtimely actions to address deficiencies inprogram performance and costs identified insuch reports. All program administrators
evaluate performance and cost based onreasonable measures, including bestpractices except the Roads & Drainage (R&D)
Division. The review team identified an
improvement opportunity for R&D toacquire Pavement Management System(PMS) software and automate manual
pavement management practices tofacilitate using best practices. Based on
testing a sample of six completed projects
selected from Orange County’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), covering 41%of the total cost of completed projects in the
CIP, County construction projects were of
reasonable cost and completed well, on
time, and within budget. Finally, the County
has written policies and procedures to takemaximum advantage of competitive
procurement, volume discounts, and special
pricing agreements for its procurements.

Alternative methods of providing services
or Products
County program administrators haveformally evaluated existing in-house services
and activities to assess the feasibility ofalternative methods of providing services.
An example described by PW for evaluating
in-house services and looking at alternative
methods of delivery included privatizing
most of its mowing services and all roadresurfacing services. PW evaluated its cost
per acre to provide mowing services with inhouse crews, determining that the County
saved $79.23 per acre in mowing costs byprivatizing 99% of its right-of-way mowing
services.
Additionally,
programadministrators have made changes toservice delivery methods when theirevaluations/assessments found that suchchanges would reduce program cost without
significantly affecting the quality of services.
PW Traffic Engineering outsourced sign
fabrication and installation services in new

The structure or design of the program toaccomplish its goals and objectives
The County maintains an organizational
structure that has clearly defined units,iiOverview of Performance Audit Findings

Orange County
useful, timely, and accurate data to the
public. Internal and external data is used toevaluate the accuracy and adequacy of
public documents. The County makes
program budget, cost, and program
performance data available on its website
and provided evidence that processes are inplace to ensure accuracy and completenessof financial data. The County has processes
in place to correct erroneous and incomplete
information in a timely manner.

residential developments to land developers
because of large backlog of sign installations
and improved the quality of its services. The
County should actively pursue identifying
alternative service delivery methods toreduce costs and speed the delivery oftransportation projects by reviewing DesignBuild,
Construction
Manager/General
Contractor (CM/GC), Project Bundling, andPublic Private Partnerships (PPP) to support
projects included in its Transportation
Initiative.

More detailed and current information
shouldbeprovidedforcurrenttransportation projects, including more
frequent updates to the Transportation
Projects webpages and the inclusion of cost
vs. budget performance information. For theTransportation Initiative, the County has
established an oversight process with thecreation of the Transportation & Transit
Initiative Citizens Oversight Board.

Goals, objectives, and performancemeasures used by the program to monitor
and report program accomplishments
The Public Works Department’s (PW)
Division’s goals align with the PW
Department’s goals in five (5) StrategicService Areas included in PW’s Strategic Planaligned with the County’s Strategic Plan.
PW’s goals are clearly stated, measurable,
and can be completed within budget. PW’s
performance measures used to evaluate theperformance of programs within PW
divisions are unique to each PW division,monitored quarterly and annually, and are
sufficient to assess progress toward meeting
established targets (goals). The County’s
Administrative Regulations and Article III,
Section 17-310 of Orange County’s
Procurement Ordinance contain policies andprocedures that establish internal controls
over the County’s budgeting andprocurement
processes,
providingreasonable assurance that program goals
and objectives will be met.

The mechanisms for accomplishing thisinformation flow are still being developed,
but the requirement for transparency isinherent in its duties.
Compliance of the program withappropriate policies, rules, and laws
The County has a full-time legal staff
responsible for providing legal services
relatedtotransactions,litigation,interpretation of federal, state, and local
laws, and preparing ordinances for approvalby the Board of County Commissioners. In
this capacity, the attorneys review allcontracts requiring board approval forcompliance with legal requirements andboard policy. The County Attorney also stays
abreast of federal, state, and local legislationthat could impact County departments.
Program internal controls such as external
audits in the form of the annual Single Audit
and internal audits conducted by the Office

The accuracy or adequacy of public
documents,
reports,andrequests
prepared by the County which relate to theprogram
The County has developed financial and nonfinancial information systems that provideiii

Overview of Performance Audit Findingsof the Comptroller’s County Audit Division
are reasonable to ensure compliance withapplicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, and regulations; contracts; grant
agreements; and local policies andprocedures. County administrators havetaken reasonable and timely actions toaddress any noncompliance issues and local
policies and procedures that have been
identified by internal or external
evaluations, audits, or other means as
indicated by no “repeat findings” in theCounty’s Single Audit or Management
Letters issued by external auditors. Finally,
Countyadministrators
have
taken
reasonable and timely actions to determine
whether its planned uses of the surtax
comply with applicable laws by having theCounty Attorney draft Ordinance No. 202214, which the BCC adopted April 26, 2022.
The Ordinance established a Citizens
Oversight Board, through Orange County’s
Transportation Initiative, intended tocontinuously monitor planned uses of surtax
proceeds to ensure the County’s ongoingcompliance with Florida Statutes.

iv

Orange CountyAugust 31, 2022

Mr. Byron W. Brooks, County Administrator
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
201 S Rosalind Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32801
Dear Mr. Brooks:
McConnell & Jones LLP (the “MJ Team”) is pleased to submit our final report of theperformance audit of Orange County pursuant to 212.055(11), Florida Statutes. In accordancewith the requirements of Ch. 2018-118, Laws of Florida, the Office of Program Policy Analysis
and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) selected the MJ Team to conduct a performance
audit of the program areas related to transportation and transit improvement uses within theCounty and regional transportation system associated with the discretionary sales surtax.
The IBI Group Professional Services (USA), Inc. and Mr. Anthony Johnson augmented theOrange County review team.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we planand perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit
objectives.
The objective of the audit was to fulfill the requirements of 212.055(11) Florida Statutes. This
statute requires that Florida local governments, with a referendum on the discretionary sales
surtax held after March 23, 2018, undergo a performance audit conducted of the programassociated with the proposed sales surtax adoption. The audit must be conducted at least 60
days before the referendum is held. OPPAGA is charged with procuring and overseeing theaudit. The primary county departments that expend Local Option Sales Tax funds, which are
the subject of this performance audit, are the Orange County’s Public Works Department incollaboration with Transportation Planning and supporting divisions.
4828 Loop Central Dr.
Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77081
Phone: 713.968.1600
Fax: 713.968.1601

The objectives of the audit are consistent with the requirements of the statute, which are toevaluate the program associated with the proposed sales surtax adoption based on thefollowing criteria:
1. The economy, efficiency, or effectiveness of the program

WWW.MCCONNELLJONES.COM

Diverse Thinking | Unique Perspectives

2. The structure or design of the program to accomplish its goals and objectives
3. Alternative methods of providing services or products
4. Goals, objectives, and performance measures used by the program to monitor andreport program accomplishments
5. The accuracy or adequacy of public documents, reports, and requests prepared by
the County, which relate to the program
6. Compliance of the program with appropriate policies, rules, and laws
We developed a work plan outlining the procedures to be performed to achieve the above
audit objectives. Those procedures and the results of our work are summarized in the
Executive Summary and discussed in detail in the body of the report.
Based upon the procedures performed and the results obtained, the audit objectives havebeen met. We conclude that, except for the findings discussed in the report and based upon
the work performed, the departments that expend funds have sufficient policies andprocedures in place, supported by appropriate documentation, reports, monitoring tools, andpersonnel to address the statutory criteria defined in s. 212.055(11), Florida Statutes.

McConnell & Jones LLP
Houston, TexasviFinal Report
ORANGE COUNTYTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 5
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 12
RESEARCH TASK 1 .................................................................................................................................... 13
RESEARCH TASK 2 .................................................................................................................................... 57
RESEARCH TASK 3 .................................................................................................................................... 73
RESEARCH TASK 4 .................................................................................................................................... 89
RESEARCH TASK 5 ..................................................................................................................................103
RESEARCH TASK 6 ..................................................................................................................................122
MANAGEMENT COMMENTS ................................................................................................................138

PAGE | vii

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ORANGE COUNTY OVERVIEW
Orange County (the County) is in Central Florida at the approximate geographic
center of the state and is comprised of 13 municipalities in the incorporated
area and 17 distinct neighborhoods in the unincorporated area. The County has
a total area of 1,003 square miles, of which 903 square miles are land and 100
square miles are water. Orange County is the central county of the OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, and has a population of 1,415,260
based on 2020 estimates from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and BusinessResearch, making the county the fifth most populous county in Florida. The County seat is in
Orlando, Florida, which is a leading center for tourism and a premier business center which
includes the presence of major businesses such as Orlando Health, AdventHealth, Publix, andLockheed Martin.
ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Orange County has a County Mayor, elected countywide, and a Board of County Commissioners(BCC), consisting of seven members, including the County Mayor. The BCC has the power tooriginate, terminate, and regulate legislative and policy matters including, but not limited toadoption or enactment of ordinances and resolutions it deems necessary and proper to govern
the County. The BCC also adopts and amends as necessary the county administrative code togovern the operation of the county and adopts ordinances as necessary for the health, safety,
and welfare of County residents. The County Mayor is the chairman of the BCC and manages
the operation of all elements of county government under the jurisdiction of the BCC,
consistent with the policies, ordinances, and resolutions enacted by the BCC.
FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND 2022 BUDGET SUMMARY
Orange County’s Fiscal Year runs from October 1st through September 30th. The County’s Fiscal
Year 2022 budget totaled approximately $5.361 billion. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget iscomprised of 17 organizational units. The organization units highlighted in Figure ES-1 are theprogram areas that are the subject of this review (i.e., Public Works) or contain program areasthat are the subject of this review (i.e., Planning, Environmental & Development Services).
Public Works is the primary program area that will use the surtax funds, in coordination with
the Transportation Planning Department, which resides in the Planning, Environmental &Development Services unit. Public Works and Planning, Environmental & Development Services
comprise 8% and 5.8% of the County’s Fiscal Year 2022 budget, respectively, with theTransportation Planning Department comprising only 0.09% of the Fiscal Year 2022 budget.

PAGE | 1

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Description

FY 2022

FY 2021

Percent Increase(Decrease)

Percent of
FY 2022 Budget

Constitutional Officers$

400,281,567$

415,505,814(3.7)%

7.5%

Administration and Fiscal
Services$

403,037,805$

402,137,495

0.2%

7.5%

Administrative Services$

141,573,333$

168,677,249(16.1)%

2.6%

Community & Family Services$

244,299,322$

328,372,059(25.6)%

4.6%

Convention Center$

430,643,538$

455,178,769(5.4)%

8.0%

Corrections$

176,051,960$

179,716,998(2.0)%

3.3%

Fire Rescue$

289,436,201$

324,844,649(10.9)%

5.4%

Health Services$

117,331,288$

132,622,619(11.5)%

2.2%

Planning, Environmental &Development Services$

312,757,589$

249,348,337

25.4%

5.8%

Public Works$

427,837,862$

495,124,463(13.6)%

8.0%

Utilities$

678,561,104$

723,263,517(6.2)%

12.7%

Capital Projects$

210,546,583$

180,636,449

16.6%

3.9%

Municipal Service Taxing Units(MSTUs)*$37,504,045$

38,136,598(1.7)%

0.7%

Other Appropriations$

238,576,001$

349,355,723(31.7)%

4.4%

Other Court Funds$

17,461,756$

18,805,387(7.1)%

0.3%

Other Offices$

23,537,676$

22,307,809

5.5%

0.4%

Special Revenue **$ 1,212,013,390$ 1,049,612,016

15.5%

22.6%

$ 5,361,451,020$ 5,533,645,951(3.1)%

100.0%Total

FIGURE ES-1: Orange County budget comparison for the last two years.
Source: Orange County FY 2021-22 Budget Book.
* - A MSTU is a taxing district created by property owners in a defined geographical area who vote to levy a tax tosupport improvements to the area.
** - Special Revenue accounts for resources received from special sources, dedicated, or restricted uses. Over 90%
of Special Revenue Includes Public Service Tax, Sales Tax, School Impact Fees, and Special Tax MTSU.

DISCRETIONARY SALES SURTAX
According to the State of Florida Department of Revenue website, a one cent infrastructure tax
program funded by a discretionary sales surtax (DSS) is imposed by most Florida counties andapplies to most transactions subject to sales tax. The State of Florida Department of Revenue
collects and distributes the sales surtax to counties and municipalities based on the state’s sales
tax formula. Each county is responsible for administering the funds it receives. On April 26,
2022, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-3 to approve Orange County
Ordinance No. 2022-14, dated April 26, 2022, providing for the levy of a 1% Charter County andRegional Transportation System Sales Surtax, subject to voter approval of a referendum
scheduled for November 8, 2022.

PAGE | 2

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYGOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS OF SURTAX PASSAGE
Under Florida state law, Orange County’s Board of County Commissioners is responsible foradministration of the surtax funds, if the referendum passes. If the referendum passes, Orange
County Ordinance No. 2022-14 provides for the following:Promoting and protecting the health and safety of the traveling public in the County byproviding safe and adequate road, transportation, and transit facilities.



Providing adequate public transit, roadway improvements, and public safety measures
including lighting, pedestrian and cyclist safety measures, and road resurfacing in theCounty.



Adoption of the Orange County Transportation Initiative Report, which includes updated
transportation infrastructure project priorities developed following an extensive
community engagement process, with the following required contents at all times:

a list of projects separated into distinct funding categories;

a transportation Surtax proceeds allocation methodology for the funding of projects
in each distinct funding category;a requisite technical committee that shall (1) review the status of projects submitted
by each jurisdiction; (2) review the approved projects and ensure they are compatible
and coordinated amongst various jurisdictions; and (3) identify opportunities forcollaboration on joint projects;

a requisite citizens oversight board that shall: (1) ensure accountability andtransparency in the expenditure of sales tax proceeds; (2) ensure that the County,
municipalities, LYNX, and other funding recipients are spending funds appropriately,
timely, and in full compliance with all applicable laws; (3) request and review auditsof the transportation program by the Orange County Comptroller; and (4) oversee thepreparation of a non-technical report or consolidated schedule of projects which shallbe updated and posted prominently on the County’s website at least annually; and

a Transportation Surtax management process that ensures that project prioritization
and any proposed revisions to the project lists are completed in a manner that: (1)uses a data-driven and needs-based approach through the use of objective criteria in
the prioritization of transportation improvement projects throughout the County; (2)is flexible enough to address shifting and emerging needs over the 20-year period forwhich the Transportation Surtax will be levied; and (3) is adaptive to newtransportation and transit technologies and innovations as they are developed.

PAGE | 3

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

AUDIT OBJECTIVE
In accordance with s. 212.055(11), Florida Statutes, and Government Auditing Standards, acertified public accountant must conduct a performance audit of Orange County program areas
within the administrative unit(s) that will receive funds through the referendum.
Audit fieldwork must include interviews with program administrators, review of relevant
documentation, and other applicable methods to complete the assessment of the six (6)research tasks.
PROJECT SCOPE
The subject auditee for the performance audit was Orange County. The performance audit was
conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
Those standards require that the audit be conducted in a manner to obtain sufficient,appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for ourobservations and conclusions.
SCOPE OF WORK (PURPOSE)
In accordance with s. 212.055(11), Florida Statutes, and Government Auditing Standards (2011
Revision) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the certified public
accountant must conduct a performance audit of Orange County program areas within theadministrative unit(s) which will receive funds through the referenda approved in the County’s
final resolution. The performance audit must evaluate the county administrative units
responsible for transportation and transit improvement uses within the County and regionaltransportation system, including: County Transportation Improvements - Safety improvements to include pedestrian andbicycle safety, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, lighting, intersections,and technology and operations; major roadway improvements (including county roads
that run through cities), complete streets, widening projects; intersection capacity
improvements; new traffic signals, and mast arm upgrades; operations and maintenanceto include roadway resurfacing and grading, bridge repair and maintenance, railroad
crossing repair, roadway pond/drainage improvements and maintenance; and associatedtransit accommodations and passenger amenities.
 Transit Improvements - Increasing coverage, availability, and frequency of bus routes;
expanding service hours; improving paratransit services; increasing frequency andconnectivity to airport; optimizing high-capacity corridors; providing faster more direct
service to work; reducing headway times; enhancing and expanding commuter rail system
including frequency, routes, and stations.


Municipal Partnership Plans & Projects - Roadway, safety, and operations andmaintenance projects based on the individual needs of each municipality, as reflected in
the transportation plans and project lists from each participating municipality.
PAGE | 4

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYMETHODOLOGY
McConnell & Jones LLP (the “MJ Team”) held an introductory kick-off-meeting on July 5, 2022,
to discuss the project scope via teleconference. All interviews and focus groups were conductedusing Teams software. Audit team members met virtually with a total of 21 Orange County
executive and management-level staff during the fieldwork period regarding each of the six
audit research tasks. Most of the interviews were conducted via focus groups and had varying
management team members in attendance depending on their involvement with a particularresearch task.
During the focus group meetings, management team members’ roles were discussed along withprocesses and procedures the County follows to address the six research tasks and underlying
subtasks. The MJ Team initiated multiple individual interview follow-up contacts with nearly all
County management team members to clarify information outlined in processes, procedures,and management reports the County provided to address the research tasks. Our interviews
included employees of Public Works; Planning, Environmental & Development Services;
Administration & Fiscal Services; Office of the Comptroller; Office of Management and Budget;
Chief of Staff and the County Administrator. Additionally, performance audit team members
reviewed relevant operational and financial data to document and report findings andconclusions.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Orange County’s Public Works and Planning, Environmental & Development Services
departments are the administrative units responsible for the following: County Transportation
improvements (category 1); Transit improvements (category 2); and Municipal Partnership
Plans & Projects (category 3). The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, DBA LYNX
benefits from transit improvements through its relationship with counties in the Central Florida
Region. LYNX provides public transit services to customers in Orange, Seminole, and Osceolacounties. LYNX also provides fixed-route bus services, bus rapid transit, neighborhood
circulators, paratransit services, and vanpool services. Most of these services are in Orange
County and LYNX works closely with the Transportation Planning Division within the Planning,
Environmental & Development Services Department and Public Works. Since LYNX’s inception,
Orange County has served as a member of LYNX’s Governing Board either through interlocal
agreement or state statute.
Should voters pass the November 8, 2022, referendum, surtax funds will flow through The
Public Works and Planning, Environmental & Developmental Services departments for the
purposes outlined in the ordinance. Figure ES-2 through Figure ES-7 present a summary of theoverall results of the performance audit required by statute. As required in the contract
between OPPAGA and the MJ Team, this report includes an analysis of six (6) research tasks,
containing 25 subtasks. The MJ Team’s assessment of two administrative units against thesubtasks revealed that 21 of the 25 subtasks were met, 4 were partially met, and 0 were notmet.
PAGE | 5

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 1 – The Economy, Efficiency, or Effectiveness of theProgram.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 1.
The MJ Team reviewed the Public Works Department, and the Planning, Environmental &Development Services Department’s Transportation Planning Division as one (1) program, thatwill benefit from the Transportation System Sales Surtax (“surtax”) and determined that all
program managers use various reports and data on a regular basis and that the information isadequate to monitor program performance and costs. The program reviewed is periodicallyevaluated using performance information and other reasonable criteria to assess performanceand cost. These periodic evaluations include both internal evaluations related to establishedperformance targets and external evaluations from funding sources such as the Florida
Department of Transportation. We reviewed findings and recommendations in relevant internaland external reports on program performance and cost noting that program administrators
took reasonable and timely actions to address deficiencies in program performance and costs
identified in such reports. All program administrators evaluate performance and cost based onreasonable measures, including best practices except the Roads & Drainage (R&D) Division of
Public Works. The review team identified an improvement opportunity for R&D to acquire
Pavement Management System (PMS) software and automate manual pavement management
practices to facilitate using best practices. Based on testing a sample of six completed projects
selected from Orange County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP), covering 41% of the total
cost of completed projects in the CIP, County construction projects were of reasonable cost andcompleted well, on time, and within budget. Finally, the County has written policies andprocedures to take maximum advantage of competitive procurement, volume discounts, andspecial pricing agreements for its procurements.
FIGURE ES-2
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 1
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

1. The Economy, Efficiency, or Effectiveness of the Program
1.1

Met

None

1.2

Met

None

1.3

Met

None

1.4

Met

None

1.5

Partially Met

RECOMMENDATION 1.5 –Acquire Pavement Management System software andautomate the manual pavement management practices tofacilitate using best practices to improve the efficiency of
the County’s Road Resurfacing Program.

1.6

Met

None

1.7

Met

None

PAGE | 6

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 2 – The Structure or Design of the Program to
Accomplish its Goals and Objectives.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 2.
The County maintains an organizational structure that has clearly defined units, minimizes
overlapping functions, and has no excessive administrative layers. Since the COVID pandemic
began, vacancy and turnover rates have been considerably higher nationally. Of the program
areas reviewed, the Highway Construction Division of Public Works has the highest vacancy rate
at 33 percent. Overall, the key Public Works divisions have a vacancy rate of 16 percent. County
administrators are well aware of the challenges faced in filling vacancies. The County regularly
reviews staffing levels with a view to right-size the County’s staff. A consultant study isunderway to determine how best to staff the growing personnel needs assuming the sales tax
referendum passes. This study will evaluate whether new staff should be County or contractor
employees, and how best to divide the responsibilities among each group.
FIGURE ES-3
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 2
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

2. The Structure or Design of the Program to Accomplish its Goals and Objectives
2.1

Met

None

2.2

Met

None

PAGE | 7

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 3 – Alternative Methods of Providing Services or
Products.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 3.
County program administrators have formally evaluated existing in-house services and activities
to assess the feasibility of alternative methods of providing services. An example described by
PW for evaluating in-house services and looking at alternative methods of delivery included
privatizing most of its mowing services and all road resurfacing services. PW evaluated its cost
per acre to provide mowing services with in-house crews, determining that the County saved$79.23 per acre in mowing costs by privatizing 99% of its right-of-way mowing services.
Additionally, program administrators have made changes to service delivery methods when
their evaluations/assessments found that such changes would reduce program cost without
significantly affecting the quality of services. PW Traffic Engineering outsourced sign fabricationand installation services in new residential developments to land developers because of large
backlog of sign installations and improved the quality of its services. The County should actively
pursue identifying alternative service delivery methods to reduce costs and speed the deliveryof transportation projects by reviewing Design-Build, Construction Manager/General Contractor(CM/GC), Project Bundling, and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to support projects included in
its Transportation Initiative.
FIGURE ES-4
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 3
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

3. Alternative Methods of Providing Services or Products
3.1

Met

None

3.2

Met

None

3.3

Met

None

3.4

Partially Met

RECOMMENDATION 3.4 –Actively pursue identifying alternative service
delivery methods to reduce costs and speed thedelivery of transportation projects by reviewing
Design-Build, Construction Manager/General
Contractor (CM/GC), Project Bundling, and Public
Private partnerships (PPP) to support projects
included in the County’s Transportation Initiative.

PAGE | 8

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 4 – Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures
Used by the Program to Monitor and Report Program Accomplishments.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 4.
The Public Works Department’s (PW) Division’s goals align with the PW Department’s goals infive (5) Strategic Service Areas included in PW’s Strategic Plan aligned with the County’s
Strategic Plan. PW’s goals are clearly stated, measurable, and can be completed within budget.
PW’s performance measures used to evaluate the performance of programs within PW
divisions are unique to each PW division, monitored quarterly and annually, and are sufficient
to assess progress toward meeting established targets (goals).The County’s Administrative
Regulations and Article III, Section 17-310 of Orange County’s Procurement Ordinance contain
policies and procedures that establish internal controls over the County’s budgeting andprocurement processes, providing reasonable assurance that program goals and objectives will
be met.
FIGURE ES-5
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 4
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

4. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Used by the Program to Monitor and Report Program
Accomplishments
4.1

Met

None

4.2

Met

None

4.3

Met

None

PAGE | 9

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 5 – The Accuracy or Adequacy of Public Documents,
Reports, and Requests Prepared by the County, which Relate to theProgram.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 5.
The County has developed financial and non-financial information systems that provide useful,timely, and accurate data to the public. Internal and external data is used to evaluate theaccuracy and adequacy of public documents. The County makes program budget, cost, andprogram performance data available on its website and provided evidence that processes are inplace to ensure accuracy and completeness of financial data. The County has processes in place
to correct erroneous and incomplete information in a timely manner.
More detailed and current information should be provided for current transportation projects,
including more frequent updates to the Transportation Projects webpages and the inclusion of
cost vs. budget performance information. For the Transportation Initiative, the County has
established an oversight process with the creation of the Transportation & Transit Initiative
Citizens Oversight Board.
The mechanisms for accomplishing this information flow are still being developed, but therequirement for transparency is inherent in its duties.
FIGURE ES-6
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 5
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

5. The Accuracy or Adequacy of Public Documents, Reports, and Requests Prepared by the County which, Relate
to the Program
5.1

Met

None

5.2

Partially Met

RECOMMENDATION 5.2 –The Orange County Office of Communications is ultimately
responsible for public facing information. It should regularly
review the Transportation Projects webpages and verify that the
information is correct and up to date rather than relying on the
Project Coordinators to initiate any changes. An indication
should be provided on each webpage stating “This page was last
updated on [date]” to facilitate tracking.

5.3

Partially Met

RECOMMENDATION 5.3 –The Transportation Projects webpages should include
information on the project budget. Additionally, theTransportation Projects webpages should include the same
status information on phase and overall project completion thatis shown on the Project Trak mapping system, and Project Trak
should include budget information as one of the status items.

5.4

Met

None

5.5

Met

None

PAGE | 10

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 6 – Compliance of the Program with Appropriate
Policies, Rules, and Laws.
Finding Summary: Overall, Orange County meets Research Task 6.
The County has a full-time legal staff responsible for providing legal services related totransactions, litigation, interpretation of federal, state, and local laws, and preparing ordinances
for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In this capacity, the attorneys review allcontracts requiring board approval for compliance with legal requirements and board policy.
The County Attorney also stays abreast of federal, state, and local legislation that could impact
County departments. Program internal controls such as external audits in the form of theannual Single Audit and internal audits conducted by the Office of the Comptroller’s County
Audit Division are reasonable to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
laws, rules, and regulations; contracts; grant agreements; and local policies and procedures.
County administrators have taken reasonable and timely actions to address any noncomplianceissues and local policies and procedures that have been identified by internal or external
evaluations, audits, or other means as indicated by no “repeat findings” in the County’s Single
Audit or Management Letters issued by external auditors. Finally, County administrators havetaken reasonable and timely actions to determine whether its planned uses of the surtax
comply with applicable laws by having the County Attorney draft Ordinance No. 2022-14, which
the BCC adopted April 26, 2022. The Ordinance established a Citizens Oversight Board, throughOrange County’s Transportation Initiative, intended to continuously monitor planned uses ofsurtax proceeds to ensure the County’s ongoing compliance with Florida Statutes.
FIGURE ES-7
SUMMARY OF ORANGE COUNTY RESEARCH RESULTS – RESEARCH TASK 6
Research Subtask

Overall Conclusion

Recommendation

6. Compliance of the Program with Appropriate Policies, Rules, and Laws
6.1

Met

None

6.2

Met

None

6.3

Met

None

6.4

Met

None

PAGE | 11

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND MANAGEMENTOn April 26, 2022, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved Orange County
Ordinance No. 2022-14, under §212.055(1), Florida Statutes, providing for the levy of a 1%
Charter County and Regional Transportation System Sales Surtax (“Transportation Surtax”) toplace a referendum on the ballot in the November 8, 2022 election to impose a 1%
Transportation Surtax upon the residents of Orange County for the purpose of making County
transportation improvements, transit improvements, and joint transportation improvement
projects with municipalities in the Central Florida Region. Should voters approve thereferendum, Orange County departments and divisions presented in Figure ES-8 will receive,
manage, oversee, and monitor the performance of transportation improvement projects using
the funds for the programs indicated.
FIGURE ES-8
SURTAX FUND PROGRAMS BY COUNTY UNIT
Department/Division

Programmatic Use

Infrastructure, Community &Development Services/Public
Works

County transportation infrastructure improvements, including: Safety improvements such as pedestrian and bicycle safety,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, lighting,intersections, technology, and operations.
 Major roadway improvements (including County roads that run
through cities), complete streets, and widening projects.
 Intersection capacity improvements.
 New traffic signals and mast arm upgrades.
 Operations and maintenance to include roadway resurfacing andgrading, bridge repair and maintenance, railroad crossing repair,and roadway pond/drainage improvements and maintenance.
 Associated transit accommodations and passenger amenities.
 Roadway, safety, and operations and maintenance projects basedon the individual needs of each municipality, as reflected in thetransportation plans and project lists from each participating
municipality.

Infrastructure, Community &Development Services/Planning,
Environmental & Development
Services

Transit improvements, including: Increasing coverage, availability, and frequency of bus routes.
 Expanding service hours.
 Improving paratransit services.
 Increasing frequency and connectivity to the airport.
 Optimizing high-capacity corridors.
 Providing faster, more direct service to work.
 Reducing headway times.
 Enhancing and expanding commuter rail system including
frequency, routes, and stations.

PAGE | 12

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 1
FINDING SUMMARY
THE ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY, OR EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAM.

Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 1.
The MJ Team reviewed the Public Works Department, and the Planning, Environmental &Development Services Department’s Transportation Planning Division as one (1) program,that will benefit from the Transportation System Sales Surtax (“surtax”) and determined thatall program managers use various reports and data on a regular basis and that the
information is adequate to monitor program performance and costs. The program reviewed
is periodically evaluated using performance information and other reasonable criteria toassess performance and cost. These periodic evaluations include both internal evaluations
related to established performance targets and external evaluations from funding sources
such as the Florida Department of Transportation. We reviewed findings andrecommendations in relevant internal and external reports on program performance andcost noting that program administrators took reasonable and timely actions to address
deficiencies in program performance and costs identified in such reports. All programadministrators evaluate performance and cost based on reasonable measures, including bestpractices except the Roads & Drainage (R&D) Division. The review team identified an
improvement opportunity for R&D to acquire Pavement Management System (PMS)
software and automate manual pavement management practices to facilitate using bestpractices. Based on testing a sample of six completed projects selected from Orange County’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), covering 41% of the total cost of completed projects in
the CIP, County construction projects were of reasonable cost and completed well, on time,
and within budget. Finally, the County has written policies and procedures to take maximum
advantage of competitive procurement, volume discounts, and special pricing agreements
for its procurements.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 1.1 – Review any management reports/data that program administrators use on aregular basis and determine whether this information is adequate to monitor program
performance and cost.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 1.1 is met overall. To reach this conclusion the MJ Team assessed the reports anddocuments produced by the Public Works Department, which will administer and/or benefit
from the Transportation System Sales Surtax in collaboration with the Transportation Planning
Division.

PAGE | 13

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYANALYSIS
The County’s Public Works (PW) and Planning, Environmental, & Development Services (PEDS)
Departments reside within Infrastructure, Community & Development Services, which reports
directly to the County administrator. However, the Transportation Planning Division is the only
division within PEDS that will administer and/or benefit from the Transportation surtax.
Divisions within PW will primarily administer the funds with cooperation from Transportation
Planning through ongoing collaboration.
To address the requirements of this subtask as it relates to PW and the Transportation Planning
Division within PEDS, the MJ Team conducted individual interviews with the following positions:County Administrator

Deputy County Administrator, Administration & Fiscal Services (Lead for Transportation
Initiative)

Deputy County Administrator, Infrastructure, Community & Development Services



Economic Development Administrator



Project Director & Policy Analyst, Orange County Comptroller

The MJ Team also conducted joint interviews (focus groups) with individuals in the following
positions:

Director, Public WorksManager, Public Works EngineeringManager, Traffic EngineeringManager, StormwaterManager, Roads & Drainage



Economic Development Administrator

Manager, Transportation Planning

Director of Administrative Services

Management & Budget Administrator

The MJ Team reviewed the structure of the County’s Transportation Initiative Workgroups
formed to ensure the successful implementation of a comprehensive transportation programand its role in the successful implementation of the County’s Capital Improvement Program(CIP). We also reviewed the County’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets and related
management reports PW department managers and directors use to monitor the County’s PW
program. These documents included the PW CIP Monthly Financial Reports, CIP Project
Prioritization Report, and departmental Operations and Maintenance Progress Reports. We

PAGE | 14

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

reviewed the agenda and related notes of CIP Quarterly meetings with the county
administrator, and agendas and related notes for the County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly
Management Staff Meeting and the County Auditor’s Quarterly Audit Update Meeting.
Transportation Initiative Workgroups
At the onset of the Transportation Initiative, which served as the foundation for Orange County
to pursue the surtax, the County developed a top-level organization structure to ensure theplanning, development, and successful implementation of a comprehensive transportation
program with enhanced accountability to build on their past success implementing capital
improvement programs, projects, and initiatives. This organization structure, identified as“Transportation Initiative Workgroups” (TIW), includes 10 primary work groups that work
collaboratively to achieve key objectives related to planning, implementation, oversight ofprograms/projects included in the Transportation Initiative and produce specific deliverables,
where applicable. Each workgroup has a group leader and includes multi-departmental andmulti-disciplinary representatives with specific experience and insight within the respective
workgroup focus area. Figure 1-1A presents the structure and composition of the County’s
TIWs.

PAGE | 15

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-1A: Orange County’s Transportation Initiative Work Group is structured to ensure the successful
implementation of transportation programs funded by the Transportation System Surtax.
Source: Orange County Transportation Initiative website.

PAGE | 16

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Representatives from PW and Transportation Planning, within PEDS, co-chair the Program
Development and Delivery workgroup shown in Figure 1-1A. The Program Development andDelivery Workgroup created the County’s Transportation Initiative Plan, a 1,156-page
document that outlines specific programs/projects to improve the County’s transportation
infrastructure, consists of PW and Transportation Planning staff responsible for all phases andactivities necessary for project development, from planning through construction andmaintenance. This workgroup is focused on developing and executing the strategies necessary
to implement the Transportation Initiative programs and projects, including evaluating existingprocesses to streamline, accelerate, and scale the projects to the level of investment proposedwith the Transportation Initiative. More specifically, Figure 1-1A shows this workgroup consistsof the director of PW, a representative from LYNX (the public transit system), and managers ofeach department responsible for CIP projects and initiatives benefitting from the surtax, as wellas the manager of Transportation Planning.
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), through Orange County OrdinanceNo. 2022-14, dated April 26, 2022, established a requisite technical committee that will use theTransportation Initiative Report to always align transportation infrastructure project priorities
included in the report by: (1) reviewing the status of projects submitted by each jurisdiction; (2)reviewing the approved projects and ensuring they are compatible and coordinated between
various jurisdictions; and (3) identifying opportunities for collaboration on joint projects. The
Program Development and Delivery Work Group periodically meets with the County
Administrator to report updates of its oversight activities. Figure 1-1B presents the agenda forthe most recent Transportation Initiative Interdepartmental Group Meeting with the County
Administrator on May 16, 2022.

PAGE | 17

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-1B: Orange County’s County Administrator holds periodic meetings to monitor oversight activities
performed by the Program Development and Delivery Workgroup.
Source: County Administrator’s Meeting Agenda Binder.

PAGE | 18

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget – FY 2021-2022
The County’s FY 2021-2022 Adopted Budget includes its Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Budget for FY 2021-22 through FY 2025-26 by Department / Division. The CIP Budget lists eachproject funded by department and division, recording the name of the project, priorexpenditures related to the project (calculated over the previous 3 or 5 fiscal years), theapproved budget for FY 20-21, the adopted budget for FY 21-22 and proposed budgets for FY
22-23 through FY 25-26, and total project cost. The Adopted CIP Budget for FY 21-22 totals$635.6 million and the cost budgeted for all projects included in the CIP Budget for FY 21-22
through FY25-26 is $5.6 billion. Figure 1-1C presents an excerpt from the PW section of the
Adopted CIP and Figure 1-1D presents an excerpt from the Transportation Planning section of
the Adopted CIP.

FIGURE 1-1C: PW uses Orange County’s CIP Budget to monitor the performance and cost of projects benefittingfrom the Transportation System Sales Surtax.
Source: Orange County Adopted CIP Budget, FY 21-22 through FY 25-26.

PAGE | 19

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-1D: Transportation Planning uses Orange County’s CIP Budget to monitor the cost and performance of
projects collaborating with PW.
Source: Orange County Adopted CIP Budget, FY 21-22 through FY 25-26.

PW and PEDS use budget information included in the CIP as a baseline to track budget to actual
progress by project each month for each department within their respective divisions.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project Prioritization Report
PW uses the CIP Project Prioritization Report to delineate projects in the Fiscal Year 2021-2022
CIP as “partially funded” or “funded” to identify and prioritize projects that are partially fundedin the CIP. The report lists the following relevant fields:

priority project name;

roadway name included in each project;

beginning and ending locations of the improvements;

length of the roadway in miles;

funding status;adopted budget for FY 21-22;



projected budget for FY22-FY26;



total 5-year cost for funded projects;
PAGE | 20

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYtotal future year costs for partially funded projects; and

total project cost.

Figure 1-1E presents a snapshot of the CIP Project Prioritization Report for March 2022.
ProjectType
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject
CIPProject

ProjectName
Intersection Improvements
Vineland Ave
I-Drive SLR Pedestrian Bridge
Richard Crotty (Goldenrod to Dean)
Richard Crotty (SR 436 to Goldenrod)
ROW & Drainage Total 1003
Sidewalk Program
ADA
Major Drainage Structures
Pine Hills Landfill
Sand Lake Road
Orange Avenue
Taft-Vineland
Holden Avenue
Kirkman Road Extension
I-Drive Ultimate Transit
Connector Parkway
Kennedy Boulevard
All American
Street Lights County Roads
John Young Parkway Interchange
Chuluota Road
McCulloch Road
Econ Trail Lake Underhill to College Lane
Texas Avenue
Valencia College Lane
Raleigh Street Improvements
CR545 Widening Village I and Gap
Flemings Road Improvements (CR 545 to Lake County Line)
CR545 Turnpike to SR 50
FDOT Landscaping, Lighting and Agreements
Woodbury Road
Innovation Way
Reams Road (Delmar to Taborfield)
I-Drive Transit Lanes
Tangelo Park Pedestrian Traffic Calming
Boggy Creek Road (Osceola County Line to SR 417)
Destination Parkway
Lake Underhill RoadTSM Traffic Calming
Pedestrian Enhancements
Alafaya/University Safety Improvements
Pine Hills Pedestrian Safety Project
Reams Road (Summerlake - Taborfield)
Ficquette Road (Summerlake - Overstreet)
East OC Transportation Needs
Intersections and Pedestrian Safety
Median Tree Program
Oak Ridge Pedestrian Study
East Bay Streets Drainage 2
Sunbridge
Avalon Rd/CR 545 (US 192-Hartzog)
Tiny Rd (Bridgewater Crossing - Tilden)
University Blvd (Goldenrod - SR 436)
Tradeshow Blvd

Category
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
2

RoadwayName
Vineland Avenue

From_
onal Shrine of Mary, Qu

Richard Crotty Parkway
Richard Crotty Parkway

Dean Road
SR 436

To_

Length_Mi
Marriott Village

Goldenrod Road
Goldenrod Road

Sand Lake Road
Turkey Lake Road Apopka-Vineland Road
Orange Avenue
Florida's Turnpike
Orange/Osceola CL
Taft-Vineland Road
Orange Avenue
Orange Blossom Trail
Holden Avenue
Orange Blossom Trail John Young Parkway
Kirkman Road
Sand Lake Road
Universal Boulevard
Sea Harbor Drive
I-Drive Ultimate Transit Sand Lake Road
Kennedy Boulevard
All American Boulevard

Wymore Road
Forest City Road

Forest City Road
Edgewater Drive

John Young Parkway
Florida's Turnpike
Commodity Circle
Chuluota Road
Lake Pickett Road
Colonial Drive
McCulloch Road
Tanner Road
Orion Boulevard
Econlockhatchee Trail Valencia College Lane Lake Underhill Road
Texas Avenue
Holden Avenue
Oak Ridge Road
Valencia College LaneW illiam C. Coleman Driv Goldenrod Road
Avalon Road
Flemings Road
Avalon Road

Schofield Road
Avalon Road
SR 50

Bedtime Story Drive
Lake/Orange CL
Florida's Turnpike

Woodbury Road
SR 50
Lake Underhill Road
Innovation Way John Wycliffe Boulevard Wewahootee Road
Reams Road
Delmar Avenue
Talborfield Avenue
International Drive
Sand Lake Road
Destination Parkway
ater Springs Boulevard New Hartzog Road
Avalon Road
Destination Parkway Tradeshow Boulevard International Drive
Lake Underhill Road
Rouse Road
Goldenrod Road

Pine Hills Road
Reams Road
Ficquette Road

Bonnie Brae Circle
SR 50
Taborfield Avenue mmerlake Park Bouleva
Overstreet Road mmerlake Park Bouleva

Oak Ridge Road

Orange Blossom Trail

Millenia BoulevardSunbridge Parkway
Aerospace Way
Orange/Osceola CL
Avalon Road
Orange/Lake CL
w Independence Parkw
ridgewater Middle SchoTiny Road
Tilden Road
University Boulevard
Goldenrod Road
SR 436
Tradeshow Blvd
Universal Boulevard Destination Parkway

FUNDING STATUS FY 21-22 ADOPTED FY22
FY22-FY26
TOTAL 5 YEARTOTAL FUTURE YEARS Total_Cost
Funded$9,318,053.00 $ 14,671,915.00 $23,989,968.00 $- $23,989,968.00
Partial$1,600,000.00 $6,150,000.00 $7,750,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $7,750,000.00
Partial$100,000.00 $2,600,000.00 $2,700,000.00 $16,700,000.00 $2,700,000.00
3.15
Partial$$$$49,660,000.00 $3.15
Partial$5,381,795.00 $ 24,250,000.00 $29,631,795.00 $5,100,000.00 $29,631,795.00
Funded$5,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $- $25,000.00
Funded$3,431,111.00 $ 12,529,611.00 $15,960,722.00 $- $15,960,722.00
Funded$2,677,108.00 $9,670,788.00 $12,347,896.00 $- $12,347,896.00
Funded
$1,590,652.00 $4,485,271.00 $6,075,923.00 $- $6,075,923.00
Funded$485,755.00 $424,000.00 $909,755.00 $- $909,755.00
1.33
Funded
$1,403,885.00 $ 11,720,526.00 $13,124,411.00 $- $13,124,411.00
0.83
Partial$
900,000.00 $900,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $18,940,000.00 $1,800,000.00
2.03
Funded$3,215,915.73 $ 29,252,274.00 $32,468,189.73 $- $32,468,189.73
1.25
Funded$4,796,357.00 $700,000.00 $5,496,357.00 $- $5,496,357.00
1.31
Partnership$
16,813,969.00 $ 60,100,025.00 $76,913,994.00 $- $76,913,994.00
5.98
Partial$2,067,495.00 $307,677.00 $2,375,172.00 $28,000,000.00 $2,375,172.00
Funded$57,724.00 $$57,724.00 $- $57,724.00
1.76
Funded$7,548,520.00 $ 33,146,374.00 $40,694,894.00 $- $40,694,894.00
0.46
Funded$1,268,359.00 $ 14,100,000.00 $15,368,359.00 $- $15,368,359.00
Funded$7,295,186.24 $$7,295,186.24 $- $7,295,186.24
2.30
Funded$105,716.00 $$105,716.00 $- $105,716.00
1.93
Partnership$
803,200.55 $ 10,106,236.00 $10,909,436.55 $- $10,909,436.55
1.06
Funded
$625,088.00 $ 12,349,900.00 $12,974,988.00 $- $12,974,988.00
1.02
Funded$9,885,741.00 $ 19,559,099.00 $29,444,840.00 $- $29,444,840.00
1.51
Funded$8,938,377.00 $ 24,712,381.00 $33,650,758.00 $- $33,650,758.00
0.45
Funded$113,830.00 $$113,830.00 $- $113,830.00
Funded$1,000,050.00 $$1,000,050.00 $- $1,000,050.00
3.63
Funded
$1,463,471.86 $1,735,750.00 $3,199,221.86 $- $3,199,221.86
0.99
Partnership$
5,000,000.00 $3,610,826.00 $8,610,826.00 $- $8,610,826.00
0.42
Partial$664,687.00 $600,000.00 $1,264,687.00 $4,100,000.00 $1,264,687.00
Funded
$1,306,449.47 $$1,306,449.47 $- $1,306,449.47
1.50
Partial$1,500,000.00 $6,100,000.00 $7,600,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $7,600,000.00
0.53
Partnership$
535,754.00 $903,238.00 $1,438,992.00 $- $1,438,992.00
Funded$$53,000.00 $53,000.00 $- $53,000.00
2.26
Funded
$1,957,771.00 $ 22,900,099.00 $24,857,870.00 $- $24,857,870.00
Funded$50,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $- $250,000.00
2.85
Funded$4,934,471.96 $7,682,395.97 $12,616,867.93 $- $12,616,867.93
0.33
Funded$100,000.00 $$100,000.00 $- $100,000.00
3.97
Partial$1,967,203.00 $ 24,425,063.00 $26,392,266.00 $41,350,000.00 $26,392,266.00
Funded$32,904.00 $$32,904.00 $- $32,904.00
Funded$3,496,909.00 $2,400,000.00 $5,896,909.00 $- $5,896,909.00
Funded$842,988.11 $$842,988.11 $- $842,988.11
3.17
Funded$10,713,436.00 $ 11,646,834.00 $22,360,270.00 $- $22,360,270.00
2.90
Partial$3,048,898.33 $ 35,093,700.00 $38,142,598.33 $1,210,000.00 $38,142,598.33
1.74
Funded$3,878,892.00 $ 24,049,670.00 $27,928,562.00 $- $27,928,562.00
Funded$677,027.00 $ 14,071,083.00 $14,748,110.00 $- $14,748,110.00
Funded$7,780,626.00 $2,061,700.00 $9,842,326.00 $- $9,842,326.00
Funded$3,641,786.00 $300,000.00 $3,941,786.00 $- $3,941,786.00
2.77
Funded$7,904,777.00 $3,609,886.00 $11,514,663.00 $- $11,514,663.00
Funded$317,969.00 $55,213.00 $373,182.00 $- $373,182.00
7.21
Partnership$
568,357.00 $$568,357.00 $- $568,357.00
1.04
Funded$490,063.00 $$490,063.00 $- $490,063.00
1.95
Funded$860,426.00 $286,850.00 $1,147,276.00 $- $1,147,276.00
1.26
Funded$450,100.00 $$450,100.00 $- $450,100.00
0.62
Partial$2,600,000.00 $400,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $3,800,000.00 $3,000,000.00
0.64$

158,213,854.25 $453,941,384.97 $612,155,239.22 $

186,860,000.00

FIGURE 1-1E: Public Works uses the CIP Prioritization Report to identify and track partially funded transportation
infrastructure projects that will receive funds from Transportation Surtax proceeds.
Source: Orange County Public Works Department.

Partially funded projects will receive priority with the supplemental funding from the surtax, as
these projects require $187 million through FY 2026. The estimated costs to be funded forthese partially funded projects are shown in the Total Future Year column. The remaining
projects are programmed to be funded from the CIP. PW included this baseline report table in
the Transportation Initiative Report to identify priority projects funded by the surtax to be usedby the Technical Committee as a basis for its ongoing review of the status of prioritytransportation infrastructure projects.
Public Works (PW) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Monthly Financial Reports
The PW Director (Director) uses management reports to monitor performance and cost for all
PW programs and projects. These reports include the CIP Monthly Financial Report, preparedby PW’s Fiscal & Operational Support Division, which provides adopted and current budget
information along with encumbered and expended fund amounts, including the percentage offunds encumbered and expended to date by program and project. The Director uses thisinformation as an executive-level evaluation of the pace of expenditures for every fund account

PAGE | 21

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

for all the Public Works projects and programs. Based on a review and evaluation of the CIP
Monthly Financial Report, the Director can immediately determine if a particular project iseither underspending or overspending when compared to the CIP budget. For projects andprograms that are either over or under budget, the Director initiates discussions with theappropriate project manager to determine the reason for the overspending/under spending
and initiate the necessary corrective actions to get the program or project back on track.
Figure 1-1F presents a snapshot of the Roads & Drainage Division Financial Report included in
PWs CIP Monthly Financial Report for June 2022, which has tabs for PW Engineering,
Stormwater Management, and Traffic Engineering as well.
Public Works Department - CIP Budget
Monthly Financial Report - June FY 21-22
Roads & Drainage Division
AdoptedBudget$3,000,000$3,000,000

Current
Budget$3,186,707$3,186,707$0$01004 2947 Mtnc Yards Improvmnts
Project Subtotal:$87,300$87,300$177,341$177,341

Remaining
Balance$2,922,066$2,922,066$14,819$14,819$0$0$12,195$12,195$2,624$2,624

82.3%
82.3%

82.3%
82.3%

$1,200,000$1,200,000$2,555,652$2,555,652$1,139,672$1,139,672$263,798$263,798$1,152,182$1,152,182

54.9%
54.9%

10.3%
10.3%

1004 2990 Rehab Existing Rdwys C/W
Project Subtotal:$31,000,000$31,000,000$34,564,233$34,564,233$22,785,048$22,785,048$6,259,320$6,259,320$5,519,865$5,519,865

84.0%
84.0%

18.1%
18.1%

1004 3010 Drainage Rehab
Project Subtotal:$5,000,000$5,000,000$8,883,441$8,883,441$3,239,968$3,239,968$3,678,312$3,678,312$1,965,161$1,965,161

77.9%
77.9%

41.4%
41.4%

1002 5086 Railroad Crossing Replacements
Project Subtotal:$545,500$545,500$545,500$545,500$0$0$73,352$73,352$472,148$472,148

13.4%
13.4%

13.4%
13.4%

$40,745,500$49,750,352$27,251,988$10,464,318$12,034,046

75.8%

21.0%

Fund Unit Project Name
1004 2912 Bridge Maintenance and Repairs
Project Subtotal:
1004 2913 Multipurpose Path Conversion and Maint.
Project Subtotal:

Total Roads & Drainage:

$ Enc

$ Exp

% Enc &
Exp
8.3%
8.3%

FIGURE 1-1F: Public Works uses the CIP Monthly Financial Report to review and evaluate the pace of expenditures
for all PW projects and programs each month.
Source: Orange County Public Works Department.

Public Works (PW) Procurement Schedule
The PW Director (the Director) uses the Procurement Schedule, which includes multiple reportsthat provide project procurement schedule information for Engineering Division projects andproject status information on Public Works safety projects, as an additional tool to monitor the
progress of procurement of services to begin PW projects in the CIP and the status of PW safety
programs. The Director reviews and evaluates this information monthly, comparing monthover-month data to review the progress of CIP projects moving through the County’s bidding
process. If the Director identifies projects with delays in the procurement cycle that could
potentially affect the project mobilization or delivery schedule, they send an email to theappropriate individual responsible for the stage in the procurement process causing the delay
to initiate discussions regarding corrective actions necessary to get the procurement cycle backon schedule.

PAGE | 22

% Exp
5.6%
5.6%

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Figure 1-1G presents a snapshot of the Procurement Schedule, which includes the following
information to allow the Director to effectively monitor the progress of PW CIP projects in thebidding process as well as department/position responsibility to facilitate accountability
throughout the process: Project name and responsible party for every stage of the procurement process.
Dates Request for Proposal (RFP) or bid submitted to Fiscal and Purchasing, including
dates advertised and dates proposals were received and reviewed by Procurement
Committee.



Recommended responsible bidder and date of Board of County Commission’s approval,
and stages of the negotiation process.
Length of time project in bid process in number of months.

Explanatory comments.

FIGURE 1-1G: PW’s Procurement Schedule Report is a tool to monitor the progress of CIP projects through theCounty’s procurement process.
Source: PW Fiscal and Operational Support Department.

PAGE | 23

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYIntersection & Pedestrian Safety Status Report
The PW Director (the Director) reviews and evaluates the Intersection & Pedestrian Safety
Status Report monthly, comparing month-over-month data, to determine the overall progressof projects in PW’s Intersection & Pedestrian Safety Program. If the Director identifies projects
with delays or lack of progress, he sends an email to the appropriate project manager to initiate
discussions about the root cause for delays or lack of progress and require the project manager
take corrective actions to resolve the matter.
Figure 1-1H presents a snapshot of the Intersection & Pedestrian Safety Program Status Report,
which includes the following information to allow the Director to effectively monitor the overall
progress of projects in PW’s Intersection & Pedestrian Safety Program:

Location and type of project, complete with a description of the project.

Estimated cost, project priority, and funding source (i.e., CIP, Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT)–Local Agency Program, Investment).



Status of project and percentage complete, by color-coded stage of the project (i.e., Aqua
= Roadway Conceptual Analysis [RCA]/Study, Yellow = Design, Pink = Right-of-Way [ROW],
and Orange = Construction).



Color coded status milestone bars showing anticipated Fiscal Year of construction andanticipated cost.

PAGE | 24

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-1H: PW’s Intersection & Pedestrian Safety Program Status Report tracks the status and projected cost of
projects underway in the Intersection & Pedestrian Safety Program.
Source: Orange County PW Department.

County Audit Division Quarterly Audit Update
The County Audit Division resides within the Office of the Comptroller, who is responsible for
conducting audits and investigations of the County’s operations and administration whereappropriate. Each quarter, the County Audit team including the Director of County Audit andthe Deputy Director of County Audit, conducts a Quarterly Update Meeting with the County
Administrator and three Deputy County Administrators to discuss and review the status of
current audits and audits anticipated to start within the following quarter. The agenda includes
a discussion of the status of Board of County Commissioners audits, estimated release dates forthe audit reports, and a summary of significant issues identified in the audit.
The MJ Team reviewed agenda items for eight (8) Quarterly Audit Updates beginning March 4,2020, and ending June 3, 2022, noting a discussion of the status of the Bridge Inspection andMonitoring audit in six (6) of the updates through the Quarterly Update dated October 6, 2021.

PAGE | 25

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe County Comptroller issued the final report titled “Audit of the Maintenance of the Bridgesof Orange County,” Audit Report No. 491 in October 2021.
Quarterly Audit Updates to the County Administrator and Deputy County Administrator
responsible for PW and PEDS provide an additional layer of ongoing monitoring of theperformance of PW programs by the County’s executive leadership team.
County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly Management Meeting
The County Administrator conducts bi-weekly management meetings with the County’s three(3) Deputy County Administrators, the Assistant County Administrator, Chief Sustainability and
Resilience Officer, and the Assistant to the County Administrator to provide internal executivelevel monitoring and oversight of key initiatives, programs, and projects throughout the County.
The County Administrator sets the topics of discussion for the agenda to monitor the status andprogress of projects and activities affecting County operations and administrative functions,
including PW projects included in the CIP. Deputy County Administrators provide updates
regarding agenda topics and discuss critical matters requiring executive-level action or decisionmaking. Agenda topics have historically included transportation projects and issues relevant toimplementing specific projects.
The MJ Team reviewed agendas for 30 County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly Management
Meetings conducted from January 13, 2021, through June 29, 2022, noting seven (7) meetings
in which transportation-related projects or topics were included in the agenda. Figure 1-1I
below summarizes the results of our review.
Bi-Weekly Management
Meeting Date

Transportation-Related Agenda Topic

January 13, 2021

MMI Development, Inc. – Lake Underhill Road Project Update

January 27, 2021

Holden/Gatlin Intersection Study

February 25, 2021

MMI Development – Lake Underhill Road Project Update

August 25, 2021

MMI – Lake Underhill Road/Fieldstream Village Update

September 8, 2021

 International Drive (I-Drive) Community Redevelopment Agency Transit
Ridership Study Request
 Update on Citizen Safety Task Force Assignments & Schedule

March 9, 2022

MMI Lake Underhill Road Project and Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Analysis

April 20, 2022

Follow-up on Bridge Audit

FIGURE 1-1I: Summary of Review of County Administrator’s Bi-weekly Management Meeting Agendas.
Source: Compiled from County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly Agenda Binder.

Although the County Administrator does not designate a person as a “note-taker” to record
formal notes for Bi-Weekly Management Meetings to capture follow-up actions related to
discussions of topics in the agenda, he records notes directly in the agenda next to the topic
discussed. His notes, recorded in the margins of the agenda, include follow-up items, actions
PAGE | 26

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

required going forward, and personnel responsible for addressing each item. The County
Administrator uses these notes to develop future agendas, create work assignments for Deputy
County Administrators and Department Directors, and ensure program and project timelines
are met. In addition, these notes highlight any concerns identified with program and project
timelines and budgetary issues to ensure they are addressed in an effective and efficientmanner. Figure 1-1J presents a sample agenda from the County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly
Management Meeting with notes recorded in the agenda by the County Administrator.

FIGURE 1-1J: The County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly Management Meetings provide executive-level monitoring andoversight for PW programs.
Source: County Administrator’s Bi-Weekly Management Meeting Agenda Binder.

SUBTASK 1.2 – Determine whether the program is periodically evaluated using performance
information and other reasonable criteria to assess program performance and cost.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 1.2 is met overall. To reach this conclusion the MJ Team assessed the reports anddocuments produced by the Public Works Department, which will administer and/or benefit
from the Transportation System Sales Surtax in collaboration with the Transportation Planning
Division.

PAGE | 27

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYANALYSIS
The MJ Team conducted interviews with Public Works and Transportation Planning directors
and managers and reviewed independent assessments and evaluation reports conducted byCounty staff and external agencies to evaluate program performance and cost. The results of
our assessment follow.
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Bridge Assessment
FDOT inspects all public highway bridges in the state every two (2) years. Accordingly, every
bridge in Orange County is inspected every two (2) years. FDOT performed Orange County’s
most recent bridge inspection in 2022.
FDOT is responsible for inspecting and rating most of the bridges in Florida. County
governments are the next largest group responsible for bridge maintenance. FDOT hires
consulting engineers to inspect and rate county bridges, while the responsibility for maintaining
the bridges remains with the County government.
According to FDOT’s 2021 Annual Bridge Report, there are 12,595 bridge-structures accounted
for in FDOT’s Bridge Management System. FDOT has maintenance responsibility for 7,079
bridges, or 56.20%. County governments maintain 3,935 bridges (31.24 %), cities and towns
maintain 1,279 bridges (10.15%), while others, such as the federal government, railroads,
private citizens, and organizations maintain the remaining 302 bridges (2.40%). There are 103
county-maintained bridges in Orange County. FDOT uses the following terminology and ratings
to define a bridge’s condition.
Structurally Deficient. Bridge should undergo a series of repairs or replacement within
the next six (6) years. FDOT’s policy is to repair or replace all the structurally deficientstate-owned bridges during that time. FDOT recommends that local governments follow
the same schedule for their structurally deficient bridges. According to FDOT’s 2022
Quarterly Report for the 3rd Quarter, Orange County had no structurally deficient bridges.

Functionally Obsolete. Bridge does not meet current road design standards. For example,
some bridges are "functionally obsolete" because they were built at a time when lane
widths were narrower than the current standard. According to FDOT’s 2022 Quarterly
Report for the 3rd Quarter, eight (8) Orange County bridges were functionally obsolete.



Sufficiency Rating. Used to help determine whether a bridge that is structurally deficientor functionally obsolete should be repaired or just replaced. A rating of 100 represents a
perfect bridge (i.e., entirely sufficient for its current use). A rating of 0 percent is the worst
possible bridge (i.e., entirely insufficient for its current use). The sufficiency ratings forbridges are part of a formula used by the Federal Highway Administration when it
allocates federal funds to the states for bridge replacement. According to FDOT’s 2022
Quarterly Report for the 3rd Quarter, most Orange County bridges, 89%, had a sufficiency
rating between 76-100.

PAGE | 28

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYHealth Index. Measures the overall condition of a bridge. The health index typically
includes 10 to 12 different elements that FDOT evaluates. A lower health index meansthat more work would be required to improve the bridge to an ideal condition. A healthindex below 85 generally indicates that some repairs are needed, although it doesn'tmean the bridge is unsafe. A low health index may also indicate that it would be more
economical to replace the bridge than to repair it. According to FDOT’s 2022 Quarterly
Report for the 3rd Quarter, most Orange County bridges, 86%, had a health rating
between 76-100.

FDOT maintains bridge information for all Florida counties on its website. Figures 1-2A through1-2D provide an overview of Orange County’s bridges from FDOT’s Third Quarter 2022 reportand demonstrates that the County’s bridges are periodically evaluated.
Orange County Bridge Age
Range

2-10 Years
11-20 Years
21-30 Years
31-40 Years
41-50 Years>51-66 Years
Total

Number

Percent

15
26
19
26
7
10
103

15%
25%
18%
25%
7%
10%
100%

FIGURE 1-2A: Orange County’s bridges range from 2 to 66 years of age.
Source: Florida Bridge Information-2022 3rd Quarter.

FDOT Inspections of Orange County Bridges
Year

2020
2021
2022
Total

Number

Percent

11
79
13
103

11%
76%
13%
100%

FIGURE 1-2B: FDOT inspected 76 percent of Orange County’s bridges in 2021.
Source: Florida Bridge Information-2022 3rd Quarter.

Orange County Bridges Sufficiency Rating
Rating

25-50
51-75
76-100
Total

Number

Percent

1
10
92
103

1%
10%
89%
100%

FIGURE 1-2C: FDOT assigned a high sufficient rating to 89 percent of Orange County’s bridges.
Source: Florida Bridge Information-2022 3rd Quarter.

PAGE | 29

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYOrange County Bridges Health Index
Rating

25-50
51-75
76-100
Total

Number

Percent

1
13
89
103

1%
13%
86%
100%

FIGURE 1-2D: FDOT assigned a high health index rating to 86 percent of Orange County’s bridges.
Source: Florida Bridge Information-2022 3rd Quarter.

Federal Department of Transportation (FDOT) Local Agency Program (LAP) Agreements
FDOT’s Local Agency Program (LAP) provides Federal funds to counties and other eligible
jurisdictions to develop, design, and construct transportation facilities with federal funds. FDOT
is responsible for administering LAP in Florida on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA). Counties designated as LAP agencies prioritize and fund local projects and are theneligible for reimbursement for the services provided to the traveling public through compliancewith applicable Federal statutes, rules, and regulations. To be eligible for LAP funding, counties
must be LAP-certified with FDOT to demonstrate that the County meets program requirements.
Through the LAP, counties are essentially certifying that if a project is funded through LAP, it
will abide by LAP procedures and requirements. Certification and recertification demonstratethat the local agency is committed to complying with requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway
Program (FAHP). Certification and recertification demonstrate that the local agency iscommitted to complying with requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP).
Orange County is certified to deliver LAP projects. FDOT certified Orange County through a riskbased assessment and performance measures. The County had to complete an extensive
questionnaire for the projects it wished to finance through the LAP. The following are sectionsof the LAP certification questionnaire, which demonstrates that PW is periodically evaluatedusing performance information and other reasonable criteria to assess program performanceand cost:


Risk Assessment

Project Selection

Responsible ChargeGrant Application Process (GAP) Administrator

Agency StaffingAgency Staff AugmentationProject Development

Procurement
 General Continuing Service Contracts
PAGE | 30

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Professional Services
 ConstructionPlanningPlans Specifications and EstimatesConstructionConstruction Administration
 Project Inspection
 Contract Compliance with FHWA 1273

InvoicingCertification Status

FDOT funded 21 of Orange County’s 203 CIP projects from FY 2019 to FY 2022 through LAP
Agreements, representing 10% of all projects included in the County’s CIP. While Orange
County is certified to deliver LAP projects, its current LAP certification expires August 15, 2022.
Orange County and the FDOT are actively coordinating to fully recertify the County into LAP toreceive funding from the Federal Highway Administration through its local Metropolitan
Planning Organization, MetroPlan Orlando. All documents requested by FDOT have either been
emailed to FDOT or uploaded into “BlackCat,” which is FDOT’s online grant management
system. The County is in the process of addressing FDOT’s comments related to uploaded
recertification documents. FDOT is on track to recertify the County before the August 15, 2022,
LAP certification expiration date. Figure 1-2E presents a screenshot verifying the County
uploaded its certification documents.

PAGE | 31

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-2E: Orange County timely uploaded its documents to FDOT’s online grant management system to achieve
LAP re-certification before its current certification expires August 15, 2022.
Source: Transportation Planning, Screenshot of BlackCat Grant Management System.

To further verify the status of the County’s recertification, the MJ Team reviewed email traffic
between FDOT’s Local Program Coordinator responsible for LAP recertification and the County’s
Assistant Manager, Transportation Planning between January 22, 2022, and June 29, 2022. The
Lap Program Coordinator cited two outstanding items necessary to complete the upload forrecertification in an email to the Assistant Manager, Transportation dated June 29, 2022:
An executed Title IV Assurance Agreement approved by the Board of County
Commissioners



Location in the County website where the Title IV/Nondiscrimination Plan approved by
the board of County Commissioners is posted

The Assistant Manager, Transportation responded to the Local Program Coordinator in an email
dated June 29, 2022, confirming the uploads of both documents into FDOT’s online grantmanagement system.
SUBTASK 1.3 – Review findings and recommendations included in any relevant internal orexternal reports on program performance and cost.

PAGE | 32

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 1.4 – Determine whether program administrators have taken reasonable andtimely actions to address any deficiencies in program performance and/or cost identified inmanagement reports/data, periodic program evaluations, audits, etc.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtasks 1.3 and 1.4 are met overall. Both Subtasks are assessed together because they are so
closely related. To reach this conclusion the MJ Team assessed the reports and documents
produced by the Public Works Department, which will administer and/or benefit from theTransportation System Sales Surtax in collaboration with the Transportation Planning Division.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirements of these subtasks as they relate to Public Works and its
collaborative relationship with Transportation Planning, the MJ Team interviewed the positions
referenced in Subtask 1.1 and examined recommendations in the County Auditor’s report on its
audit of the County’s Bridge Maintenance Program and external evaluations of road projects
funded by FDOT through the County’s LAP Agreement. Our interviews and reviews provided
evidence that PW administrators have taken reasonable and timely actions to address
deficiencies in program performance and/or cost identified in management reports/data,
periodic program evaluations, and audits.
Audit of the Maintenance of the Bridges of Orange County
The County Comptroller conducted an internal audit of the Maintenance of the Bridges ofOrange County (Bridge Audit) and issued the final report in October 2021. The MJ Team noted
findings and recommendations in the report and management’s responses. The reportcontained seven (7) findings and related recommendations, with which PW management
concurred. The recommendations were:All bridge inspections and deficiencies should be monitored and addressed(Recommendation 1)

Bridge repairs should be timely completed (Recommendation 2)



Bridge deficiency documentation should be improved (Recommendation 3)Routine maintenance should be performed to prevent additional repair costs(Recommendation 4)County departments should develop Bridge Maintenance Programs that include
inspections by a qualified structural engineer (Recommendation 5)Procedures for field assessments of major drainage structures should be improved(Recommendation 6)

Written procedures should be established to monitor and maintain the Bridge
Management Program (Recommendation 7)

PAGE | 33

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPW commissioned an internal evaluation of the County’s Bridge Management Program byHitesh Barde, Senior Project Manager in the County’s Roads & Drainage Division (R&D), todevelop a plan to address the recommendations included in the Bridge Audit. Mr. Barde’s
evaluation focused on improving the County’s Bridge Maintenance Program by addressing thefollowing areas:

FHWA, FDOT, and National Bridge Inspection (NBI) Bridge Inspection Standards including
bridge condition and deficiency rating indexes.



Maintenance and rehabilitation of bridges according to FDOT’s four (4) bridgework
categories including general maintenance, routine maintenance (minor repairs or nonstructural), periodic maintenance (major repairs or structural), and bridge rehabilitation.

Outlining the County’s and R&D’s responsibility, respectively, in the County Bridge
Maintenance Program.



Defining and graphically depicting R&D’s process flow for conducting bridge maintenanceactivities and ultimately notifying FDOT.

Core structures requiring immediate attention including, eroded bridge piles, cracks on
bridge circumference, underwater repairs, deck separation, and critical structural repairs.



Limitations of R&D’s in-house bridge maintenance crew including resource limitations,training limitations, and permitting limitations, and no personnel with experience
conducting structural repairs.



The need for consulting services to gain a better understanding of FDOT Comprehensive
Inventory Data Reports (CIDR) submitted to R&D by PW’s Engineering Division, which
resulted in hiring FDOT’s consultant, Ayers Associates.



The approach R&D will take to implement recommendations in the Bridge Audit including
planning activities, resources dedicated for non-structural repairs and functions (in-housebridge crew), and resources for major structural repairs and functions (i.e., use of
consulting and contracted services).

Accomplishments since the Bridge Audit began in 2019 through Spring 2022, including
staffing changes, contracts with consultants to assess nine (9) bridges with structural
deficiencies, and receiving final bid submittals from FDOT-certified contractors tocomplete structural repairs and deficiencies for seven (7) of the nine (9) bridges.

The Public Works Director adopted the revised Orange County Bridge Maintenance Program in
Spring 2022. The MJ Team reviewed evidence to support the Accomplishments section on
pages 13 through 15 of the evaluation report and referenced in the final bullet summarizing the
focus areas above. Figure 1-3A through Figure 1-3C provide evidence of corrective actions
taken by PW administrators included in the internal evaluation of the County Bridge
Maintenance Program.
Figure 1-3A confirms that, although the County Auditor released the Bridge Audit in October
2021, R&D proactively obtained approval to fund the positions related to proposed in-house

PAGE | 34

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

staffing changes in 2019 after reviewing the status of the Bridge Audit during the County
Auditor’s Quarterly Update Meetings.

FIGURE 1-3A: The Roads & Drainage Department obtained approval for reclassifying and adding positions
proposed to address recommendations to improve the Orange County’s Bridge Maintenance Program.
Source: Orange County FY 2019-2020 Budget Requests, Orange County Human Resources Department.

Figure 1-3B and Figure 1-3C present evidence R&D contracted with Inwood Consulting
Engineers to assess structural deficiencies and provide construction oversight services toaddress deficiency repairs FDOT inspectors identified for the Old Winter Garden Road over S.R.
408, Bridge No. 750388. Figure 1-3B depicts the first page of the final Construction Completion
Package Inwood Consulting Engineers submitted to R&D, while Figure 1-3C depicts theCertificate of Final Completion for Old Winter Garden Road over S.R. 408, Bridge No. 750388
that is attached to the Final Pay Request for the contractor, Proshot Concrete, Inc.

PAGE | 35

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-3B: PW’s Road & Drainage Division contracted with consulting engineers to provide construction
oversight to repair bridge deficiencies identified by FDOT inspectors.
Source: Construction Completion Package submitted by Inwood Consulting Engineers.

PAGE | 36

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-3C: PW’s Roads & Drainage Department timely completed construction correcting Old Winter Garden
Road bridge deficiencies identified by FDOT inspectors.
Source: Construction Completion Package submitted by Inwood Consulting Engineers.

PAGE | 37

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

R&D’s review of the recommendations included in the Maintenance of the Bridges of Orange
County Audit Report and subsequent actions to evaluate the County’s Bridge Maintenance
Program, obtain approval for additional positions, hire an engineering firm to oversee
construction activities to repair bridge deficiencies, and hire a construction contractor to repair
bridge deficiencies demonstrates that PW managers and administrators took reasonable andtimely actions to address bridge deficiencies.
Local Agency Program (LAP) Performance Evaluation – North Fort Christmas Road
FDOT assesses the County’s compliance with each phase of projects funded through its LAP
Agreement by performing a Local Agency Performance Evaluation to determine areas wherecompliance is satisfactory or less than satisfactory as measured by designated performance
evaluation ratings in Section 2.6.2 of the LAP Manual. LAP Performance Evaluation groups
project compliance attributes into four phases: Professional Services Procurement Phase

Design Phase

Construction Advertisement and Award Phase

Construction and Construction Administration Phase

Performance Evaluation ratings in each phase result in one of the three ratings:
Unsatisfactory Performance, Rating of 1 – The Local Agency failed to develop the projectin accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, standards, and procedures,
required excessive FDOT involvement/oversight, or required corrective actions by FDOT
to complete the project.

Satisfactory Performance, Rating of 2 – The Local Agency developed the project inaccordance with applicable federal and state regulations, standards, and procedures, withminimal FDOT involvement/oversight.

Above Satisfactory Performance, Rating of 3 – The Local Agency developed the projectin accordance with applicable federal and state regulations, standards, and proceduresand FDOT did not have to exceed the minimum oversight and monitoring requirements
identified for the project.

FDOT assigns an average score, based on a numerical performance rating from 1-3, to eachphase of the LAP-funded project based on predetermined compliance criteria, and provides
general comments identifying specific instances of non-compliance. These specific instances of
non-compliance offer opportunities for the Local Agency to improve its program and maintainits LAP certification. The County uses these performance evaluations to assess where
improvements in its project management may be needed, as satisfactory performance
evaluations are part of the criteria for the County to maintain its LAP certification.

PAGE | 38

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe MJ Team reviewed a LAP Performance Evaluation for the County’s North Fort Christmas
Road Safety Project, Financial Project Number: 437458-1-58/68-01 and noted the following
average ratings for the phases evaluated:Professional Services Procurement – 2.0



Design Phase – Not Evaluated

Construction Advertisement and Award – 2.0

Construction and Construction Administration – 2.6

In the General Comments section reported for the Construction and Construction
Administration Phase at the end of the evaluation, the District LAP Administrator wrote that“although the County submitted invoices at the frequency required by the LAP agreement, of
the 13 invoices submitted, five (5) needed corrections or additional information.” This
comment in the LAP Performance Evaluation offered the County an opportunity for
improvement in its project management and invoicing practices.
The County subsequently corrected the process deficiency that caused them to submit
incorrect invoices without all required information by modifying its “INVOICE CHECKLIST(Highway Construction)” for submitting invoices to include four additional quality control steps:


Accounting lines on memo to match purchase order.



Check contract information on Asbestos Certification.

All close-out documents for final pay applications need to be notarized.



Project Monitoring Status Report (PMSR) needs to be included on FDOT Reimbursement
Requests (LAP projects).

The MJ Team compared the previous INVOICE CHECKLIST (Highway Construction) attached to
the County’s pay request for the North Fort Christmas project (dated March 22, 2021) to therevised INVOICE CHECKLIST (Highway Construction) verifying the four additional quality control
steps were added to the revised checklist. The County’s action to include additional quality
control steps in its checklist demonstrates that program administrators took timely actions toaddress process deficiencies highlighted in FDOT’s North Fort Christmas Road Safety Project
LAP Evaluation.

SUBTASK 1.5 – Evaluate program performance and cost based on reasonable measures,
including best practices.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 1.5 is partially met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed relevant
departments within Public Works that will administer and/or benefit from the sales surtax, as

PAGE | 39

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

well as management practices that demonstrate whether PW departments use best practices
to evaluate program performance.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team conducted interviews with thepositions referred to in Subtask 1.1. We also reviewed Public Works performance measures andpavement management practices to determine that program administrators evaluate program
performance and cost based on reasonable measures, including best practices. Based on our
analysis, this subtask is partially met because PW’s Road & Drainage Division relies on acumbersome manual Pavement Management System driven by spreadsheet analysis which
compromises the efficiency of the County’s Road Resurfacing Program because of the absenceof automation.
Public Works Performance Measures – FY 2021
The County has a Performance Measurement System (PMS) consisting of updated key
performance measures for each department, which is included in the Orange County FY 202122 Budget Book. The specific performance measures facilitate monitoring the outcome ofprogram services to determine if the purpose of a program is being achieved. Throughout the
fiscal year, County departments report actual progress toward target performance measuresquarterly to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The County budget contains performance measures for each PW division. Specifically, theRoads & Drainage Division (R&D), Public Works Engineering Division, and Traffic Engineering
Division have performance measures directly related to the County’s intended uses of thesurtax. R&D performance measures include: (1) Total Number of County Lane Miles
Maintained; (2) Percent of Residential Miles Rated in Good Condition; and (3) Lane Miles
Identified for Resurfacing. Public Works Engineering performance measures include: (1)Number of Transportation CIP Projects in Progress and (2) Number of Transportation Projects
Bid. Traffic Engineering performance measures include the Percentage of Signal Preventative
Maintenance Completed. Figure 1-5A presents actual performance and target PW performancemeasures included in the Orange County FY 2021-22 Budget Book.

PAGE | 40

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-5A: PW has identified key performance measures as targets to meet for individual departments tomonitor the overall performance of the PW program.
Source: Orange County FY 2021-22 Budget Book.

PAGE | 41

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYWhen reviewing PW’s Key Performance Measures (KPM) included in the Orange County
FY2021-22 Budget Book, we noted the County’s practice to include “actual” KPM’s that lag two
fiscal years behind the current fiscal year and one year behind the immediately preceding fiscal
year. Accordingly, the County presents actual KPMs for one year and Targets for the next twoconsecutive fiscal years. We examined the Orange County FY 2020-21 Budget Book and FY
2019-20 Budget Book to confirm this practice, noting the County included actual KPMs for FY
2018-19 in the Orange County FY 2020-21 Budget Book and actual KPMs for FY 2017-2018 in
the Orange County FY 2019-20 Budget Book. Although the County prefers to present in its
annual Budget Books future KPM targets for PW divisions, the department routinely assesses
actual versus target performance for each KPM in each PW division quarterly and annually. Asof the date of this report, the PW had not compiled FY 2021-22 KPM actual data.
The MJ Team reviewed the Performance Based Measurement System FY 2021-22 Quarterly andAnnual Targets for R&D, PW Engineering, and Traffic Engineering to determine if thedepartment tracks actual performance against targets quarterly and annually. We noted eachdepartment compares actual results to target each quarter in a color-coded spreadsheet,
explaining all variances over or under 15% of target in a “Comments/Highlights” section.
Roadway Resurfacing Practices
The County used general industry guidance and FDOT pavement life cycle estimations to
implement a 15-year roadway resurfacing program cycle for local roadways and 12-year cycle
for arterial and collector roads or major roadways. This estimation is based on the Mill &Overlay (MO) resurfacing method.
The County contracted with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp. to complete an
extensive inventory of its 5,844 lane miles in 2014, giving each roadway segment a specificPavement Condition Index (PCI) score, using microPAVER software, initially purchased in 2007,
as its Pavement Management System (PMS). Roads & Drainage (R&D) reassessed its inventory
and PMS software in 2016 and determined the microPAVER software to be inefficient andcostly, and discontinued using the software.
After discontinuing the microPAVER PMS program in 2016, R&D implemented manual methods
to conduct planning for the County’s roadway resurfacing program. The basis of the manual
PMS program is the PCI Ranking Spreadsheet initially created with the report generated by thecontract with Southeastern Surveying and Mapping Corp. A manual spreadsheet lists roadsegments ranked from lowest PCI score to highest PCI score.
R&D automatically depreciates PCI scores by one (1) to two (2) points a year manually. At the
beginning of each budget year, R&D uses the depreciated PCI scores to rank the roads in the
spreadsheet from lowest to highest PCI score. Based on the 12- or 15-year roadway resurfacing
cycle, R&D manually prepares an Excel spreadsheet listing approximately 170 to 200 miles ofroadways with the lowest PCI scores targeted for resurfacing. R&D summarizes roadways
targeted for resurfacing in a Projected Paving List, which is subsequently adjusted based on
actual field conditions noted in road inspections.
PAGE | 42

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe MJ Team reviewed a sample Pavement Program Report detailing the results of assessmentof Lake Underhill Road by a Paving Senior Foreman in R&D and a spreadsheet titled “Paving
Trend 97-21,” which lists the number of center lane miles of roads resurfaced each year from1997 to 2021. The spreadsheet indicates R&D is resurfacing a median 191 miles per year, whichmeets its manual pavement management program’s minimum performance standards for a 15year resurfacing cycle. Based on our review, R&D is not using the most efficient method toevaluate its pavement management program; although the measures used to evaluate theprogram are reasonable. Best practices suggest using PMS software programs to model future
pavement deterioration and recommend maintenance and repairs to the roads based on thetype and age of the pavement and various measures of the quality of the existing pavement.
This information is used to develop automated, manageable pavement management
workplans.
RECOMMENDATION 1.5 – Acquire Pavement Management System software and automate
the manual pavement management practices to facilitate using best practices to improvethe efficiency of the County’s Road Resurfacing Program.

SUBTASK 1.6 – Evaluate the cost, timing, and quality of current program efforts based on areasonably sized sample of projects to determine whether they were of reasonable cost andcompleted well, on time, and within budget.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 1.6 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed the Managers ofRoads & Drainage, Engineering, Stormwater, Traffic Engineering and the Director of Public
Works. We selected a sample of six completed projects from the County’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) to review and evaluate the cost, timing, and quality of Public Works program
efforts. Our review evaluated the following attributes for each of the projects included in our
sample: Basis for vendor selection

Original contract amountNet change orderTotal contract costFinal payment
Notice to Proceed
Date approved by Board of County CommissionersTarget completion dateCertificate or Notice of Substantial Completion date

PAGE | 43

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYCompletion date per Certification of Completion Letter

Based on our evaluation and detailed review of supporting documents, the majority of project’s
costs were reasonable, and each project was completed well, on time, and within budget, withthe exception of one project with unsatisfactory performance where the County and contractor
entered into a global settlement agreement to avoid the cost of litigation.
ANALYSIS
The Board County Commissioners (BCC) original Capital Improvement Program (CIP) went
through FY 2019. As of this report’s assessment date, three (3) roads are awaiting construction
and one (1) is completing the design phase. Although the BCC CIP period has ended, the County
has a process in place to approve outstanding/incomplete projects.
Sample Selection
The MJ team obtained the list of all projects in the County’s CIP to select a sample of projects todetermine whether they were of reasonable cost and completed well, on time, and withinbudget. To select the sample, we determined which projects in the CIP were identified as 100%
completed on the Public Works Engineering (PWE) Department’s list and grouped them by typeof project. We then reviewed the groupings and selected six projects based upon the total costof the project and type of project to select a representative sample of completed projects. The
six completed projects selected as our sample represent approximately 41% of project
expenditures for completed projects in the CIP. Figure 1-6A summarizes the completed projects
we selected in our sample for review.
Project
NumberProject
Name

Asset

Project
Type

Cost

FY
CompletedY19-1128D

Rehab Existing
Roadways
Lake Steer Pointe

Roads

Improvements$138,747

2018

WR25062045

Rock Springs Road
Roadway Lighting

Lighting

Improvements$415,571

2021

37173

Boggy Creek Rd.
North

Roads

Roadway
Improvement$11,864,380

2020

Y15-750-CH

InternationalDrive from
Westwood

Roads

Roadway$19,981,766

2018

Y20-708

John Young
Parkway at
AmericanIntersections

Intersection
Improvement$378,776

2021

Y18-777

Little Egypt
Sidewalk

Sidewalk andDrainage

Sidewalk
Improvement$974,051

2019

Total Sample
Selection$33,753,291

PAGE | 44

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Project
NumberProject
Name

Asset

Project
Type

FY
Completed

Cost

Total
Completed
Projects$83,470,965

Percentage
Projects
Sampled41%

FIGURE 1-6A: Team MJ’s sample selection covered 41% of the cost of total CIP projects completed.
Source: Capital Improvements Project List for Traffic Engineering, Roads & Drainage, and PW Engineering.
Note: The amounts listed in this table do not always agree to the amounts discussed in the respective project
analysis projects. This is due to the differences between estimated, budgeted, contracted, and actual costs that arepresented in the various documents we were provided. Furthermore, the total project costs included in the CIP
project list we were provided includes all project costs, not just construction costs.

Figure 1-6B provides summaries of the projects the MJ Team sampled, including a descriptionof attributes reviewed and evaluated for each project. The MJ Team’s detailed analysis of eachproject follows Figure 1-6B.

Description

Rehab Existing
Roadways
Lake Steer
Pointe(Y19-1128D)*

Rock Springs
Rd. Lighting
Program(WR2506045)

Boggy Creek Rd. North(Public/Private/
Partnership) (37173)

InternationalDrive from
Westwood(Y15-750-CH)

John Young
Parkway at
AmericanBlvd(Y20-708)

Little Egypt
Sidewalk(Y18-777)

Basis for
Vendor
Selection

Competitive
solicitation
and approvalof fourvendors.

UtilityCompanies –projects are
assigned
based onjurisdiction.

Private partner exercised
option, underagreement, to undertake
construction of project.
Solicited bids, executed
contract w/lowest
bidder, and constructed
the project.

Competitive
solicitation andapproval of two
bidders.

Competitive
solicitation
andapproval of
five bidders.

Competitive
solicitation
andapproval ofsevenbidders.

Original
Contract
Amount$138,747$415,570.81$11,350,225.05 (County
responsibility). The
private partner(contractor) has
responsibility for theremaining costs.

$21,662,394.89$696,377.15$685,360

Net Change
Order

No change
orders issued.

Multiple
ChangeOrders netted
to $0 between
ChangeOrders for
credits andcharges.

No change orders issued.

No change
orders issued.

$9,940.78$288,693

Contract Sum$138,747$415,570.81$12,484,392.90$21,662,394.89$706,317.93$974,053

Final Cost

$129,980$415,570.81$11,846,380.02$19,981,765.64$706,317.93$823,408

PAGE | 45

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Description

Rehab Existing
Roadways
Lake Steer
Pointe(Y19-1128D)*

Rock Springs
Rd. Lighting
Program(WR2506045)

Boggy Creek Rd. North(Public/Private/
Partnership) (37173)

InternationalDrive from
Westwood(Y15-750-CH)

John Young
Parkway at
AmericanBlvd(Y20-708)

Little Egypt
Sidewalk(Y18-777)

Notice toProceed By

Purchase
Order issued
1/26/2021
serves as thenotice toproceed8/14/2018 viaLighting
Proposal andpayment
made by
OrangeCounty PW.

7/5/2017

9/14/2015

4/27/2020

2/26/2019

Date Approved
by Board

9/3/2020

9/14/2014

4/25/201706/02/2015

12/3/19

11/13/18

TargetCompletionDate

9/30/21

June 20196/12/2019

6/2/2017

12/22/2020

10/25/2019

Certificate or
Notice of
Substantial
CompletionDate

2/18/21 Punchlist wasused assubstantial
completion.

Not Required

5/10/2019

7/3/2018

Final
Completion
per
Certificationof Completion
Letter

3/02/2021

N/A for thistype ofproject

3/23/2020

Settlementagreement usedas final
completion.

12/18/2020

9/6/2019

Reasonable
Costs?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

CompletedwithinBudget?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Completed
Timely?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Completed
Well?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

11/2/2020 Punch List
was used as
substantial
completion.

8/09/2019

FIGURE 1-6B: Orange County’s CIP projects selected for testing costs were reasonable and were completed well,timely, and within budget.
Source: Orange County Staff, Project File Documents.
* This project is one of several projects included in project #Y19-1128D.

Rock Springs Road Analysis
The Rock Springs Road program is an approved roadway lighting program by the Board ofCounty Commissioners. The purpose of the lighting program was to light 85 miles of County
collector and arterial roadways across six County districts. The original cost estimate was$356,400 with a final cost of $415,570.81. Each vendor provided monthly status reports
throughout the project. Team MJ reviewed the monthly status reports and observed that thisproject is included in the status reports.
The County partners with the local utility companies to implement the program. The utility
companies are required to follow the Florida Public Service Commission’s regulations. Standard

PAGE | 46

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

operating procedures for the lighting program are established which includes design review andfield verification once construction is complete.
Orange County is required to pay for roadway lighting projects in advance based upon the
proposal provided by the respective utility company. Figure 1-6C provides a copy of the RockSprings Road proposal.

FIGURE 1-6C: Duke Energy’s lighting proposal requires the County to pay the entire $415,570.87 proposed project
cost in advance.
Source: Duke proposal provided by Orange County Public Works.

PAGE | 47

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Per the Roadway Lighting’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) the following documents areto be provided upon completion of each lighting project, as shown in Figure 1-6D. The SOP
effective date is July 20, 2022 and was implemented after this project.

FIGURE 1-6D: Public Works’ Roadway Lighting SOP requires specific documents upon completion of lighting
projects.
Source: Public Works Roadway Lighting’s Standard Operating Procedures.

The MJ Team verified that the required documents exist for the Rock Springs Road lighting
project. At the time that this project was completed the confirmation of project completion
was verbal and therefore the document was not required and not provided.
The MJ Team reviewed the budget hearing approval, BCC meeting minutes for the FY14/15 CIP
budget presentation, the proposal, monthly status updates, and the Roadway Lighting SOP.
Based upon these documents. The MJ Team concludes that processes are in place to monitor
cost, timing, and quality of program efforts for road lighting projects.
Rehab Existing Roadway – Lake Steer Point Segment
The Rehab of Existing Roadways Projects has an annual goal of approximately 320 lane miles
throughout Orange County. The initial project budget is $34 million and includes several
roadway projects. The MJ Team performed testing based on one segment, “Lake Steer Pointe.”
Ranger is the vendor who repaired the segment. The project started on January 26, 2021, andwas completed on September 30, 2021. The MJ Team reviewed the final invoice, project
Completion Notice, Delivery Order, Delivery Order Request, Measurement Matrix conducted byinspectors, the Project Walkthrough Log, and punch list. We noted that the Roads & Drainage
function does not have written SOPs in place. However, an Interoffice Memorandum is in place
to reiterate project requirements and enforcement measures. See Figure 1-6E for page one ofthis memo.

PAGE | 48

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-6E: Roads & Drainage Interoffice Memorandum reiterates process requirements and expectations for
coordinating field resurfacing projects performed by contractors.
Source: Orange County Public Works Department.

PAGE | 49

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe MJ Team reviewed the Purchase Order, Project Completion Notice, final invoice, Punch List,and images, provided by the County for this project. Based upon these documents, the MJ
Team concludes that the County has processes in place to monitor cost, timing, and quality of
program efforts for road resurfacing projects.
Boggy Creek Rd. North
The Boggy Creek Road North Improvement project represents Phase II of a Public/Private
Partnership project between the County and Crockett Development Property LLC, for thewidening of an existing two-lane road to a four-lane road from near the Airport South AccessRoad to approximately 600 feet north of Wetherbee Road. The project included a bridge
structure over a tributary to Boggy Creek. The project also incorporated a force main by the Cityof Orlando and a water main by the Orlando Utility Commission (OUC) under separate
agreements between Crockett Development Property LLC and each entity. These utilities werebid and constructed as part of the project at no cost to the County.
The design cost per the agreement was the responsibility of the private partner. Crocket
Development Property LLC also exercised its option to undertake the construction of the
project. Therefore, Crocket Development Property LLC was responsible for project timelinessand managing costs.
The County was responsible for a maximum cash contribution to the project of $12,484,392.90.
Crocket Development Property LLC was responsible for a cash contribution of $2,450,000.00
and any construction cost overruns. Crocket Development Property LLC received Impact Fee
Credits for its contribution per the agreement.
The roadway construction estimate was $14,079,810.35. The lowest responsible bid wasawarded to Jr. Davis Construction in the total amount of $13,764,061.05. The bid wascomprised as follows:$11,350,225.05 for the roadway (County responsibility)$942,775.00 for the force main (City of Orlando responsibility)$1,467,661.00 (OUC responsibility) for the water main

Project construction began on July 5, 2017, and the County issued a Certificate of Completionon March 23, 2020. The project was completed within budget, with a final construction cost to
the County of $11,864,380.02, or $620,012.88 less than its maximum allowed cash contributionof $12,484,392.90.
The MJ Team reviewed documents for project approval, planning, and monitoring. These
documents included BCC approved agreements, Notice to Proceed with construction to thecontractor with an effective date of September 14, 2015. The construction was substantiallycompleted on July 3, 2018, at a final cost of $21,508,742.45.
The original project schedule proposed a final completion date of June 2, 2017; however, theactual completion date was July 3, 2018. The reasons for the time extension, defined in the

PAGE | 50

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

vendor evaluation and other supporting documentation provided by Orange County, included
utility relocation delays by a utility provider, weather days, a hurricane, holidays, and otherdelays related to lack of adequate staffing and poor management by the contractor. Orange
County did assess liquidated damages. The contractor filed a claim against the County inresponse. The County and contractor engaged in negotiations and subsequently reached amutually agreed global settlement. The contractor ultimately completed the project and theCounty and contractor completed project closeout.
The MJ Team reviewed the project cost sheet, status report, bid tabulation andrecommendations, BCC approval of construction contract, the contract, Notice to Proceed,
purchase order, invoice tracking, Construction Schedule, Letter of Substantial Completion,
Global Settlement Agreement, and contractor evaluation documents. Based on documents, the
MJ Team concludes that processes are in place to monitor cost, timing, and quality of program
efforts for roadway projects.
John Young Parkway at Americana Boulevard
The purpose of the John Young Parkway at Conroy Road/Americana Boulevard project was toimprove pedestrian safety. After design was completed, the County bundled the John Young
Parkway at Americana Boulevard project with the Texas Avenue at Rio Grande Avenue
intersection improvement project and bid the construction of both projects together. The
County adopted this alternative project delivery method to take advantage of the cost savingsand efficiencies.
The preliminary estimated construction cost for both John Young Parkway at Americana
Boulevard and the Texas Avenue at Rio Grande Avenue project that were bundled was$632,390.00. The County based the preliminary estimate on average historical costs at thetime, prior to developing the project scope.
The County issued a Notice to Proceed for construction of the John Young Parkway at
Americana Boulevard project and the Texas Avenue at Rio Grande Avenue intersection project
on April 27, 2020, in the amount of $696,377.15. The contractor completed construction on
December 18, 2020, with a final construction cost of $706,317.93, of which $308,054.53 was forthe cost related to the John Young Parkway at Americana Boulevard improvement. The
contractor completed the project early and within budget.
Team MJ reviewed the project map, bid and award recommendation, BCC approval of
construction contract, construction contract, Notice to Proceed, purchase orders, changeorders, invoice tracking, Project Cost Sheet, Project Status Reports, Substantial Completion
Notice, Certificate and Letter of Final Completion, and contract evaluation documents. Basedupon these documents, the MJ Team concludes that processes are in place to monitor cost,
timing, and quality of program efforts for pedestrian safety projects.

PAGE | 51

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Little Egypt Sidewalk
The Little Egypt sidewalk project consisted of the construction of sidewalks, drainage
improvements and driveways within the Little Egypt neighborhood. Over 5,700’ of five-footwide sidewalks were constructed on one side of each road within the neighborhood.
Crosswalks and ramps were added at intersections to enhance pedestrian safety.
The County bid the project and awarded a construction contract to the lowest responsive
bidder in the amount of $685,359.50, with a scheduled completion date of 240 consecutive
days from the Notice to Proceed or October 23, 2019. The contractor completed the project on
September 6, 2019, earlier than the scheduled completion date, at a final cost of $840,572.79.
The increase in construction cost was due to the greater than expected quantity of muck thatwas encountered during construction and design changes that were necessary to avoid
excavating the muck as much as possible. Although the final construction cost was higher thanthe original bid amount, actual costs were significantly under the engineer’s estimate of $1.1
million.
The MJ Team reviewed the bid recommendation, BCC approval of construction contract,
construction contract, Notice to Proceed, purchase orders, change orders, invoice tracking,Project Cost Sheet, Project Status Reports, Substantial Completion Notice, Certificate and Letterof Final Completion, and pictures. Based upon these documents, the MJ Team concludes thatprocesses are in place to monitor cost, timing, and quality of program efforts for pedestriansidewalk projects.

SUBTASK 1.7 – Determine whether the County has established written policies andprocedures to take maximum advantage of competitive procurement, volume discounts, andspecial pricing agreements.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 1.7 is met overall. To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team
interviewed the county’s manager of procurement, the manager of business development, andreviewed the respective procurement policies, and regulations. We noted that the written
procedures promote maximum advantage of competitive procurement, volume discounts andspecial pricing agreements.
ANALYSIS
The County’s Procurement Department serves as the central purchasing office for the County
and controls the spend on goods, and services while ensuring compliance with all applicable
local, state, and federal purchasing laws in addition to County policies and procedures.
The manager of procurement and manager of business development provided the established
written policies and procedures to take maximum advantage of competitive procurement,

PAGE | 52

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

volume discounts, and special pricing agreements. The MJ Team reviewed the following
documents supporting the County’s procurement policies and procedures:

Orange County, Florida Code of Ordinance Article III; andCounty Procurement Procedures Manual.

Code of Ordinance Article III – Procurement
The purpose of this article is to place the County’s purchasing function under a centralized
system which enables the County to:a)

Establish policies governing all purchases and contracts.

b)

Encourage and promote fair and equal opportunity for all persons doing business.

c)

Obtain goods and services of satisfactory quality and quantity at reasonable cost for
Orange County.

d)Permit the continued development of procurement policies and procedures throughpromulgation of administrative regulations and internal procedures for purchasing
and contracts.

e)

Foster effective brand-based competition within the free enterprise system.

f)Provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality andintegrity.

Article III of the ordinance further states the County shall comply with all applicable federal andstate laws. The county attorney and procurement manager stated the Procurement Procedures
Manual is consistent with the regulations and Florida law. The MJ Team reviewed the County’s
Procurement Procedures Manual and confirmed this assertion.
Procurement Procedures Manual
The County has established a Procurement Procedures Manual (PPM). The PPM is currently in
use and last updated January 27, 2022. The PPM serves as the basis for procurement policies
and procedures for the County. The objectives of the Procurement Division are as follows:a)

To deal fairly and equitably with all vendors seeking to do business with Orange
County.

b)

Provide Professional procurement services for all department and divisions within theCounty.

c)

Assure adherence to all laws, regulations, and procedures related to County
Procurement.

d)Maximize competition for all procurements of the County.

e)Obtain maximum savings through innovative buying and application of value analysis
techniques.

f)Administer the contracting function with internal efficiency.

PAGE | 53

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYg)

Procure goods and services from capable vendors at the lowest price, consistent with
the quality, performance, and delivery requirements of the County.

In addition, the PPM outlines details of relevant policies and procedures to ensure the County
takes maximum advantage of competitive procurement, volume discounts, and special pricing
agreements. The County defines these processes in the following sections of the Procurement
Procedure Manual summarized in the table in Figure 1-7A.
SectionPurpose/Procedures

5: Term Contract(Master
Agreements) and
Delivery Orders

The Procurement Division will survey user departments/divisions to determine estimatedusage of items to be placed on term contracts. User departments/ divisions may also
request that the Procurement Division establish a term contract for frequently required
goods or services. All solicitation requests shall be accompanied by a Project Information
Sheet (See Exhibits 5, 6 and 34). The Procurement Division shall issue a formal solicitation
and award the contract on an item-by-item, lot-by-lot, or all-or-none total offer basis. A
contract is executed with the vendor(s).
Once a contract is established, departments/divisions are notified of the awarded
vendor(s) and line-item pricing or percentage discount off a specified price list. The
departments/divisions may then order from the term contract via issuance of a Delivery
Order (DOOC) directly to the awarded vendor for the item required unless specificallyprohibited by the contract. Divisions are cautioned not to order any items via Delivery
Order other than those awarded for the specific term contract. Delivery Orders arecontrolled documents issued through the Advantage system identified as DOOC
documents.
The following are allowable timeframes for issuing Delivery Orders. Occurrences outsideof these timeframes will result in a Non-PO.
 Creation of a new Delivery Order at fiscal year start: within ten (10) working days
after October 1st.
 Creation of Delivery Orders for a new Master Agreement: within three (3)working days of Advantage update.
 Creation of Delivery Orders for a Master Agreement renewal: within three (3)working days of Advantage update.
 The division should identify each item on the Delivery Order by the contractassigned line-item number, when applicable.

6: Quotations, Bids,
and Proposals

Every effort will be made to obtain a minimum of three (3) written quotations (one ofwhich shall be a certified M/WBE firm if available) for each item or group of items required.
A firm’s failure to reply shall be documented as a no-quote and shall qualify as an attempt
toward the three-quote minimum. If there is no M/WBE availability matching the scope of
the procurement this shall be documented on the Expedited Quoting Form.
Written Requests for Quotations (RFQ) may be mailed or faxed to prospective bidders andshall indicate the deadline for receipt of the quote. Emergency purchases are exempt fromcompetition with prior approval of the procurement manager. RFQ's shall be maintainedwith the purchase order. User departments/ divisions are responsible for ensuring that
adequate descriptions and specifications are provided to the Procurement Division,
including manufacturer brand and part numbers.
The user department/division may obtain competitive quotes for commodities andservices up to $100,000 from at least three (3) vendors (including at least one M/WBE
vendor) independent of the Procurement Division provided the names of the vendors,
vendor number, date of quote, quotes per item, quote number, individuals submitting

PAGE | 54

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

SectionPurpose/Procedures
such quotes, and total pricing from each vendor are submitted to the Procurement
Division, and quotes are verifiable. The Procurement Division reserves the right to verify
such quotes or to obtain additional quotes at its discretion. The user department/division
will be contacted if the vendor or product is changed.
RFQ’s are not governed by the same rules and procedures applicable to formal
solicitations. Therefore, the strict time and date requirements for the receipt of bids or
proposals are not applicable to quotations. Quotation(s) may be negotiated withconcurrence of the procurement manager or assistant manager.
The Procurement Division is responsible for all procurements over the mandatory bid limit.
Although the user divisions are not to obtain quotes for these procurements, they should
focus on the development of adequate purchase descriptions and specifications. When apurchase or contract (including leases) may extend over multiple periods or years, themaximum amount to be paid for all years shall be the amount that determines if a formal
solicitation is required.

7: Request for
Proposals (RFP)
Evaluations
Procedures

The purpose of these procedures is to establish a fair, equitable and impartial process bywhich the Board of County Commissioners makes awards in competitive sealed proposals
procurement for services of all types and when the Board otherwise selects architects,
engineers, landscape architects, surveyors, and cartographers/ mappers, in accordancewith the requirements of Florida State Statute 287.055.
The procurement manager and the staff of the procurement division retain overall controlof the administration of the competitive sealed proposal process, including scheduling,
record keeping, distribution of proposals and other materials, and preparation of all
documents and recommendations required by the Board of County Commissioners andcounty administrator.
The following delineates specific responsibilities of appropriate parties during this process.
These procedures also incorporate the methodology whereby the Board of County
Commissioners makes awards in competitive sealed proposal procurement.

8: Grant Funded
Procurement andContractingThis procedure shall be a general guideline for externally funded Procurements and subrecipient contracts. Funding sources may include State and Federal Grants. Recognizingthat each grant will have its own terms, conditions, and contingencies the guideline below
is not inclusive of all requirements or steps that may arise for regulatory compliance.
Additionally, see Exhibit 38, Guideline for Federal Funding Procurement Thresholds as aresource.
Additionally, noting that some emergency procurement activities may be reimbursable by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, term contracts which may be utilized during
an emergency activation shall be procured in compliance with the latest Federal guidance.

9: Contract
Modifications andTerminations

Modifications are written changes to a contract or purchase order that revise thequantities or make changes within the scope of services and may include an extension oftime to complete the contract. A change order is a contract modification.

FIGURE 1-7A: Orange County’s Procurement Procedures Manual outlines procedures to ensure Procurement
personnel take maximum advantage of competitive procurements.
Source: Orange County Procurement Procedure Manual.

As noted below in Figure 1-7B, the County has established guidelines for externally funded
procurements and sub recipient contracts for both formal and informal solicitation processes.
For example, County procurement officials use informal solicitations such as Requests for
Quotations for items greater than $10,000 and less than $150,000, and formal Invitation for
Bids and Request for Proposals for items above $150,000.
PAGE | 55

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Based on theinformation
received, and theinterviews
conducted,
Orange County
has established
written policies
and procedures
to take maximum
advantage ofcompetitive
procurement,
volumediscounts, andspecial pricing
agreements.

FIGURE 1-7B: Orange County defines procurement thresholds for three different typesof procurements.
Source: Orange County Procurement Procedure Manual, Exhibit 38.

PAGE | 56

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 2
FINDING SUMMARY
THE STRUCTURE OR DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM TO ACCOMPLISH ITSGOALS AND OBJECTIVES.

Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 2.
The County maintains an organizational structure that has clearly defined units, minimizes
overlapping functions, and has no excessive administrative layers. Since the COVID pandemic
began, vacancy and turnover rates have been considerably higher nationally. Of the program
areas reviewed, the Highway Construction Division of Public Works has the highest vacancy
rate at 33 percent. Overall, the key Public Works divisions have a vacancy rate of 16 percent.
County administrators are well aware of the challenges faced in filling vacancies. The County
regularly reviews staffing levels with a view to right-size the County’s staff. A consultant
study is underway to determine how best to staff the growing personnel needs assuming thesales tax referendum passes. This study will evaluate whether new staff should be County orcontractor employees, and how best to divide the responsibilities among each group.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 2.1 – Review program organizational structure to ensure the program has clearly
defined units, minimizes overlapping functions and excessive administrative layers, and haslines of authority that minimize administrative costs.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 2.1 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed the County’s
program organizational structure to ensure it has clearly defined units that minimize
overlapping functions and has lines of authority that minimize administrative costs.
ANALYSIS
Existing Programs
To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team reviewed the organizational charts
for the County and for the Public Works Department, which has the major responsibility fortransportation projects.
The MJ Team used the Society of Human Resources Management (SHRM) span of control
indicators as an assessment resource. For executive level (directors and managers) therecommended span of control ratio is between 1:2 and 1:9 or slightly higher and 1:15 to 1:20
for the lower-level manager and supervisory levels. Several factors influence span of control
guidelines, as described below:

PAGE | 57

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYOrganizational size. Large departments tend to have a narrow span of control, whereas
smaller departments often have a wider span of control. This difference is usually due tothe costs involved with more managers and the financial resources available to anorganization.



Workforce skill level. The complexity or simplicity of the tasks performed by theemployees will affect the number of desirable direct reports. Generally, routine tasks
involving repetition will require less supervisory control of a manager, allowing a wider
span of control, whereas complex tasks or dynamic workplace conditions may be best
suited for a narrower span of control, where managers can provide more individualized
attention.

Director’s and Manager's responsibilities. Departments and organizational units’
expectations allow many managers to be effective with the number of direct reports they
have, especially related to individual responsibilities, departmental planning and training.
For example, executives often have fewer direct reports than other managers in theorganization.

Figure 2-1A depicts Orange County’s organizational structure, which shows that the County has
clearly defined units and clear lines of authority with no overlapping functions or excessive
administrative layers.

PAGE | 58

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 2-1A: Orange County’s organizational structure. Highlight cells indicate departments/divisions interviewed
for Task 2.
Source: Orange County.

According to the Transportation Initiative Report, the Public Works Department is the Orange
County department that will see the greatest impact if the surtax is passed. Other affected
departments/divisions are:Transportation Planning Division of Planning, Environmental & Development Services
Department

Procurement Division of Administrative Services Department



Human Resources Division of Administration & Fiscal Services Department

PAGE | 59

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYCitizen Resources & Outreach Division of Community & Family Services Department

The two key departments for planning and implementing transportation projects are Public Works
Department and Planning, Environmental & Development Services Department. Both departments
report to the same Deputy County Administrator for Infrastructure, Community, & Development
Services. The other two departments report to the Deputy County Administrator for Administration& Fiscal Services. By having only two Deputy County Administrators over the key departments, withthe two most affected departments reporting to the same Deputy County Administrator, thedevelopment and implementation of transportation projects is more easily coordinated.
The key department is the Public Works Department, which has seven divisions:

Public Works EngineeringTraffic EngineeringHighway Construction



Fiscal & Operational SupportRoads & Drainage



Stormwater Management



Development Engineering

The first four divisions are the ones most affected by transportation projects, including any projects
funded by the surtax. The remaining divisions will see increased responsibility in later years as they
are responsible for maintenance of the projects or work closely with new developers that will use
the new transportation projects.
The MJ Team obtained a summary of the primary job functions related to the existing
Transportation program, and the future surtax administration oversight as shown in Figure 2-1B.
Also shown are that key staff and direct reports have clearly defined responsibilities and that the
span of control for staff they oversee falls within SHRM guidelines, which is a ratio of between 1:2
and 1:9.
Position Title /TenureMajor Position Responsibilities Related
to the Surtax Program Areas

Span ofControl

Deputy County
Administrator for
Infrastructure Manages the department’s public works; planning, environmental &development services; and utilities departments.
 Manage and oversee special key projects such as County expansion
project, major County purchases, and section of County officials.
 Supervise daily activities of Department Directors to monitor
interpretation and implementation of policy.
 Manage County’s debt issuance by determining timing and terms ofdebt issues or recommending the sale of bond or other instruments.
 Make recommendations to County Administrator regarding labor
relations issues such as acceptance or rejection of contract proposals
and enforcement of personnel policies.

1:3

Tenure withCounty:35 yearsTenure in CurrentRole:
4 years

PAGE | 60

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Position Title /TenureMajor Position Responsibilities Related
to the Surtax Program Areas

Span ofControl Responsible for various personnel matters including hiring, discipline,
training and development, performance appraisals and related
activities.
 Provide recommendations to County Administrator on selection offirms to perform professional architectural and engineering services
by determining the most highly qualified providers.
 Respond to citizen complaints by determining appropriate County
action to resolve issues.
 Review budgets to ensure that departments and divisions follow
sound procurement practices and established policy and that capital
improvement projects are completed in a timely manner withinbudget constraints.
Public Works
Director
Tenure withCounty:35 yearsTenure in Current
Role:
3 years

 Manages highway construction; public works engineering; public
works development engineering; roads & drainage; stormwater
management; traffic engineering; and fiscal & operational support
divisions.
 Directs and oversees the activities of the Public Works Department.
Ensures adherence to all codes, standards, laws, regulations, etc. thatpertain to the department. Keeps abreast of regulatory changes andparticipates in technical/professional society activities.
 Plans, organizes, and directs all work programs and formulates general
operating policies with respect to all phases of public works,
engineering, stormwater, construction, and other related areas.
 Provides direction and guidance to Division Managers throughsupervision of the Deputy Director. Directs and oversees highway,
street, sidewalk, and roads and drainage maintenance, construction,and related programs. Inspects construction projects in progress forcompliance to plans and specifications.
 Provides leadership to various projects related to public works,
development, and traffic engineering. Reviews, evaluates, andapproves engineering plans and designs for department projects.
 Advises and assists County Mayor, County Administrator and Board ofCounty Commissioners in developing policies, regulations, andordinances, evaluating situations, and administering programs.
Reviews, approves, and presents amendments to County rules,
regulations, policies, etc. as necessary.
 Develops and implements short and long-term plans for meeting
capacity, financial and regulatory demands, including the capital
improvements program.
 Reviews, approves, and presents annual capital and operating budgets
for Department.
 Maintains relationship with state and federal agencies involved in the
Department's responsibilities including engineering, highway
construction and maintenance, traffic engineering and stormwater
management functions.

1:7

PAGE | 61

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Position Title /TenureManager,Engineering
Tenure withCounty:10 yearsTenure in CurrentRole:
6 years

Manager, Traffic
Engineering
Tenure withCounty:4 years
Tenure in Current
Role:
2 years

Major Position Responsibilities Related
to the Surtax Program Areas

Span ofControl Monitors expenditures and ensures fiscal responsibility. Receives,
reviews, prepares and/or submits various records and reports,
including invoices, change orders, payroll documents, job
applications, performance appraisals, inspection reports, constructionplans and specifications, right-of-way documentation, purchaseorders, budget documents, program schedules, memos,
correspondences.
 Manages division personnel matters to include hiring, discipline,
training and development, performance appraisals and related
activities. Reviews the work of staff for completeness and accuracy;
evaluates and makes recommendations as appropriate; offers advice
and assistance as needed. Develops and administers adequate
training programs for divisional employees.
 Receives and responds to inquiries and complaints regarding division
activities; resolves conflicts unresolvable by staff. Makes
presentations to the Board of County Commissioners, the public, thenews media, and other groups in response to questions on projects
under the direction of the Division. Receives, implements, andmonitors County and Departmental policies to ensure Divisional
adherence.
 Conducts meetings with senior county personnel relating to issues
involving more than one Division including litigation, coordination ofregulations, studies, recommendation to the County Administrator
and County Commission. Conducts meetings with citizens to discussand resolve various problems relating to engineering activities of theDivision. Attends and coordinates meetings with representatives ofvarious governmental agencies including Regional Planning Council,
other counties, city and state agencies.
 Directs and oversees the activities of the County right-of-way
acquisition program. Monitors program expenditures, evaluates andmakes recommendations as appropriate and provides direction andguidance. Provides recommendations to the Department Director for
additions to the County capital improvement program. Performs otherduties of a comparable level as assigned.

1:7

 Performs transportation planning and engineering work, manages
consultants and coordinating the development of long-range capitalsurface transportation projects and programs. Oversees various
projects including installing, designing, and maintaining traffic signals,
traffic control signs, traffic counts and pavement stripping.
 Supervises and directs the operation of the Traffic Engineering
Division including development and maintenance of its goals andobjectives, preparing budgets, and monitoring expenditures,
negotiating design contracts and change orders.
 Works with Metropolitan Planning Technical committees, serves as
the liaison with state and local agencies. Develops and maintains
agreements, handles the planning, design and traffic operations ofroads, networks, terminals, and abutting land and relationships with

1:4

PAGE | 62

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Position Title /TenureMajor Position Responsibilities Related
to the Surtax Program Areas

Span ofControl

other modes of transportation for the achievement of safe andefficient travel.
 Manages division personnel matters to include hiring, discipline,
training and development, performance appraisals and related
activities. Reviews the work of staff for completeness and accuracy;
evaluates and makes recommendations as appropriate; offers advice
and assistance as needed. Administers adequate training programs for
Divisional employees.
Manager, Highway
Construction
Tenure withCounty:6 years
Tenure in CurrentRole:
0.5 years

Manager, Fiscal &Operational
SupportTenure withCounty:27 yearsTenure in CurrentRole:
17 years Manages construction and materials testing contracts to ensurecompliance with contract provisions. Negotiates change orders;
participates in contract dispute resolution. Supervises inspection of
construction sites to verify compliance with plans and specifications.
Keeps abreast of regulatory changes, construction trends andtechnologies, participates in technical/professional society activities.
 Develops, oversees, maintains, and implements goals and objectivesof the division including annual budget and expenditures. Monitors
expenditures and ensures fiscal responsibility. Receives, reviews,
prepares and/or submits various records and reports, including
invoices, change orders, payroll documents, job applications,performance appraisals, inspection reports, construction plans andspecifications, right-of-way documentation, purchase orders, budget
documents, program schedules, memos, correspondences.
 Manages division personnel matters to include hiring, discipline,
training and development, performance appraisals and related
activities. Reviews the work of staff for completeness and accuracy;
evaluates and makes recommendations as appropriate; offers advice
and assistance as needed. Develops and administers adequate
training programs for divisional employees.
 Receives and responds to inquiries and complaints regarding division
activities; resolves conflicts unresolvable by subordinates. Makes
presentations to the Board of County Commissioners, the public, thenews media, and other groups in response to questions on projects
under the direction of the Division. Receives, implements, andmonitors County and Departmental policies to ensure Divisional
adherence.

1:5

 Responsible for Department budget administration including Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) budgets, expense and revenue budget
preparation, control, and coordination, expenditure and revenue
analysis, reconciliation, and validation, approving of purchases,
financial accountability for incoming revenues, inventory control,
grant submission and reporting, and audits of cash collections.
 Interprets policies and procedures to ensure purchase validity andpropriety of purchase requests.
 Oversees and coordinates contract renewals and Request for
Bids/Proposals processes for all departmental service and goods
contracts.

1:8

PAGE | 63

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Position Title /TenureMajor Position Responsibilities Related
to the Surtax Program Areas

Span ofControl Formulates and reports various monthly and bi-weekly reports for use
by upper management and submission to outside agencies. Conducts
financial studies and cost analyses.
FIGURE 2-1B: Orange County Key Staff with job functions critical to the Surtax.
Source: Orange County, PW Department.

Figure 2-1C depicts Public Works Engineering Division, which shows that the Division has clearly
defined units and clear lines of authority with no overlapping functions or excessive administrative
layers. Yellow highlights show the three vacant positions out of the 41 positions, a 7 percent
vacancy rate.

FIGURE 2-1C: Public Works Engineering Division organizational chart, July 11, 2022.
Source: Orange County.

Figure 2-1D depicts Traffic Engineering Division, which shows that the Division has clearly
defined units and clear lines of authority with no overlapping functions or excessive

PAGE | 64

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

administrative layers. Yellow highlights show the eight (8) vacant positions out of the 68
positions, a 12 percent vacancy rate.

FIGURE 2-1D: Traffic Engineering Division organizational chart, July 11, 2022.
Source: Orange County.

Figure 2-1E depicts Highway Construction Division, which shows that the Division has clearly definedunits and clear lines of authority with no overlapping functions or excessive administrative layers.
Yellow highlights show the nine (9) vacant positions out of the 27 positions, a 33 percent vacancy
rate. Five (5) of these vacancies are Engineering Inspectors.

PAGE | 65

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 2-1E: Highway Construction Division organizational chart, July 11, 2022.
Source: Orange County.

PAGE | 66

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Figure 2-1F depicts Fiscal & Operational Support Division, which shows that the Division has clearly
defined units and clear lines of authority with no overlapping functions or excessive administrative
layers. Yellow highlights show the eight (8) vacant positions out of the 37 positions, a 22 percent
vacancy rate. Three (3) of these vacancies are in the GIS division, representing the entire division.

FIGURE 2-1F: Fiscal & Operational Support Division organizational chart, July 11, 2022.
Source: Orange County.

PAGE | 67

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

According to a benchmarking study conducted by the Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM), the average span of control for executive management is seven direct
reports and for middle management is twelve direct reports. The span of control for the
department and division directors falls within this range. Figure 2-1G presents the span ofcontrol benchmarking results.
25th Percentile
Management LevelMedian75th Percentile

Average

Number of Direct Reports

Executive Level

4

5

8

7

Middle Management

5

8

14

12

FIGURE 2-1G: Span of Control Data.
Source: Society for Human Resource Management, Human Capital Benchmarking Report, December 2017.

The MJ Team found that the County’s existing organizational structure has clearly defined units,
minimizes overlapping functions and excessive administrative layers, and has lines of authoritythat minimize administrative costs.
Transportation Initiative
The Transportation Initiative Report outlined the approaches that are available and suggested
that Orange County may consider program management structures like that used by CFX and
FDOT for a General Engineering Consultant (GEC). A GEC consists of one or more consulting
firms with expertise in civil engineering, project management, financial controls, and otherspecialized skills. The GEC prepares the plans that a separate construction firm uses to build the
projects. CFX has a GEC for services related to general planning, design, engineering,
management, and other services for its existing and future infrastructure system. Under the
GEC approach, the GEC may perform a variety of tasks. Figure 2-1H depicts an exhibit from theTransportation Initiative Report outlining potential GEC tasks.

PAGE | 68

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 2-1H: Examples of GEC potential tasks from Transportation Initiative Report.
Source: Orange County Transportation Initiative Report.

The Transportation Initiative Report goes on to note that even if a GEC is brought on, there will
still be significant impacts on the needed County employees to successfully complete such an
aggressive number of projects in the 20-year timeframe. While the GEC will be responsible forhiring the necessary design staff, the GEC’s work is still directed and managed by County staff.
County staff will ultimately be responsible for ensuring the projects are built on-time, withinbudget, and to design specifications. County staff will also be responsible for keeping the public
involved throughout the process and will have responsibility for maintaining the projects after
completion. The Report recommends that each department conduct a self-assessment todetermine the needed staff resources, considering staff availability and capability. As part ofthat assessment, roles and responsibilities of both County staff and consultant staff should beclearly defined. Figure 2-1I depicts departments and divisions potentially impacted by staff
shortages.

PAGE | 69

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 2-1I: Potential County departments and divisions impacted by the Transportation Initiative.
Source: Transportation Initiative Report.

Orange County has begun to study the most appropriate program delivery method for the
program of projects included in the Transportation Initiative. The County awarded a Task Work
Order to a consulting firm for the preparation of an implementation plan for the Transportation
Initiative. Task 4 of the current study is to prepare a Staffing Plan. The plan should…
“summariz(e) the need for staff as presented in a comprehensive Organizational Chartthat identifies the current and planned for staffing levels. This org chart will identify if thestaff need is County or provided through the GEC. Org chart will also provide guidance of(sic) the coordination and relationships between individual County and GEC staff
positions.”
This Task Work Order is not scheduled to be complete until after the surtax referendum results
are known—its completion will be dependent upon whether the referendum passes or not.
The results of this task will provide the blueprint for how to organize future staff involved with
the Transportation Initiative to meet Subtask’s 2.1 objectives.

PAGE | 70

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 2.2 – Assess the reasonableness of current program staffing levels given the natureof the services provided and program workload.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 2.2 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed the reasonablenessof current program staffing levels given the nature of the services provided and program
workload.
ANALYSISAs shown in Subtask 2.1, out of the four key divisions in Public Works Department, 28 of 173
positions are vacant, for a vacancy rate of 16 percent overall.
Public Works, and Orange County in general, have been affected by the same hiring challenges
as most employers around the country. To address these challenges, on a bi-weekly basis Public
Works receives two reports from its Human Resource Information Services section. One reportprovides the comprehensive list of filled positions and the other report provides a list of
vacancies. These reports are reviewed by the Department Director, Deputy Director, and Fiscal& Operational Support Manager to determine vacancy rates for the department and critical
recruitment needs.
Decisions are made to prioritize positions for advertisement and recruitment, along withdetermining the need to reclassify or adjust duties and responsibilities within the affecteddivision or department. Varying recruitment strategies may be implemented depending onlevel of service needs.
As an example of a recruitment and retention strategy that is regularly considered, the County
Human Resources office reviews compensation levels. Public Works recently completed anassessment of its Equipment Operator IV positions to determine if adjustments to address pay
equity were needed. It was determined that salary adjustments were warranted based on thehighly competitive market conditions and the anticipated increasing demand for these skilled
operators as the construction projects associated with the American Rescue Plan Act get
underway. Comprehensive salary structure reviews such as this occur through the Central
Human Resources office and modifications are implemented with Board of County
Commissioner approval.
Transportation Initiative
As discussed in Subtask 2.1, the Transportation Initiative Report noted that regardless of the
program delivery method selected, there will still be significant increases in the number ofCounty employees needed to successfully complete such an aggressive number of projects inthe 20-year timeframe. The Report recommends that each department conduct a selfassessment to determine the needed staff resources, considering staff availability andcapability.

PAGE | 71

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe MJ Team found that the County’s existing organizational structure has reasonable current
and planned program staffing levels given the nature of the services provided and program
workload, taking into consideration the challenging current national hiring environment.

PAGE | 72

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 3
FINDING SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROVIDING SERVICES OR PRODUCTS.

Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 3.
County program administrators have formally evaluated existing in-house services andactivities to assess the feasibility of alternative methods of providing services. An example
described by PW for evaluating in-house services and looking at alternative methods ofdelivery included privatizing most of its mowing services and all road resurfacing services.
PW evaluated its cost per acre to provide mowing services with in-house crews, determiningthat the County saved $79.23 per acre in mowing costs by privatizing 99% of its right-of-way
mowing services. Additionally, program administrators have made changes to service
delivery methods when their evaluations/assessments found that such changes would
reduce program cost without significantly affecting the quality of services. PW Traffic
Engineering outsourced sign fabrication and installation services in new residential
developments to land developers because of large backlog of sign installations and improved
the quality of its services. The County should actively pursue identifying alternative service
delivery methods to reduce costs and speed the delivery of transportation projects byreviewing Design-Build, Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), Project
Bundling, and Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to support projects included in its
Transportation Initiative.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 3.1 – Determine whether program administrators have formally evaluated existing
in-house services and activities to assess the feasibility of alternative methods of providing
services, such as outside contracting and privatization, and determine the reasonableness of
their conclusions.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 3.1 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed programadministrators and assessed the Roads & Drainage Division’s (R&D) process and related
decisions to contract road resurfacing, sidewalk repair, and mowing services. Our analysis
included reviewing relevant internal and external reports and contracts, including contract
evaluation documents and contract renewals.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the following positions:

Director, Public Works

PAGE | 73

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYManager, Engineering/Public WorksManager, Transportation PlanningManagement and Budget Administrator

Senior Project Manager

Financial Administrator

Manager, Traffic EngineeringManager, Highway ConstructionManager, Roads & Drainage

Additionally, Orange County provided the following information to inform our analysis:Public Works Department – CIP Budget, Monthly Financial Report – June FY21-22

Internal Audit Report No. 447 - Audit of Public Works Department’s Mowing Services
Contract

Spreadsheet report titled: Sidewalk Repairs for FY 2005-06 through FY 2018-19

Infrastructure Repair and Replacement contracts for FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22, and related
Amendments for FY 2022-23, executed with RMS Constructors Group, LLC

During interviews, program administrators told the MJ Team that the County has contracted or
privatized many of the services previously performed in-house. In the mid-1990s the Roads &Drainage Division (R&D) performed an internal audit of overhead costs and decided tooutsource several maintenance operations that were being done with in-house personnel at ahigher cost than the outsourced cost. Public Works management could not locate a copy of theaudit report in its archives.
Since making the initial decision to outsource some maintenance activities in the mid-1990s,
R&D has continued to expand the type of maintenance activities that are outsourced, andgradually changed its in-house staff profile to maximize contract administration and inspection
services to monitor and evaluate outsourced maintenance services, thereby reducing activities
performed in-house. While lower personnel costs and the ability to reduce a number of
personnel issues–such as the County’s inability to fill vacant positions and excessive personalabsences related to the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)–made privatization of certain
maintenance services an easy decision at the time. R&D managers told the MJ Team that they
continued to assess the feasibility of outsourcing additional services and evaluated the in-houseprovision of right-of-way mowing, road resurfacing, and sidewalk repair and decided to
privatize those services because of the boom in development in Orange County over the past
three (3) decades. R&D managers stated that with each new development comes new
infrastructure and increased impact to older roads and drainage systems resulting in greater
demand for maintenance of the County’s roads and drainage systems. To maintain adequate
service levels for County residents, R&D used “sustaining adequate service levels” as its primary
criteria when deciding to privatize these services.

PAGE | 74

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

R&D further cited sidewalk repair work as a second example of evaluating in-house services todetermine the feasibility of privatizing services previously performed by the County’s
maintenance units. R&D managers told the MJ Team that, while the County’s maintenance
units’ staff can perform sidewalk repairs, given the volume of sidewalk repair work required
each year, they decided to outsource most of this work to support the demands of sidewalk
infrastructure maintenance. This would allow R&D’s in-house crews to focus on evaluating
constituent inquiries related to repairs, emergency response activities, and proactive
maintenance assessments, while maintaining adequate levels of services to the public.
Road Resurfacing Services
The MJ Team requested data to support the County’s evaluations of in-house services,
specifically road resurfacing. The Director of Public Works stated that the County performed theoriginal evaluations of these services in the 1980s and 1990s and they are no longer archived by
the County. Orange County submitted the following condensed chronology of the evolution of
the County privatizing road resurfacing services.


Roads & Drainage Division (R&D) provides roadway resurfacing services for Orange
County.



Between 1970s and 1980s in-house R&D paving crews resurfaced approximately 50 lane
miles annually.



Beginning in 1980, road resurfacing became a major concern for the County because ofroad infrastructure concerns related the Central Florida building boom. Roadway failure
became an issue as resurfacing requirements increased to 10- to 15-year cycles, requiring
the County to resurface 255 lane miles annually.

In FY 1998-99 Public Works developed the initial Strategic Plan, with one objective to“conduct activity-based costing to increase efficiency in basic service delivery.” As a result,R&D evaluated the resources required to increase the efficiency of road resurfacing
service delivery to County residents and signed a resurfacing contract to mill and overlay
asphalt paved roads.

In continuing the privatization of road resurfacing services, in FY 2019-2020 the County
contracted 312 lane miles of roadway resurfacing at a cost of $30,754,085, which was 70% of
R&D’s Current CIP budget for FY 2019-20. The MJ Team reviewed the Master Paving List
spreadsheet that lists all paving projects completed in FY 2019-20, including the projectdescription, estimated cost, contractor, invoice amount and the Contractors remarks on thestatus of the project. Based on our review, we noted that the County used five (5) separate
contractors to perform these services. Figure 3-1A presents R&D’s Current CIP Budget for FY
2019-20 totaling $44.2 million.

PAGE | 75

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Public Works Department - CIP Budget
Monthly Financial Report - Period 13 FY 19-20
Roads & Drainage Division1004 2912 Bridge Maintenance and Repai
Project Subtotal:

AdoptedBudget$1,000,000$1,000,000

Current
Budget$1,000,000$1,000,000$635,179$635,179

Remaining
Balance$364,821$364,821

1004 2913 Multipurpose Path Conversion
Project Subtotal:$680,000$680,000$680,000$680,000$611,214$611,214$68,786$68,786

89.9%
89.9%

1004 2947 Mtnc Yards Improvmnts
Project Subtotal:$400,000$400,000$793,770$793,770$202,406$202,406$591,364$591,364

25.5%
25.5%

1004 2990 Rehab Existing Rdwys C/W
Project Subtotal:$32,991,000$32,991,000$34,741,007$34,741,007$30,102,406$30,102,406$4,638,601$4,638,601

86.6%
86.6%

1004 3010 Drainage Rehab
Project Subtotal:$5,000,000$5,000,000$6,358,517$6,358,517$3,608,531$3,608,531$2,749,986$2,749,986

56.8%
56.8%

1002 5086 Railroad Crossing Replacements
Project Subtotal:$500,000$500,000$674,896$674,896$534,043$534,043$140,853$140,853

79.1%
79.1%

Total Roads & Drainage:$40,571,000$44,248,190$35,693,779$8,554,411

80.7%

Fund Unit Project Name

$ Exp

% Exp
63.5%
63.5%

FIGURE 3-1A: Roads & Drainage Current Budget in Fiscal Year 2019-2020 exceeded $44.2 million.
Source: Orange County Fiscal Years 2019-2020 Budget Book.

As a result of the County’s evaluation of in-house services vs. privatization, R&D is not only
contracting out 100% of Rehab of Existing Roadways (i.e., Road Resurfacing) in its Current CIP
Budget for FY 2021-22, totaling $34,564,233, but has also privatized its entire Current CIP
Budget. Figure 3-1B presents R&D’s Current CIP Budget for FY 2021-22 totaling $47.2 million.

FIGURE 3-1B: Roads & Drainage Current Budget in Fiscal Years 2021-2022 is 100% privatized and exceeds $47.1
million.
Source: Orange County Fiscal Years 2021-2022 Budget Book.

PAGE | 76

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Audit of Public Works Department’s Mowing Services Contract
The MJ Team reviewed relevant sections of the Audit of Public Works Department’s Mowing
Services Contract (Internal Audit Report). In the Background section of the Internal Audit
Report, we noted that originally Roads & Drainage (R&D) personnel performed all groundmaintenance services in-house including mowing, edging, litter removal, brush control, applying
herbicides, landscape sodding, and tree removal. In 1997 the Road & Drainage Division began
to outsource ground maintenance services (i.e., especially mowing) to private contractors.
Mowing services are a large portion of ground maintenance expenses. The three types ofmowing contracts are:
 Roadway right-of-way
 Retention ponds


Canals and ditches

R&D is responsible for mowing roadway rights-of-way, certain canals, and ditches, performing
these mowing operations with in-house crews because there are multiple locations where theaccess to areas requiring mowing is limited or compromised (e.g., lack of easement), requiring
R&D to use different options for mowing. For example, before the COVID 19 pandemic,
maintenance units used Inmate Road Crews to perform hand mowing for hard to accesslocations. However, the County suspended the program since the beginning of the pandemic
and replaced hand mowing with a Mechanical Walking Excavator (i.e., Minzie Muck) to mow
the bottom of ditches and canals. County personnel use the Minzie Muck to mow these areas
because contractors’ mowing equipment is too large to access the bottom of ditches andcanals.
R&D continuously evaluates the cost of providing the in-house mowing services and periodicallycompares the unit cost per acre for mowing in-house versus outsourced mowing services. R&D
Management reported the FY 2021-22 year-to-date in-house mowing cost using in-house crews
is approximately $175 per acre versus an average outsourced contract cost of $95.27 per acre.
The MJ Team reviewed R&D’s “Quarterly Statistics Report - FY 21/22,” an Excel spreadsheetthat tracks expenditures for every service R&D provides by function and activity. R&D submits
this spreadsheet to PW’s Fiscal and Operational Support Division responsible for preparing the
PW Quarterly Report to the Public Works Director. R&D program administrators use theQuarterly Statistics Report – FY 21/22 to monitor annual performance and cost by tracking
volumes and costs for performance categories each quarter. In this report, R&D compiles costs
and specific volumes by activity to calculate unit costs for each activity for the following
functions within the scope of R&D’s responsibilities:
 Maintenance Unit

Construction
Heavy Equipment
Paving

PAGE | 77

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYContracts (i.e., Term Contracts for Outsourced Services)

The MJ Team noted R&D calculated the FY 2021-22 year-to-date (i.e., through the 3rd Quarter)
in-house mowing cost using in-house crews of $175 per acre based on 124 “Right-of-Way” acres
mowed at a cost of $21,731. Similarly, we noted R&D calculated its mowing cost using
outsourced contractors to be $95.27 per acre based on 30,046 Right-of-Way acres mowed at a
cost of $2,862,310 for the same period. Figure 3-1C presents a snapshot of the section of R&D’s
Quarterly Statistics Report -FY 21/22 related to its in-house Maintenance Unit.
Roads & Drainage
Quarterly Statistics Report - FY21/22
Maintenance Unit (MU) Quarterly
Work
Code

Annual Performance

Q1

Citizen Inquiries (each)
820

Emergency Call Outs (each)120

Potholes Repaired (each)

440

Tree Trimming/Removal (each)

$$

1,726

Q2

$$

1,727

Q3

$$

966 $45,888

1,196 $58,854

1,472

2,644 $74,9782,147 $59,765

2,403 $75,444$7,67023

Qty

135 $22,619$5,257

57

Unit
cost

Cost

6,581

86 $15,490

45

$$

3,128

117 $21,235

420 & 425 Right-of-Way Mowed (acres)

MU Total
Q4$0

338 $59,344
3,634 $104,742
7,194 $210,187$8,804124 $21,731

Right-of-Way Landscaped (acres)-$0Canal mowing (acres)-$0

Curb Miles Swept (curb miles)-$0350 & 351 Roadside Ditch Cleaned & Reshaped (sq ft)
360 & 361 Secondary Outfalls Cleaned & Reshaped (sq ft)
715

Sidewalk Repaired (sq ft)

780

Driveways Repaired (sq ft)

530

Debris Removal from R/W (lbs)

66,644 $69,766

87,664 $71,426 105,712 $77,100

260,020 $218,293

1,941

12,435$3,457

19,266 $11,984

9,463 $165,962

33,172 $530,500$1,782

13,752 $190,067
120$6,746

9,957 $174,472

$405

6

$376

4,890

1,070

$1,991

1,196

790,972 $134,260 936,135 $159,463 762,918 $126,271$175$2,7732,490,025 $419,994

FIGURE 3-1C: Roads & Drainage monitors cost per acre to provide mowing services with in-house crews to compare
to the cost per acre for mowing services outsourced to private contractors.
Source: Public Works Department, Roads & Drainage Division.

Figure 3-1D presents a snapshot of the section of R&D’s Quarterly Statistics Report -FY 21/22
outsourced Term Contracts.
Roads & Drainage
Quarterly Statistics Report - FY21/22
Contracts Quarterly
Work
Code

Annual Performance

$$

Q2

$$

Q3

Contracts Total
Qty

Cost

Citizen Inquiries (each)

0

$0.00

820

Emergency Call Outs (each)

0

$0.00

120

Potholes Repaired (each)

0

$0.00

440

Tree Trimming/Removal (each)

420 & 425 Right-of-Way Mowed (acres)

Q1

$$

Q4

$$

7,744

$688,208

8,668$707,586

13,781 $1,058,434

30193$2,454,227.44

9,478$877,402

9,518$925,572

11,050 $1,059,337

30046$2,862,310.42

Right-of-Way Landscaped (acres)

5,144$478,172

4,369$509,108

3,830$492,845

13343$1,480,125.65

Canal mowing (acres)

1,158$283,671

1,160$284,237

1,161$284,482

3479$852,389.30

Curb Miles Swept (curb miles)

1,101$33,5124,839$150,537

33,410 $1,051,550

39350$1,235,598.64

350 & 351 Roadside Ditch Cleaned & Reshaped (sq ft)

0

$0.00

360 & 361 Secondary Outfalls Cleaned & Reshaped (sq ft)

0

$0.00

533324$4,170,610.63

715

Sidewalk Repaired (sq ft)

164,082 $1,261,055

243,312 $1,777,311

125,930 $1,132,245

780

Driveways Repaired (sq ft)

0

$0.00

530

Debris Removal from R/W (lbs)

0

$0.00

Unit Cost$95.27

FIGURE 3-1D: Roads & Drainage monitors cost per acre to provide mowing services with private contractors tocompare to the cost per acre for mowing services provided by in-house crews.
Source: Public Works Department, Roads & Drainage Division.

PAGE | 78

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 3.2 – Determine whether program administrators have assessed any contracted
and/or privatized services to verify effectiveness and cost savings achieved and determine
the reasonableness of their conclusions.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 3.2 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed programadministrators and assessed Public Works’ contractor evaluation process and reviewed sample
Term Contract Annual Performance Evaluations. Public Works Road & Drainage Division (R&D)
evaluated pricing offered by companies providing asphalt milling and resurfacing services underterm contracts eligible for renewal by comparing line-item pricing offered by the contractors tocomparable line item pricing in Invitation to Bid documents for local jurisdictions, and Federal
Department of Transportation Reports. R&D’s conclusions from its analysis and resulting
evaluation were reasonable.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the positions referenced
in Subtask 3.1. Additionally, Public Works program administrators provided the following
information to inform our analysis:Road Maintenance Asphalt Milling and Resurfacing Contract Evaluation

Orange County Term Contract Performance Evaluation – Middlesex Paving LLC

Public Works Roads & Drainage Division (R&D) manages and evaluates contracted services
through daily inspections to ensure services are performed in accordance with the contract andits scope of work. For service contracts performed on a cycle basis (i.e., right of way mowing,street sweeping, landscape maintenance and mowing, canal and ditch mowing, etc.), R&D
issues a delivery order for each service cycle, as defined in the corresponding contract. For
example, right-of-way mowing cycles are completed once every 18 workdays from April to
October, and once every 24 workdays from November to March, and contractors develop aroute to follow to service each location under contract. R&D inspects contracted services daily
after contractors report the areas completed. Inspectors determine if the contractors
satisfactorily completed the services outlined in contract documents. If contractors did notsatisfactorily complete contractually obligated services, R&D inspectors will issue deficiency
notices for the corrections required. R&D records inspection dates for each service area into
the division’s database, and inspectors sign off on the invoices as confirmation that the services
in the cycle were satisfactorily completed.

PAGE | 79

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

For other contracted services like resurfacing, pipe repair, sidewalk repair, shoulder repair,underdrain installation, and other civil work services, R&D issues delivery orders for eachproject. R&D inspectors, Maintenance Unit staff, or consultants inspect all contractors’ work
daily. These inspectors also determine if the contractors satisfactorily completed maintenanceservices specifically outlined in contract documents. If contractors did not satisfactorily
complete contractually obligated maintenance services, R&D inspectors will also issue
deficiency notices (i.e., to include in Reports of Unsatisfactory Services) for any maintenanceservices that the contractor failed to perform as required in the contract before the contractor
can receive final payment.
Throughout the daily monitoring and administration of these contracts, R&D inspectors identify
contractor performance issues and timely address each issue with the corresponding contractor
via emails requiring action, through in-person meetings, and through the Procurement
Division’s processes through Report of Unsatisfactory Services and Cure Notices.
Since Public Works outsourced maintenance contracts are term contracts that typically provide
renewal options for up to three (3) years, the department uses information reported from
inspections, Reports of Unsatisfactory Services, and Cure Notices to complete formal annual
performance evaluations for each contractor and submits the evaluations to the Procurement
Division at the time of each contract renewal. The performance evaluation form includes asection titled Assessment of Performance Elements that includes the following: Overall
Evaluation, Quality of Work, Timely Performance. Each contractor is rated as Outstanding,Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory, with Unsatisfactory ratings requiring the evaluator to attach
specific documentation. Figure 3-2A presents a completed Term Contract Performance
Evaluation.

PAGE | 80

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 3-2A: Public Works collaborates with the County Procurement Division and annually evaluates all term
contracts for privatized services before granting contract extensions.
Source: Public Works Division, Road & Drainage Division.

PAGE | 81

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRoad Maintenance Asphalt Milling and Resurfacing Contract Evaluation
The MJ Team reviewed an interoffice memorandum documenting the Road & Drainage
Division’s (R&D) assessment of the County’s privatized contract for asphalt milling andresurfacing to verify effectiveness and cost savings. The County reviewed the following asphalt
milling and resurfacing contracts to determine the reasonableness of pricing when deciding to
exercise options to extend existing term contracts:Y20-1031A The Middlesex Corporation

Y20-1031B Hubbard ConstructionY20-1031C Ranger ConstructionY20-1031D Preferred Materials

To determine the reasonableness of pricing in evaluating asphalt and resurfacing bids received
from Middlesex Paving LLC, Hubbard Construction, Ranger Construction, and PreferredMaterials, R&D conducted an extensive price analysis using pricing in asphalt resurfacing
contracts procured in the nearby jurisdictions of Lake County and the City of Orlando. Since
certain units of measure for specific line items included in Lake County and the City of Orlando’s
pricing evaluations were not comparable for R&D’s analysis, R&D engineers converted the unitsof measure using industry recognized formulas to make the units of measure for evaluating
pricing comparable to units of measure in the Orange County pricing analysis. R&D engineers
also considered Lake County and the City of Orlando’s practice of paying its contractors inseparate line items for mobilization costs and maintenance of traffic costs, which R&D includes
in a turnkey price for each line item evaluated. Additionally, as a part of its analysis todetermine the reasonableness of pricing for these four contracts, R&D compared unit prices
published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in its publication Historical Item
Average Unit Costs publication. Figure 3-2B presents R&D’s comparison of contract renewal
pricing for the four contractors listed above to provide Asphalt Milling and Resurfacing services
to Lake County’s Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 17-0802 – Roadway Resurfacing and Related
Services.

PAGE | 82

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Lake County Unit
Pricing at 1” Thickper Square Yard
(SY)

Conversion Factor
Based onEngineering
FormulaComparable Unitof Measure at1.5”, 2.0” and1.25” Thickness

SP12.5$5.80 $5.85/SY

1.5

SP12.5$5.80 $5.85/SY

FC9.5$6.35 $6.75/SY

Line-Item forType ofAsphalt

Comparable Lake
County Pricing
after Conversion

Orange County
Renewal Pricing
Evaluated*1.5” Thickness$8.70 $8.78/SY$10.00 $12.40/SY

2.0

2.0” Thickness$11.60 $11.70/SY$12.25 $16.50/SY

1.25

1.25” Thickness$7.93 $8.44/SY$8.85 $16.50/SY

FIGURE 3-2B: Public Works’ Road & Drainage Division evaluates the reasonableness of line-item pricing offered bycontractors in Asphalt Milling and Resurfacing bids by comparing pricing jurisdictions paid for similar line-items.
Source: Public Works Road & Drainage Division.
* Lake County’s contract includes separate line items for mobilization cost, whereas Orange County’s contract
pricing line-items include mobilization, maintenance of traffic, and all incidentals.

Figure 3-2B shows that Lake County’s line-item prices for SP12.5 and FC9.5 asphalt are basedon square yards per one-inch (SY/1”), while Orange County’ line-item pricing for comparable
asphalt is based on square yards at either 1.5”, or 2.0” thick for SP12.5 asphalt and 1.25” forFC9.5 asphalt. After converting line items to comparable units of measure and allowing fordifferences in mobilization, maintenance of traffic, and incidental costs included in Orange
County’s pricing, R&D’s evaluation determined renewal prices offered by the four contractors
were within a reasonable range given comparable pricing in Lake County. R&D completed thesame evaluation exercise comparing pricing to the City of Orlando and FDOT Historical Average
Item Unit Reports.
The MJ Team reviewed R&D’s evaluation of pricing for the four Asphalt Milling and Resurfacing
contracts up for renewal and determined their conclusion to be reasonable based oncomparisons with local jurisdictions and FDOT reports.

SUBTASK 3.3 – Determine whether program administrators have made changes to service
delivery methods when their evaluations/assessments found that such changes would
reduce program cost without significantly affecting the quality of services.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 3.3 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed programadministrators and assessed the County’s decision to outsource subdivision sign fabrication
services to land developers, determining that the County’s decision to change its method ofdelivering sign fabrication services reduced costs through “cost avoidance” measures, while
maintaining and exceeding the quality of its sign fabrication services for new residential
developments.
PAGE | 83

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the positions referenced
in Subtask 3.1. The MJ Team reviewed the process the County used to ultimately decide tooutsource sign fabrication services previously performed in house to land developers.
The County’s Public Works employees historically completed the design and placement ofstreet signs and regulatory signs in new subdivisions. The County’s rationale for delivering
these services with in-house staff was to ensure uniform sign types in new subdivisions (i.e., allstreet signs look the same by having uniform name placement, County logo, abbreviations,color, reflectivity, etc.) using uniform materials and proper placement. The County had its own
sign shop with the ability to produce signs at a reasonable cost and had in-house sign installers
that understood the height and offset requirements for sign placement. The County would only
install the final signs upon completion of the subdivision infrastructure construction; anynecessary temporary signs were the responsibility of the developer or their contractor.
The County experienced a backlog of sign installation exceeding 600 units because of the
housing surge that occurred in Orange County in 2018, and County staff could not keep up withthe demand to fabricate signs for new developments. Accordingly, after evaluating its methodof service delivery related to sign fabrication and its growing backlog of sign installations, theCounty determined in 2018 that its in-house personnel could not sustain the design,
fabrication, and installation of street signs and took the following steps to change its service
delivery method for sign fabrication and installation in new subdivisions:

In 2018, the County required developers to install the signs fabricated by the County,
which allowed the County to control the design, sign types, and materials for street signs
on County roadways.



In 2019, the County required developers to complete the sign design in accordance with
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. County Traffic
Engineering staff would review the design to ensure it was compliant with MUTCD
standards. The County continued to fabricate the signs to control the sign types andmaterials.



In 2021, the County evaluated the sign fabrication processes for other counties and cities
and found no other jurisdiction fabricated street signs for new developments. As a resultof its evaluation, the County decided to outsource sign fabrication services to developers
and prepared specifications for street signs to include materials, size, color, reflectivity,
etc., and allowed the developers to fabricate and install the signs, effective June 1, 2021.

The MJ Team interviewed program administrators in the Traffic Engineering Division (Traffic
Engineering) and the Director of Public Works and confirmed the County did not conduct a“formal” evaluation process, complete with a cost analysis, when deciding to pursue alternate
methods of delivering its sign fabrication services to new residential developments. Rather, theleader of the County’s Sign Fabrication shop initiated the concept of having developers
fabricate signs for developments to reduce the County’s backlog of signs requiring installation.
PAGE | 84

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Additionally, the MJ Team found that Traffic Engineering issued an RFP in 2018 for sign
installation, including as one of its components establishing a fee schedule for developers tocover the County’s in-house materials costs for fabricating signs. The cost of aluminum used tofabricate the signs increased between 2018 and 2021, but the County did not adjust the fees it
charged developers to cover its in-house cost, resulting in the County subsidizing developers’
cost because it could not recover the rising cost of aluminum. Accordingly, the rising cost ofaluminum also factored into the decision to pursue alternate service delivery methods andrequire developers to assume responsibility for installation and the cost of materials.
The MJ Team reviewed evidence of meetings scheduled on May 5, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. with theleader of the Sign Fabrication Shop, Traffic Engineering Manager, and Public Works Director to
discuss the new procedure for signs in new subdivisions as a component of outsourcing
fabrication services to developers, requiring developers to provide their own signs based on
County specifications. We reviewed the talking points for the meeting which included thefollowing benefits to the County and developers:

Cost of signs may be less expensive for developersDevelopers can shop around for the best prices on materials

Reduction of costs of labor and materials in the County’s Sign Fabrication Shop

The Public Works Director and Traffic Engineering Manager approved the leader of the Sign
Fabrication Shop’s proposal to outsource sign fabrication and installation services, effective
June 1, 2021, as mentioned above. While the County did not undertake a formal evaluation
process, the County’s assessment and evaluation of its method of delivering sign fabrication
services to County residents in new developments, although conducted out of necessity by theleader of the Sign Fabrication Shop because of the large backlog of sign installations and limited
in-house resources, resulted in changing its service delivery method to an outsourcing service
delivery model allowing developers to procure the signs on their schedule and assume
responsibility for materials cost and installation with final inspection of the signs by the County.
Outsourcing the fabrication of signs to developers reduced the County’s labor and materials
costs without significantly affecting the quality of sign fabrication services.

SUBTASK 3.4 – Identify possible opportunities for alternative service delivery methods thathave the potential to reduce program costs without significantly affecting the quality ofservices, based on a review of similar programs in peer entities (e.g., other counties, etc.).
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 3.4 is partially met. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed programadministrators and assessed the County’s actions to review similar programs in local peer
jurisdictions that have alternate delivery methods that could reduce the County’s costs without
significantly affecting the quality of services. Public Works’ (PW) Engineering Division assumed

PAGE | 85

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

lead responsibility for exploring four (4) alternate contracting models to achieve theTransportation Initiative’s desire to decrease the time to complete transportation projects andreduce the overall costs. PW Engineering only explored one of the alternate contracting
models. The County has an opportunity to fully meet this subtask if PW Engineering accepts the
MJ Team’s recommendation to actively pursue identifying alternative service delivery methods
to reduce costs and speed the delivery of transportation projects by reviewing Design-Build,
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), Project Bundling, and Public Private
partnerships (PPP) to support projects included in the County’s Transportation Initiative.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the positions referenced
in Subtask 3.1. Additionally, the MJ Team reviewed alternative service delivery methods
considered by PW Engineering and evidence provided to support the County personnel’s review
of similar programs provided by peer jurisdictions.
Public Works (PW) worked with Orange County’s Transportation Initiative to implement
alternative contracting procurement methods with a stated goal to “shave years off oftransportation project schedules, thereby reducing costs, minimizing work-zone delays, andimproving traffic conditions faster.” To accomplish this goal, the PW’s stated objective “is tohelp engineers and contractors complete quality projects and meet owner expectations, as theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) is promoting accelerated project delivery methods tohelp reduce the time it takes to deliver highway projects to the public and reduce constructionrelated risks.”
Through its participation in the Transportation Initiative Program Delivery Workgroup, PW
Engineering identified four possible alternate service delivery methods. Then PW Engineering
selected peer jurisdictions to examine methods that have the potential to reduce costs without
significantly affecting the quality of service the County provides to construct transportation
infrastructure. These alternate procurement-related service delivery methods include thefollowing contracting methods aligned with its stated goal and related objective to reduce thetime it takes to deliver highway projects to the public:
1. Design Build Contracts. A project delivery system used to deliver a project in which
the design and construction services are contracted and performed by a single
contractor known as a design-build contractor. Design-build contracting continuously
outperforms traditional delivery methods when analyzing project cost, construction
speed, delivery speed, and schedule growth. In addition to time savings design-build
contractors estimate clients can save from 6% - 10% on projects when using a designbuild process instead of traditional construction.
[https://www.kconinc.com/design-build-construction-saves-time-money/]
2. Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC). A project delivery method thatallows an agency/owner to engage a construction manager during the design process

PAGE | 86

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

to provide constructability input. CM/GC is the most collaborative contract model andcan help boost transparency and efficiency for the agency/owner during a pivotal
phase of the project. General contractors can be brought on early as a consultant,providing guidance on the project schedule that will reduce costs in later phases ofthe project. Once the agency/owner and construction manager agree on a reasonable
cost, known as the Guaranteed Minimum Price, the construction manager becomesthe general contractor once the fieldwork begins.
[https://www.fieldwire.com/blog/benefits-of-the-cmgc-model/]3. Project Bundling. A comprehensive and accelerated delivery solution for addressing
strategic program goals. This method streamlines design, contracting, andconstruction; allows agencies/owners to capitalize on economies of scale to increase
efficiency; and supports greater collaboration during project delivery andconstruction. The benefits of project bundling include expedited project delivery,
reduced cost, and contracting efficiency.
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/project_bundling.cf
m]
4. Public/Private Partnerships (PPP). A legal contract between a government body anda private entity to provide an asset or service as a public benefit. In a PPP, a local
government engages with a private partner who hires, pays, and supervises thecontractor, as well as participates in designing, financing, operating, and maintaining
the project in the construction process. The private owner assumes the risk ofschedule and cost overruns and creates strong incentives for contractors to preventthese risks to deliver projects on-time and within budget. This collaboration between
local government and private entities can result in millions of dollars of cost savings.
[https://esub.com/blog/public-private-partnerships-in-construction-benefits-andfaults/]
PW Engineering assumed the responsibility for reviewing these alternate service delivery
methods with local peer jurisdictions and collaborated with Central Florida Expressway, OsceolaCounty, and Seminole County. Figure 3-4A presents the jurisdictions with whom PWEngineering collaborated, the alternate delivery method reviewed and discussed with the local
peer jurisdiction, and the supporting documentation reviewed by the MJ Team.

Jurisdiction

Alternative Service
Delivery Method Reviewed
with Local Peer Jurisdiction

Supporting Documentation
the MJ Team Reviewed

Central Florida
Expressway

General Engineering
Consultant (GEC) Services *Central Florida Expressway, General Engineering
Consultant Services RFP no. 00145, September
29, 2016.

Osceola County

Design-Build/Construction
Manager (CM) at Risk **E-mail communication between PW Engineering
Manager and Osceola County Civil Engineer,

PAGE | 87

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYTransportation and Transit between February 7,
2019, and February 12, 2019.
Seminole County

General Engineering
Consultant (GEC) Services *Email communication between PWEngineering Manager and Seminole County,
Assistant County Engineer, between June 21,2022, and June 22, 2022.

Email communication between PWEngineering Manager and Seminole County,
Assistant County Engineer, dated June 21,2022, referencing an attachment of a PDF of
Seminole County’s GEC agreement together
with an Integrated Team Program Structure.

FIGURE 3-4A: Public Works’ PW Engineering Division reviewed alternate procurement and construction
management methods of local peer jurisdictions to potentially reduce the County’s engineering and construction
costs and project delivery time.
Source: Public Works Engineering Division.
* PW Engineering only discussed and reviewed alternative service delivery methods for General Engineering
Consultant Services, rather than the four (4) alternative service delivery methods envisioned by the Transportation
Initiative’s Program Delivery Workgroup.
** PW Engineering discussed and reviewed alternative service delivery methods for Design-Build and Construction
Manager at Risk, which covered two (2) of the four (4) alternative service delivery methods envisioned by theTransportation Initiative’s Program Delivery Workgroup.

Based on the MJ Team’s review of supporting documentation verifying the County consistently
reviews similar programs in local peer entities that have the potential to reduce program costs
without significantly affecting the County’s quality of services, this subtask is partially met.
Although the PW Engineering Division inquired about Design-Build/Construction Manager at
Risk services with Osceola County, the inquiry was made over three and one-half years ago andit appears the PW Engineering Division is not actively pursuing the remaining alternate service
delivery methods included in its goals submitted to the Transportation Initiative’s Program
Delivery Workgroup. The MJ Team considers inquiries to Central Florida Expressway, although
six years old, and Seminole County related to General Engineering Consulting services to bealternate service delivery methods that could possibly reduce costs without significantly
affecting the quality of services. However, the County has an opportunity to significantly reduce
costs and speed schedule delivery if PW is more intentional about reviewing local peer
jurisdictions’ alternate service delivery methods related to Design-Build, Construction Manager/
General Contractor (CM/GC), Project Bundling, and Public Private Partnerships (PPP).
RECOMMENDATION 3.4 – Actively pursue identifying alternative service delivery methods
to reduce costs and speed the delivery of transportation projects by reviewing Design-Build,
Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC), Project Bundling, and Public Private
partnerships (PPP) to support projects included in the County’s Transportation Initiative.

PAGE | 88

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 4
FINDING SUMMARYGOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES USED BY THE
PROGRAM TO MONITOR AND REPORT PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 4.
The Public Works Department’s (PW) Division’s goals align with the PW Department’s goals
in five (5) Strategic Service Areas included in PW’s Strategic Plan aligned with the County’s
Strategic Plan. PW’s goals are clearly stated, measurable, and can be completed withinbudget. PW’s performance measures used to evaluate the performance of programs within
PW divisions are unique to each PW division, monitored quarterly and annually, and are
sufficient to assess progress toward meeting established targets (goals).The County’s
Administrative Regulations and Article III, Section 17-310 of Orange County’s Procurement
Ordinance contain policies and procedures that establish internal controls over the County’s
budgeting and procurement processes, providing reasonable assurance that program goals
and objectives will be met.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 4.1 – Review program goals and objectives to determine whether they are clearlystated, measurable, can be achieved within budget, and are consistent with the County’s
strategic plan.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 4.1 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed Public Works (PW)
goals for each of its seven (7) divisions that are aligned with Strategic Service Areas included in
the County’s Strategic Plan noting that the goals were clearly stated, measurable, and can beachieved within budget. PW’s Director established a process to ensure the linkage of each PW
division’s goals to the Strategic Service Areas by including each PW division’s goals in eachdivision manager’s Manager Annual Performance Review and periodically meeting with eachmanager throughout the year to monitor progress toward achieving their goals. PW also has
specific performance measures for each PW division and monitors budget vs. actual
performance quarterly, explaining variances more than 15% over or under budget to ensureeach PW division’s goals will be achieved within budget.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the following positions:Management & Budget Administrator
Manager, Transportation Planning

PAGE | 89

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYManager, Engineering/Public Works
Economic Development Administrator
Project Director and Policy Analyst



Deputy County Administrator

Additionally, we reviewed and assessed the following information to inform our analysis:
 Public Works Accomplishments and ObjectivesThe Orange County Budget Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Bi-weekly Projects Update
Performance Measures Spreadsheets for Development Engineering, Public WorksEngineering, Stormwater Management, Roads & Drainage, and Traffic Engineering

The MJ Team reviewed the goals of PW divisions to determine if they were clearly stated,measurable and can be achieved within budget. Team MJ reviewed the Strategic Plan anddetermined it identified five (5) Core Service Areas (Divisions), and developed key priorities andactions based on the five (5) Strategic Service Areas.
The County measures the objectives with performance measures specific to each of its seven(7) divisions (i.e., Highway Construction, Public Works Engineering, Development Engineering,
Roads & Drainage, Stormwater Management, Traffic Engineering, and Fiscal and Operational
Support). PW Links performance measures to each PW division’s goals and reports actual
results vs. target quarterly to Program Administrators and County Administration. Programadministrators monitor the performance measures and submit bi-weekly status reports to theCounty Administrator.
Figure 4-1A depicts an example of a bi-weekly Project Update Status Report. The bi-weekly
update is a status review of progress toward meeting quarterly and annual targets for
performance measures monitored for each project.

PAGE | 90

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 4-1A: Bi-weekly Project Status Updates are an effective tool to monitor the status of Public Works projects
in progress.
Source: Public Works Department.

Figure 4-1B presents performance measures for Public Works Development Engineering andPublic Works Engineering.
PAGE | 91

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Performance measures provide program administrators an indication of whether the division is
on track to meet the established annual goals. Each performance measure has an annual target
established at the beginning of the fiscal year and monitored quarterly. The performancemeasures also include percentage of CIP Budget Expended and Encumbered which allows theCounty to monitor projects expenditures to the Actual Annual Target.
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
Actual
FY 21-22 Q1

TargetFY 21-22 Q1

Annual Target
FY 21-22

YTD
FY 21-22

Number of Projects Reviewed

801

566

2,323

1,683

% of Projects Reviewed within
Specified Time Frame

90%

90%

90%

90%

Cost Per Plan Reviewed

$215

$323

$315

$205

PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
Actual
FY 21-22 Q2

TargetFY 21-22 Q2

Annual Target
FY 21-22

YTD
FY 21-22% of CIP Budget Expended andEncumbered

9%

30%

60%

17%

Number of Transportation CIP
Projects in Progress

195

190

190

193

Number of Transportation Projects
Bid

34

40

160

62

Figure 4-1B: Public Works uses performance measures to monitor the departments’ progress toward meetingtargeted goals.
Source: Orange County FY 2021-22 Budget Book.

Linkage of Goals to Public Works Strategic Plan
Orange County’s Public Works Strategic Plan (PW Strategic Plan) states: “The Strategic Plan
Framework reflects the strategies and goals of Orange County Government and the priorities of
the Board of County Commissioners. Several strategic focus areas were identified to guide
Public Works business strategy over the next three (3) to five (5) years. Our Strategic Plan willserve as a tool to align communication and decision making across the seven (7) divisions of theOrange County Public Works Department.” The PW Strategic Plan identifies five (5) StrategicService Areas to focus Public Works on its commitment to the Vision, Mission, and Values
included in the PW Strategic Plan to achieve the desired Orange County of tomorrow, and guide
PW in meeting its goals. These areas are:


Innovation & Technology

Employee Empowerment



Organization Structure
PAGE | 92

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYCustomer ServiceCommunication

Additionally, each division in Public Works has identified key priorities and actions that areeither on-going essential activities or stand-alone activities to be initiated and/or completed in
the fiscal year.
PW’s Director established a process to identify each division’s goals and each division
manager’s expectations and link those goals and key priorities and actions to the five (5)Strategic Service Areas. Each division’s goals are also included in the County’s AnnualComprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). The PW Director embeds each PW division’s goals in
the annual performance evaluations for each PW division manager, with shared expectations,in this process at the beginning of each fiscal year. Division goals included in the annual report,
as well as division manager expectations, must align with and link to the five (5) StrategicService Areas. For example, the R&D Division goals are linked to PW’s five (5) Strategic Service
Areas, included in the R&D Manager’s annual performance evaluation, and provide for:

Applying new technology by investigating and recommendation of a new AssetManagement System (Strategic Service Area: Innovation & Technology).

Addressing employee morale in the Contract Management Section (Strategic Service
Area: Employee Empowerment).



Identifying expansion of the organizational structure through the addition of a newmaintenance unit (Strategic Service Area: Organization Structure).

Continuing to improve customer service through enhancing performance measures(Strategic Service Area: Customer Service).

Proactively addressing turnover and vacancies through better communication with theCounty’s Human Resources Division (Strategic Service Area: Communication).

Figure 4-1C presents an excerpt from the Manager Annual Performance Review for the R&D
Manager dated September 15, 2021, signed by both the R&D Manager and PW Director, titled
Roads and Drainage Division Goals, Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Note goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6
designated by red borders align with PW’s five (5) Strategic Service Areas listed above.

PAGE | 93

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 4-1C: Public Works links each PW division’s goals to the five Strategic Service Areas in the PW Strategic Planand includes the goals in each division manager’s annual performance evaluation.
Source: Roads & Drainage Division Manager, Annual Performance Review, September 15, 2021.

PAGE | 94

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

To ensure PW division managers are making progress toward accomplishing goals linked to thefive (5) Strategic Focus Areas and included in their respective Manager Annual Performance
Review, the PW Director conducts on-going meetings throughout the year to discuss eachdivision manager’s progress or important issues.
Based on reviewing PW’s goal-setting process, strategic plan, and related linkages, including
accountability measures established through Manager Annual Performance Reviews, the MJ
Team determined that each PW division’s goals were consistent and linked to the five (5)Strategic Service Areas.

SUBTASK 4.2 – Assess the measures, if any, the County uses to evaluate program
performance and determine if they are sufficient to assess program progress towardmeeting its stated goals and objectives.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 4.2 is met overall. Public Works (PW) program administrators tailor specific Key
Performance Measures (KPMs) to evaluate performance of programs for divisions within thedepartment, regularly monitoring the division’s progress toward meeting established quarterly
and annual goals. PW program administrators developed KPMs to allow the Public WorksEngineering Division to evaluate the timeliness of completing the design, engineering, andpermitting of projects in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based on complexity and priority,
giving them the ability to monitor and evaluate actual progress toward meeting timeliness ofcompletion targets by project. PW program administrators actively monitor the LYNX’s progress
to meet its targets for specific performance measures related to its modes of transportation
because of the collaborative relationship between PW and Transportation Planning. The MJ
Team determined the County uses performance measures to evaluate program performanceand project status, and these measures are sufficient. The County also monitors performancemeasures of LYNX to assess program performance and cost.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the positions referenced
in Subtask 4.1. Based on our interviews, we selected the Public Works Engineering Division and
LYNX as baselines for assessing performance measures the County uses to evaluate theperformance of its programs. We included performance reporting for LYNX in our analysis
because of Public Works Department’s (PW) collaboration with the Transportation Planning
Division within the Planning, Environmental & Development Services Department.
Additionally, the MJ Team reviewed the LYNX Performance Measures- FY 2022 2nd Quarter
Report, Key Performance Measures Matrix for Design/Engineering & Permitting Timelines, LYNX
FY 2021 Monthly Modal Performance Data Sheet – January 2022, to inform our analysis.

PAGE | 95

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPW program administrators define performance measures for each division within thedepartment and establish goals (i.e., targets) for each performance measure at the beginning ofeach fiscal year. Program administrators monitor actual project performance and costs against
targets for each measure quarterly and annually, reporting the results to County
Administrators. County and PW program administrators require PW divisions to provide written
variance analysis if actual performance versus target for any performance measure is over orunder target by 15% or more. The MJ Team reviewed the Fiscal Year 2022 Q2 Performance
Measures included in the Orange County Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Book to verify
performance measures established for Public Works departments. Based on our review, theperformance measures for each PW division are sufficient for Program administrators toeffectively monitor and assess quarterly and annual progress toward meeting each PW
division’s targets.
Public Works Engineering Division Key Performance Measures (KPM) & Goals
Public Works Engineering provides an example of performance metrics specifically designed tofacilitate evaluating the division’s progress toward meeting its quarterly and annual targets. PW
program administrators require Public Works Engineering to report the percentage of CIP
budget encumbered and expended, number of projects in progress, and the number of projects
bid each quarter and annually, compared to targets.
PW program administrators also developed additional Key Performance Measures (KPM) toallow the Public Works Engineering Division to evaluate the timeliness of completing thedesign, engineering, and permitting of projects in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based oncomplexity and priority. For example, Design Engineering, a function within the Public WorksEngineering Division, must assign a level of complexity (Low, Medium, High) to each project in
the CIP. PW program administrators document the Design Engineering KPMs, and the Public
Works-Engineering Division establishes the criteria used to determine whether a project is ofLow, Medium, or High Complexity. Design Engineering uses a KPM Matrix for Engineering
Design projects based on the complexity and priority of each project. This “Design Engineering
Matrix” defines project priority criteria and levels of complexity, using both to develop KPMs toestablish targets for the length of time it should take to complete design projects. Figure 4-2A
presents an actual Design Engineering KPM Matrix PW uses to establish target projectcompletion timelines based on priority and complexity of the project.

PAGE | 96

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE: 4-2A: KPM Matrix uses priority and complexity of design projects to determine project completion timeline.
Source: Orange County Public Works Department.

Lynx Performance Measures -Fiscal Year 2022 2nd Quarter Report
LYNX is not formally assessed in this performance audit but will benefit from the surtax throughits collaboration with Public Works. Public Works provided LYNX Performance Measures for
Fiscal Year 2022, 2nd Quarter Report to the MJ Team as an example of performance measuresthe department monitors quarterly. The MJ Team reviewed the LYNX FY 2022, 2nd Quarter
Report and evaluated a sample of the performance measures reported by LYNX.
LYNX submits a Quarterly Route Summary Report by county that includes performancestatistics used to develop performance measures in the Orange County service area. LYNX
statistics in this report include number of bus stops and shelters by route, headway reported inbase, peak, and non-peak service, and a summary of revenue hours. Figure 4-2B presents asample of LYNX routes, frequencies, and total revenue hours analyzed by County.

FIGURE: 4-2B: LYNX Routes, Frequencies, and Total Hours by County, Fiscal Year 2022 Quarter Report.
Source: LYNX FY 2022 2nd Quarter Service Planning Report for all Fixed Routes (January, February, March 2022).

LYNX submitted the Farebox Performance Report-Performance Measures for the 2nd Quarterfor bus ridership for each route by month. LYNX provided the data in this report from Farebox
reports compiled from farebox ridership and revenue data compared to service metrics.
Performance measures in this report include:
PAGE | 97

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPassengers by Revenue Mile

Passengers by Revenue Hour

Farebox Recovery

Subsidy by Passenger

Passengers by Trip

LYNX reports rankings by route for each performance measure. Figure 4-2C presents an excerptof the Farebox Performance Report for March 2022 for the top 10 routes ranked by the numberof passengers by revenue mile, revenue hour, farebox recovery, subsidy by passenger, andpassenger by trip.

FIGURE: 4-2C: LYNX GFI Performance Report, Performance Measure, January 2022.
Source: Orange County Public Works Department.

LYNX submitted a Fiscal Year 2021 Monthly Modal Performance Data Sheet, which reportsmonthly performance statistics for each mode of service provided by LYNX including LYMMO (afree Bus Rapid Transit “rail like” service using rubber-tired vehicles), Fixed Route,
NeighborLink, and Access LYNX. Performance measures provided for each mode include:

RidershipOn-Time PerformanceCollected Fares

National Transition Database (NTD) reportable accidentsComplaints per 100,000 Miles

Fleet AvailabilityPreventable Maintenance Inspections Completed On-Time

Figure 4-2D presents performance measures LYNX and Public Works use to monitor the
performance of NeighborLink and Access LYNX for January 2022.

PAGE | 98

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE: 4-2D: Public Works monitors the performance of LYNX service modes monthly with measurable metrics toconsistently evaluate LYNX’s performance.
Source: Orange LYNX Monthly Performance Measures Report for NeighborLink and ACCESS LYNX, January 2022.

Based on Team MJ’s review of performance measures for Public Works Engineering and LYNX,
PW program administrators use an array of performance measures sufficient to assess theperformance of PW programs’ progress toward meeting quarterly and annual goals andobjectives.

SUBTASK 4.3 – Evaluate internal controls, including policies and procedures, to determine
whether they provide reasonable assurance that program goals and objectives will be met.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 4.3 is met overall. To reach this conclusion the MJ Team assessed internal controls
established in the County’s Administrative Regulations and Article III, Section 17-310 of Orange
County’s Procurement Ordinance. We verified that the County complied with its Change Order
Request/Approval policies and related controls by examining the entire process for a highway
construction Change Order Request exceeding $500,000 and determined the County followed

PAGE | 99

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

its procedures and adhered to internal controls established to ensure compliance with its
Procurement Ordinance. Accordingly, our analysis determined policies and procedures in theCounty’s Administrative Regulations and Procurement Ordinance establish internal controlsthat provide reasonable assurance that the cost and performance objectives of PW’s programs
will be met.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirement of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the positions referenced
in Subtask 4.1. The County has policies and procedures establishing internal controls for its
budget process and procurement process that are directly related to providing reasonableassurance that program goals and objectives will be met. Our analysis included a detailed
review of the County’s Administrative Regulations containing policies and procedures
establishing internal controls for the Capital Improvement Plan Budget and Operating Budget
processes, as well as a review of the County Procurement Ordinance containing policies
establishing internal controls for change order requests.
Budget Process – Internal Controls
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a Budget Process Document thatoutlines the method by which staff will develop and submit departmental budget requests andthe process for budget approval, including internal controls governing budget amendments andtransfers. The Orange County Administrative Regulations approved by the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) is the foundational policy reference establishing internal controls
governing for the County’s Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budget,with detailed procedures outlined in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Reference
Manual. Figure 4-3A presents a summary of internal controls related to the CIP and Operating
Budget processes enumerated in Administrative Regulation No. 6.02.02 and 6.02.03.
Administrative
Regulation
Reference

Budget Process
Control Area

Description of Policy and Procedures Governing Internal Control

No. 6.02.02

CIP Budget
Adoption

BCC must adopt CIP annually and corporate into the Orange County
Budget.

No. 6.02.02

CIP Budget
Amendments

OMB handles Amendments to CIP Budget with forms requiring
specific approvals from Department Directors, Deputy County
Administrators, and County Administrator, with final approval by
BCC.t

No 6.02.02

Quarterly CIP
Reports

OMB prepares Quarterly CIP Reports and submits to BCC, County
Administrator, and participating divisions and departments to monitor
actual vs. budgeted expenditures.

No. 6.02.03

BudgetAmendments

Fund revenue and expenditure amounts may be increased or
decreased by formal action of the BCC following proper notice and

PAGE | 100

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Administrative
Regulation
Reference

Budget Process
Control Area

Description of Policy and Procedures Governing Internal Control

hearing as specified in Chapter 129.03(a) of the Florida Statutes andany applicable federal laws. Fund revenue and expenditure amounts
may be increased by the BCC without public notification in the eventof unanticipated revenue from an unanticipated source, or in theEnterprise Fund.
No. 6.02.03

Budget Transfers

OMB has initial approval authority for interdepartmental budget
transfers and must maintain an ongoing list of OMB-approved
transfers. The BCC must review and formally approve
interdepartmental budget transfers prior to OMB executing thebudget transfer. OMB maintains forms department must complete toinitiate budget transfer requests which include routing and approvalrequirements.

FIGURE: 4-3A: Orange County Administrative Regulations include policies and procedures establishing internal
controls for the County’s CIP and Operating Budget processes.
Source: Orange County Administrative Regulations.

The MJ Team’s review of the Orange County Administrative Regulations determined that theCounty’s policies and procedures establish internal controls that provide reasonable assurance
that the cost and performance objectives of PW’s programs will be met.
Procurement Process – Internal Controls for Change Orders
Article III, Section 17-310 of Orange County’s Procurement Ordinance is the policy document
for the County’s competitive sealed bid process. Section 17-310(i), Amendments/Changes AfterAward, outlines policies governing the County’s change order process. The section reads in
part: “The chief of purchasing and contracts may authorize changes/amendments forconstruction, and goods and/or services within the overall scope of the project or procurement
up to a cumulative amount of five (5) percent or fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), whicheveris higher. If the amendment/change order exceeds the maximum amounts herein, the amountof the amendment/change order must be approved by the board of county commissioners…”
The County established its change order process with internal controls designed to provide
reasonable assurance PW and Procurement complied with the provisions in its Procurement
Ordinance. Accordingly, the Public Works Highway Construction Division established Standard
Operating Guidelines including the following procedures/internal controls related toauthorizing and approving change orders for construction contracts over 5% of the contract or$50,000, whichever is higher:Highway Construction Project Manager reviews scope of work in contract to determinethat requested change order is for work that is in scope.

Project Manager discussed change order request with vendor and vendor submits changeorder proposal with supporting documentation.

PAGE | 101

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYProject Manager prepares Orange County Highway Construction Change Order Request
Form, including supporting documentation, with vendor approval signature and PW
Highway Construction Division Manager’s signature indicating approval.

Highway Construction completes Orange County Procurement Division Change Order
Request Form with amount of change order requested and authorized signature ofvendor/contractor and submits to Public Works Director.



Public Works Director prepares Change Order Memorandum to the BCC with all
supporting documentation to include in BCC meeting agenda for approval.



BCC approves Change Order Request in Commission meeting.

Procurement prepares purchase order for Change Order/Amendment and submits to
Public Works Fiscal and Operations Support Division.

The MJ Team reviewed a complete Change Order Packet for Change Order Request No. 4-OCPS
from J.R. Davis Construction Co. related to the Connector Roadway Construction CO 4 highway
project $541,980.36 and noted the following:

The Orange County Highway Construction Change Order Request Form included the net
amount of the change order requested noting the $541,980.35 net increase was 5.5% of
the total dollars of the previous contract, exceeding the 5% threshold required by theCounty’s Procurement Ordinance. The form included the appropriate signatures of thevendor’s representative and PW’s Highway Construction Division Manager.



The Orange County Procurement Division Change Order Request Form included the net
dollar amount of the request and accompanying vendor’s authorizing signature.



The Change Order Memorandum from the PW Director to the BCC outlined the request
for ratification of the Change Order Request and was signed by the PW Director and theHighway Construction Division Manager, indicating their approval.

The Final Minutes of the BCC meeting held on Tuesday, May 5, 2020, showed the BCC
ratified item 20-671 in the Consent Agenda related to the Ratification of Change Order
request No. 4-OCPS, Contract Y19-751-CH, Connector Road (Hilton Driveway to Apopka
Vineland Road), with J.R. Davis Construction Co. in the amount of $541,980.41, for arevised total contract amount of $10,299.932.62. District 1. (Highway Construction
Division)

PO Number C19751-5 included the appropriate amount of the Change Order Request andauthorizing signature.

The MJ Team’s review of the Change Order Packet for highway construction to validate theCounty’s internal controls to ensure compliance with Article III, Section 17-310 of Orange
County’s Procurement Ordinance determined that the County’s policies and procedures
establish internal controls that provide reasonable assurance that the cost and performance
objectives of PW’s programs will be met.

PAGE | 102

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 5
FINDING SUMMARY
THE ACCURACY OR ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, REPORTS, AND
REQUESTS PREPARED BY THE COUNTY WHICH RELATE TO THE PROGRAM.

Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 5.
The County has developed financial and non-financial information systems that provide
useful, timely, and accurate data to the public. Internal and external data is used to evaluate
the accuracy and adequacy of public documents. The County makes program budget, cost,and program performance data available on its website and provided evidence thatprocesses are in place to ensure accuracy and completeness of financial data. The County
has processes in place to correct erroneous and incomplete information in a timely manner.
More detailed and current information should be provided for current transportation
projects, including more frequent updates to the Transportation Projects webpages and theinclusion of cost vs. budget performance information. For the Transportation Initiative, theCounty has established an oversight process with the creation of the Transportation &Transit Initiative Citizens Oversight Board.
The mechanisms for accomplishing this information flow are still being developed, but therequirement for transparency is inherent in its duties.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 5.1 – Assess whether the program has financial and non-financial information
systems that provide useful, timely, and accurate information to the public.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 5.1 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed the availability andaccessibility of useful, timely, and accurate program-related financial and non-financial
information systems that the County provides to the public for existing and the future
programs.
ANALYSISThe Orange County Office of Communications is primarily responsible for ensuring that public
information is up-to-date, readily available, and easy to locate. According to interviews, theCommunications Office works in concert with the County leadership and other support staff tocommunicate, in a unified and consistent manner, the vision of the County Commission and theactivities of County government.

PAGE | 103

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Existing Programs
Besides in-person meetings, hearings, and outreach efforts, the principal method ofcommunicating information to the general public is through the County website(http://orangecountyfl.net). On the homepage is a link to the “Open Government” webpage;
additional links to Open Government are provided through the “Residents” and “Businesses”
tabs at the top of the homepage. The Open Government webpage provides links to 24 subject
areas ranging from budget information; profiles of elected officials and boards/commissions;public services; public records; and invitations to “get involved.” Figure 5-1A presents ascreenshot of the County’s Open Government webpage.

FIGURE: 5-1A: The Open Government webpage is an effective tool for the County to communicate information to
the general public.
Source: Orange County Website, http://orangecountyfl.net.

PAGE | 104

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Figure 5-1B provides examples of financial and non-financial information available to the publicthrough this portal.
Sample Documents Available to the Public on the Website
Financial Information

Description/Purpose

FY 2023 Proposed
BudgetThe FY23 Proposed Budget is sectionally organized: 1. Budget in Brief, 2. Revenues &Expenditures Summary, 3. Constitutional Officers, 4. Administrative Services, 5.
Community & Family Services, 6. Convention Center, 7. Corrections, 8. Fire Rescue, 9.
Health Services, 10. Planning, Environmental & Development Services, 12. Public Works,
13. Utilities, 14. Administration & Fiscal Services, 15. Other Offices, 16. Other
Appropriations, 17. Capital Improvements Program (CIP), and 18. Index.
Information is provided on the CIP Approved Budget FY 21-22; Proposed Budget FY 22-23,
and Annual Proposed Budgets for the next four years and for future years. Departmental
budgets are provided for FY 2020-21 Actual, FY 2021-22 Budget as of 03/31/2022, and FY
2022-23 Proposed Budget.

FY 2021-22 Annual
Budget (Adopted)

The FY 22 Annual Budget is sectionally organized in the same way as the FY 23 Proposed
Budget. Information is provided on the CIP Approved Budget FY 20-21; Adopted Budget
FY 21-22, and Annual Proposed Budgets for the next four years and for future years.
Departmental performance measures are provided for FY 2019-20 Actual, FY 2020-21
Target, and FY 2021-22 Target.

Non-Financial
Information

Description/Purpose

Public Records
RequestWebpage through the Open Government portal that allows citizens to file public records
requests for Orange County, county municipalities, and other governmental groups(courts, public schools, aviation authority, and others).

Meetings, Minutes,
and More

Webpage through the Open Government portal that provides links to agendas, calendars,
minutes, and videos of public meetings. A search function is provided allowing for the useof key words to search minutes and associated items.

Traffic &Transportation

Traffic and transportation related items, regardless of department, are grouped into theTraffic and Transportation webpage available through the Residents or Businesses tabs.
Links are provided to get information on projects, reporting problems, and requesting
permits.

Social Media

OrangeCountyhasawebpagedevotedtosocialmedia
sites,
https://newsroom.ocfl.net/social-media/. The County has a presence on Facebook,
Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, NextDoor, and Flickr.

Project Trak

OrangeCountyhasestablishedthe“ProjectTrak”
website,https://ocfl.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=67ac2772ca304d3f92f
ae29cd68b8006 that presents roadway projects in an ArcGIS format, a common
Geographical Information System (GIS) program. This website presents a map of the
projects throughout the County in a manner that allows a user to click on a project andsee information on the current phase of a project, the percent complete of that phase andthe overall project percent complete. The overall project start date and estimatedcompletion date is also provided.

FIGURE 5-1B: Current Financial and Non-Financial information that can be found on the Orange County’s website.
Source: Compiled by the MJ Team from an analysis of the County’s website.

PAGE | 105

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Figure 5-1C and Figure 5-1D depict screenshots of the County’s public-facing webpages
providing links to meetings, minutes, and videos, and traffic and transportation issues.

FIGURE 5-1C: Orange County’s public facing webpage provides links to meeting schedules, minutes, and videos toeffectively communicate with the public.
Source: Orange County website.

FIGURE 5-1D: Orange County’s public facing webpage provides links to Traffic and Transportation to effectively
communicate information regarding intersections, roadways, and pedestrian safety to the public.
Source: Orange County website.
PAGE | 106

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYTransportation Initiative
Orange County has established a webpage devoted to the Transportation Initiative. A link tothis page is provided on the homepage of the County’s website. While no existing information isprovided since the initiative has not been voted on, links are provided that give acomprehensive overview of what the plan includes and the types of information that will be
provided.
The Webpages provide information on:Transportation Initiative ReportOpen Houses
Board of County Commissioners Work SessionsCommunity Feedback
Fast Facts
FAQs

In the News

Upon a successful referendum, the County will update this information as the initiative moves
through its implementation phases. This webpage is planned to be active throughout the 20year lifespan of the tax levy. Figure 5-1E presents a screenshot of the Transportation Initiative
webpage.

PAGE | 107

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 5-1E: Orange County’s Transportation Initiative webpage provides up-to-date information about the
progress of the initiative to the public.
Source: Orange County website.

The MJ Team found that the County’s website, social media platforms, and print/electronic
media sources provide effective communications to Orange County residents that fosters an
informed and engaged citizenry. Using these tools, the County has the capacity to communicate
useful, timely, and accurate information regarding existing projects and future surtax projects
under consideration.

PAGE | 108

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 5.2 – Review available documents, including relevant internal and external reports,that evaluate the accuracy or adequacy of public documents, reports, and requests preparedby the County related to the program.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Overall, subtask 5.2 is partially met. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed relevantinternal and external reports that evaluate the accuracy or adequacy of public documents.
ANALYSISThe Orange County Office of Communications is primarily responsible for disseminating public
information that is up-to-date, readily available, and easy to locate. According to interviews, theCommunications Office works in concert with County leadership and other support staff tocommunicate, in a unified and consistent manner, the vision of the County Commission and theactivities of County government. Each department/division is responsible for ensuring theaccuracy and timeliness of the information provided. The review of the Transportation Project
individual webpages found that some information is out of date or incomplete. A
recommendation is made to improve the coordination with Project Coordinators and the Officeof Communications.
Existing Programs
The previous subtask lists the key webpages related to existing transportation projects. Keyamong them is the “Transportation Projects” and “Intersection Projects Updates” webpages
under the Traffic & Transportation webpage. The Transportation Projects webpage lists theactive transportation projects by phase. There are 15 projects listed under the Study Phase, 19
projects under the Design Phase, two projects under the Right-of-Way Acquisition phase, eight(8) projects under the Construction Phase, two projects under Small Area Studies, seven (7)projects under Other Projects, and one (1) project under Concurrency. Additionally, under the“Links” section on the left-hand side, is a link to the ProjectTrak GIS mapping. Figure 5-2A
presents a screenshot of the Transportation Projects webpage.

PAGE | 109

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 5-2A: Orange County lists its transportation projects in a public facing webpage to effectively communicate
relevant information to the public.
Source: Orange County website.

The level of information provided varies with the individual projects, but typically includes (1)project description; (2) project purpose; (3) project status; and (4) contact person. For projects
that are earlier in the process, more information is provided on the public outreach page,
including links to studies, and information on upcoming meetings. The contact person listed foreach project has responsibility for providing up-to-date and accurate information to the Officeof Communications for inclusion in the project webpages.
The MJ Team conducted a review of the first project listed under each phase to determine if the
project information was up to date and matched with the information provided on the Project
Trak GIS map. The project information for each phase indicates some information is out of date:

PAGE | 110

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSTUDY PHASE – Chuluota Road. Status is “The study is anticipated to begin in Spring 2021
and is expected to be complete within 2022.” Staff indicated that the study was started
on 8/16/21 and is anticipated to be complete in Spring 2023.



DESIGN PHASE – Avalon Road North. Status is “Final Design will begin in fall of 2020.”
Staff indicated the design is still in progress.



RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION – All American Boulevard. Status is “The design wascompleted in March 2011 but was not funded for right-of-way acquisition or construction.
The construction plans currently are being updated to meet current design standards andright-of-way acquisition is ongoing.” The project timeline indicates “Construction Begins
Summer 2024, Construction Ends Summer 2026.” According to staff, the dates are stillcorrect as of this time.



CONSTRUCTION PHASE – Avalon Road. While the project link is under “Construction
Phase”, the page title has Avalon Road in Preliminary Design Study. No status is provided.
No contact person is provided either, just “Highway Construction Division.” Staff indicatedthat this is a developer project, with minimal involvement by Orange County staff. No
further information was available.



SMALL AREA STUDIES – NW Apopka Small Area Study. The project link takes you directly
to the “Northwest Orange County Traffic Safety Audit,” prepared in 2010. Staff was notfamiliar with this particular study, but did indicate that additional studies have been done:
the SW Orange County Transportation Needs Study, the Southeast Orange County
Transportation Needs Study, the East Orange County Transportation Needs Study andmost recently the Northeast Orange County Areawide Transportation Study. None ofthese additional studies could be located on the Orange County website.



OTHER PROJECTS – Apopka Boulevard. No status is provided. No contact person isprovided. No documents are provided. Staff indicated that this study was completed in
2002. The traffic generation for this project was low and it was decided not to proceedwith design, ROW and construction.



CONCURRENCY DATA – this is quite current, with the data from August 2, 2022. However,
it is a data source, not a “project.” Concurrency is a technical transportation process tied
to development submittals.

From this sample, the MJ Team found that the Transportation Projects webpage is not regularly
reviewed to ensure up-to-date and accurate information is being provided on the listed
projects.
Separate information is provided on the Project Trak GIS map, as noted in Subtask 5.1. Figures
5-2B & 5-2C show the information available on Project Trak by clicking on the project ofinterest. Figure 5-2B shows the top of the pop-up window, and Figure 5-2C shows theinformation visible when scrolling down.

PAGE | 111

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 5-2B: Initial pop-up window on the Project Trak webpage.
Source: Orange County.

FIGURE 5-2C: Phase Completion and Overall Completion information from scrolling down in pop-up window.
Source: Orange County.

According to Orange County staff, updates are made on a bi-annual basis at a minimum to theTransportation Projects webpages. The steps to follow for updating the project webpages are:1.

Project Coordinator reviews project list for new projects that need to be added orcompleted projects to be removed. Necessary changes are emailed to Transportation
Planning for uploading to the website.

PAGE | 112

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

2.

Project Coordinator reviews individual projects for updates regarding project status,
updated community meetings or communications, updated project maps andtimelines. Necessary changes are emailed to Transportation Planning for uploading to
the website.

3.

New projects are added using the project templatea.
Template is emailed to Transportation Planning for uploading to the website.
b.
Project Coordinator confirms that project has been submitted for Project Trakreview and approval.

Project Trak is updated more frequently monthly.
The sample the MJ Team reviewed indicates that there is room for improvement in monitoring
and updating the Transportation Projects webpage. Of the seven (7) projects reviewed, three(3) projects are assigned to the proper phase of work, but one project has an outdated
completion date; one project is the responsibility of another governmental agency and has no
current information; one study is 12 years old and four similar studies are not listed; one
project is no longer being pursued; and one category is data only with no project.
RECOMMENDATION 5.2 – The Orange County Office of Communications is ultimately
responsible for public facing information. It should regularly review the Transportation
Projects webpages and verify that the information is correct and up-to-date rather thanrelying on the Project Coordinators to initiate any changes. An indication should be provided
on each webpage stating “This page was last updated on [date]” to facilitate tracking.
Transportation Initiative
Orange County officials have indicated that the Office of Communications will be responsible
for the public dissemination of information related to the Transportation Initiative. As noted in
Subtask 5.1, the County has established a webpage devoted to the Transportation Initiative.
This webpage is separate from the Transportation Projects webpage.
Given that the Transportation Initiative has not yet been passed, the webpage information has
not yet moved into an active phase. Orange County officials have indicated that the same staff
that manages the Transportation Projects webpage will also be responsible for posting
information related to the Transportation Initiative. The BCC Resolution 2022-M-20, detailed in
Subtask 5.3 following, lists the type of information that should be made available to the publicregarding the projects included in the funding. Since these projects have not yet moved into theactive phase, they cannot be assessed beyond the information provided in Subtask 5.1 and 5.3.

PAGE | 113

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 5.3 – Determine whether the public has access to program performance and cost
information that is readily available and easy to locate.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 5.3 is partially met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed availabilityof program performance and cost information.
ANALYSIS
The MJ Team found that the County has an extensive performance management program thatprovides information on its integrated strategic planning, evaluation, management, andreporting system which promotes an accountable, transparent, and responsive organization byaligning performance efforts with budgeting activities. Cost information is only updated
annually in the CIP, and performance measurement of actual cost vs. budget should be added
to the Transportation Projects individual webpages.
Existing Programs
The County’s FY 22 Adopted Budget provides program performance metrics for all
departments. An overview of the County’s performance management system is outlined in theannual budget document and guides the development of meaningful measures to gauge
program success.
Figure 5-3A provides an example of program performance metrics for Public Works. These
measures provide the tools and data necessary to help staff focus on delivering desired
outcomes. Additionally, the performance management system increases organizational
coordination by providing department managers with data on established measures that allow
for necessary management decisions to achieve desired results more effectively and efficiently.
This program performance is available to the public as part of the annual budget posted on theOpen Government portal.

PAGE | 114

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 5-3A: Example program performance metrics summary for the Public Works Department.
Source: Orange County’s FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget.

The Project Trak GIS website provides individual projects performance information for thecurrent phase of a project, the percent complete of that phase and the overall project percent
complete. The overall project start date and estimated completion date is also provided whenavailable.
Cost information is not provided on the Transportation Projects webpages. The only cost
information is provided through the annual CIP process and is reported as part of the annual
budget. No current or historical information is provided for individual projects on whether the
project is on-budget.

PAGE | 115

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYTransportation Initiative
BCC Resolution 2022-M-20, which established the requirements for the use of the proposed
Transportation Initiative surtax, created the Transportation & Transit Initiative Citizens
Oversight Board. Figure 5-3B depicts an image of Section 4 (A), which sets forth the duties ofthis Oversight Board:

Section 4. Transportation & Transit Initiative Citizens Oversight Board.
(A) Establishment & Duties. The Board hereby establishes a Transportation & Transit
Initiative Citizens Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”) which shall:i. Ensure accountability and transparency in the expenditure of Transportation Surtax
proceeds;
ii. Ensure that the participating jurisdictions and agencies spend the Transportation Surtax
proceeds appropriately, timely, and in full compliance with all applicable laws;iii. Request and review audits of the Transportation Surtax; andiv. Oversee the preparation of a nontechnical report or consolidated schedule of projects
identifying the following information for each active project or purpose funded by theTransportation Surtax, which shall be updated and posted prominently on the County’s
website at least annually:a. Original estimated cost;b. Current estimated cost if different from original estimated cost;c. Amounts expended in prior fiscal years;
d. Amounts expended in current fiscal year;
e. Any excess proceeds which have not been expended for project or purpose;
f. Estimated completion date, and the actual completion cost of project completed during the
fiscal year; andg. A statement of what corrective action the responsible
jurisdiction or authority has planned with respect to each project which is underfunded or
behind schedule.
v. Hold public meetings prior to January 2024, as needed, to elect the Chair and Vice Chair
and to accomplish any additional tasks as set forth in this Section.
vi. Review past and future projects.

FIGURE 5-3B: The Citizens Oversight Board enhances transparency and accountability for use of surtax funds.
Source: Orange County Board of County Commissioners Resolution 2022-M-20.

PAGE | 116

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe Oversight Board will be responsible for ensuring performance is tracked, by individual
project, and reported to the public.
The mechanism to report the necessary data to the Oversight Board is still being determined.
According to County administrators, the current preferred approach is to hire a General
Engineering Consultant (GEC) to manage the program. The GEC would have the responsibility to
track the performance information and report results to the Oversight Board. The Board is
responsible for ensuring that up-to-date information is posted on the County’s website at least
annually.
The County has an extensive performance management program that is updated annually as
part of the budgeting process. However, this information is not readily available for individual
projects and the cost information is not updated during the year. The planned detailed duties of
the new Transportation & Transit Initiative Citizens Oversight Board are structured to provide
more information to general public to track program performance and cost.
RECOMMENDATION 5.3 – The Transportation Projects webpages should include
information on the project budget. Additionally, the Transportation Projects webpages
should include the same status information on phase and overall project completion that isshown on the Project Trak mapping system, and Project Trak should include budget
information as one of the status items.

SUBTASK 5.4 – Review processes the program has in place to ensure the accuracy andcompleteness of any program performance and cost information provided to the public.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 5.4 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed processes theCounty has in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of any program performance andcost information provided to the public.
ANALYSIS
Existing Programs
The Adopted Budget in the Orange County Budget Book sets the Capital Improvement Program(CIP) budget for each year. The document outlines the following process that is followed todevelop an accurate and complete picture of the CIP needs:

Departmental staff finalizes and discusses capital project needs to determine
potential capital improvement projects for the upcoming budget process and the next
five (5) years.

PAGE | 117

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYDepartmental staff reviews the CIP as of the current fiscal year and updates original
project submissions. Departmental staff also discusses and prepares new CIP
submittals, which should include detailed project explanations.



Departmental staff reviews the ongoing programs of the department and forecasts
the capital needs for the coming five (5)years, the first year of which coincides withthe adopted operating budget year.

All capital projects should be reviewed and prioritized with the Department Director
prior to submitting to OMB.



Departments submit CIP submittals to OMB.

OMB receives all CIP submittals and compiles and submits them to the County
Administrator for evaluation and discussion with senior staff.

Senior staff reviews the projects to determine those that will be included in thebudget presentation to the County Mayor.

The County Mayor approves projects to be included in the budget package for the
Board work sessions in July.

Figure 5-4A summarizes the County’s CIP budget process.

FIGURE 5-4A: The Capital Improvement Budget Process is essential to providing accurate project cost information
to the public.
Source: Orange County FY 2021-22 Budget Book.

PAGE | 118

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThis multi-step review process ensures that accurate and complete CIP budgets are preparedannually. Updates during the year go through the Project Trak system noted in Subtask 5.1. Thissystem updates the project information in GIS and includes updates to the project attributes
including the current status relative to project completion and budget expenditure. As noted in
Subtask 5.2, each department/division is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and timelinessof the information provided. The Project Trak GIS map is updated monthly by the division
responsible for the project. This update is entered on the background spreadsheet that is linked
to the map’s associated data.
Transportation Initiative
As noted in Subtask 5.3, County administrators are discussing how best to implement andmonitor projects associated with the Transportation Initiative. According to County
administrators, the current preferred approach is to hire a General Engineering Consultant(GEC) to manage the program. The GEC would have the responsibility to track the accuracy andcompleteness of program information and report this to the Oversight Board.
Based on the management practice noted above, the MJ Team concludes that the County has
adequate internal processes in place to ensure performance and cost information are bothaccurate and complete.

SUBTASK 5.5 – Determine whether the program has procedures in place that ensure thatreasonable and timely actions are taken to correct any erroneous and/or incomplete
program information included in public documents, reports, and other materials preparedby the County and that these procedures provide for adequate public notice of suchcorrections.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 5.5 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team assessed if formal procedures
are in place to ensure that reasonable and timely actions are taken to correct erroneous and/or
incomplete program information included in public documents. We also assessed whether
corrections are made timely in instances where errors have occurred.
ANALYSIS
Existing Programs
Orange County Social Media Policy 5:02:02 states “Orange County Government shall use all
effective and efficient marketing tools to inform citizens of information including programs,
services, activities events and other department associated interests.” Section II of the Social
media Policy states: “The appropriate department or division personnel must complete andsubmit a request, on an approved form to the Communications manager.” The digital teamreceives requests on major initiatives and presents them at weekly meetings with the Digital
PAGE | 119

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYTeam Manager, Communications Section Manager and Director of the Office ofCommunications and creates a strategy to best inform citizens of Orange County as it relates tothe suggested initiative.
This social media approach is used when immediate communication is needed to correct any
erroneous or incomplete information. For less pressing corrections or updates, the regularprocesses are followed. For transportation projects, the principal example is the Project Trak
approach noted in Subtask 5.1 and Subtask 5.4. The current status information is updated
monthly and is immediately populated into the Project Trak GIS database.
Regular updates to the Transportation Projects webpages are scheduled to occur at least biannually. The Project Trak information is updated monthly to provide more timely information.
Corrections can be initiated at any time. The process for all is:
1. Project Coordinator reviews project list for new projects that need to be added orcompleted projects to be removed, or other updates that are required. Necessarychanges are emailed to Transportation Planning for uploading to the website.
2. Project Coordinator reviews individual projects for updates regarding project status,
updated community meetings or communications, updated project maps and timelines.
Necessary changes are emailed to Transportation Planning for uploading to the website.
3. New projects are added using a template created for this process; this template is emailed
to Transportation Planning for uploading to the website.
4. Project Coordinator confirms that project has been submitted for Project Trak review andapproval.
Citizens can also directly initiate this process. Orange County staff provided an example of an
update request received through the County’s 311 phone number, which was established for
non-emergency help and information. A citizen requested through 311 a potential need for
ADA sidewalks. 311 was unable to locate the necessary forms for this request on the County’s
website and initiated the process to add the forms to the website and submit the citizen
request. These changes were submitted through our formal webpage update process. The
Multimedia/Special Projects Coordinator in Fiscal & Operational Support Division collected theforms, updated them, and sent the documents to Information Systems and Services Division
with instructions on where the forms were to be placed. An incorrect phone number was also
updated through the same request, so citizens would be able to reach the ADA Coordinatordirectly. The 311 representative was notified of the website changes so the ticket could be
resolved.
Transportation Initiative
As noted in Subtask 5.3, County administrators are discussing how best to implement andmonitor the program of projects associated with the Transportation Initiative. According toCounty administrators, the current preferred approach is to hire a General Engineering

PAGE | 120

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Consultant (GEC) to manage the program. The GEC would have the responsibility to track theaccuracy and completeness of program information and report this to the Oversight Board.
Based on the management practice noted above, the MJ Team concludes that the County has
adequate internal processes in place to ensure performance and cost information are bothaccurate and complete.

PAGE | 121

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYRESEARCH TASK 6
FINDING SUMMARYCOMPLIANCE OF THE PROGRAM WITH APPROPRIATE POLICIES,
RULES, AND LAWS.
Overall, Orange County met expectations for Research Task 6.
The County has a full-time legal staff responsible for providing legal services related totransactions, litigation, interpretation of federal, state, and local laws, and preparing
ordinances fosr approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In this capacity, theattorneys review all contracts requiring board approval for compliance with legal
requirements and board policy. The County Attorney also stays abreast of federal, state, andlocal legislation that could impact County departments. Program internal controls such asexternal audits in the form of the annual Single Audit and internal audits conducted by the
Office of the Comptroller’s County Audit Division are reasonable to ensure compliance withapplicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contracts; grant agreements;and local policies and procedures. County administrators have taken reasonable and timely
actions to address any noncompliance issues and local policies and procedures that havebeen identified by internal or external evaluations, audits, or other means as indicated by
no “repeat findings” in the County’s Single Audit or Management Letters issued by external
auditors. Finally, County administrators have taken reasonable and timely actions todetermine whether its planned uses of the surtax comply with applicable laws by having theCounty Attorney draft Ordinance No. 2022-14, which the BCC adopted April 26, 2022. The
Ordinance established a Citizens Oversight Board, through Orange County’s Transportation
Initiative, intended to continuously monitor planned uses of surtax proceeds to ensure theCounty’s ongoing compliance with Florida Statutes.
SUBTASK CONCLUSIONS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONSSUBTASK 6.1 – Determine whether the program has a process to assess its compliance withapplicable (i.e., relating to the program’s operation) federal, state, and local laws, rules, andregulations; contracts; grant agreements; and local policies.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 6.1 is met overall. To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team
interviewed the senior assistant county attorney, assistant manager of procurement, and thecounty comptroller special project director, and reviewed evidence of the County’s legal
infrastructure and its process to assess legal compliance as noted below for the following
divisions:County Attorney

PAGE | 122

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYProcurement

County Comptroller

The Comptroller is an elected official and serves as an independent reviewer of operations andtransactions and the Audit Division. The Audit Division is responsible for assessing compliancewith applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contracts; grant
agreements; and local policies.
Based on the analysis performed, the County has a process to assess its compliance withapplicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations; contracts; grant agreements; andlocal policies.
ANALYSIS
To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team interviewed the senior assistantcounty attorney, assistant manager of procurement, and the Orange County comptroller special
project director. The MJ Team reviewed evidence of the County legal infrastructure and its
process to assess respective compliance requirements. Based on the roles and responsibilities,
the County has a process to assess its compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, and regulations; contracts; grant agreements; and local policies.
County Attorney
The County Attorney’s Office (CAO) serves as the informational component for the compliancewith applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The CAO serves as legal advisors to provide
guidance on regulatory changes that could impact the respective programs. The CAO iscurrently comprised of 18 attorneys divided into three subject-matter departments: General
Administrative, Land Use and Environmental, and Litigation. The CAO assists with theimplementation and administration of policy, drafts ordinances and resolutions, negotiates
contracts, and handles litigation matters from trial through appeal. The CAO also monitors
changes to applicable regulations.
The assistant county attorneys attend the Mayor’s Senior Staff meetings and the county
administrator’s senior staff meetings based on the topics presented at each meeting to provide
compliance insights on federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contracts; grant
agreements; and local policies. We reviewed agendas and noted that transportation is afrequent topic of these staff meetings. Additionally, the Transportation Funding Initiative hascreated an Interdepartmental team that includes a senior assistant county attorney to lead theLegal/Legislative team.

PAGE | 123

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Procurement Division
The Procurement Office is a division of the County Executive Office (CEO) that provides entitywide procurement support to the County. The county procurement manager is responsible for
implementing and enforcing Board of County Commissioners (BCC) and CEO policies, and state
regulations, pertaining to County procurement. The Procurement Division is charged withensuring that the County's process is fair, competitive, efficient, and conducted under strict
ethical guidelines.
Divisions needing contractor work for projects are required to complete and submit a Project
Information Sheet to initiate a formal solicitation process. The Project Information sheet
includes the following sections: general, project sponsors, funding, competitive standards,
contract type, performance/delivery requirements, potential vendors, vendor qualifications,
respondent qualifications, specification/scope of services, sustainability/environmental
elements, bid form/fee proposal form. Also, the Procurement Division uses a Formal
Solicitation Checklist form for each procurement to ensure all steps throughout the process are
performed in accordance with policies, procedures, and applicable regulations. See Figure 6-1A
for the solicitation checklist template:

PAGE | 124

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPAGE | 125

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 6-1A: The County Procurement Division’s Formal Solicitation Checklist ensures all steps throughout theprocess are performed in accordance with policies, procedures, and applicable regulations.
Source: Orange County, Procurement Division.

PAGE | 126

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe Procurement Division uses OpenGov Procurement, an e-Procurement platform, to issue
formal solicitations and intake electronic responses for both Invitations for Bids (IFB) and
Requests for Proposals (RFP). Bid Notices are also posted in the Orlando Sentinel to allow
citizens the opportunity to submit bids and proposals in response to IFBs or RFPs. Our review
and testing of completed capital improvement projects for Research Task 1.6, confirmed that
the County’s procurement process ensures bidders have equal opportunity to be selected toprovide the County supplies, construction, commercial services, and professional services.
Orange County Comptroller – County Audit Division
The Comptroller is an elected official and serves as an independent reviewer of operations andtransactions. The County Audit Division of the Comptroller’s Office is responsible for assessing
compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contracts;
grant agreements; and local policies. The MJ team obtained a list of audits performed andresearched the Orange County Comptroller’s website for internal audits performed, noting thatseveral internal audits are conducted for internal controls and compliance. However, there
were minimal audits and/or investigations performed relating to business operations orfunctions where surtax proceeds will be used.
The County Audit Division meets quarterly with the County Administration to provide details of
the status of each on-going audit and the issues identified for these audits. Figure 6-1B
presents the formal agenda for the meeting held on June 3, 2022. The MJ Team received
support for two other agendas dated February 18, 2022, and October 6, 2021. Currently there
are 13 audits in progress, and one Constitutional Office audit.

PAGE | 127

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 1-6B: The County Auditor provides updates on the status of audits in progress during quarterly meetings
with County Administrators.
Source: Orange County Comptroller Audit Division.

PAGE | 128

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYSUBTASK 6.2 – Review program internal controls to determine whether they are reasonable
to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations;contracts; grant agreements; and local policies and procedures.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 6.2 is met overall. To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team
interviewed the senior assistant county attorney, assistant manager of procurement, theOrange County comptroller special project director and performed the following:

Reviewed written policies, procedures, and practices for compliance components and themost recent update.



Reviewed the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) to identify applicableinternal control-related audit findings.

Developed and administered an Internal Control Questionnaire to obtain management’s
evaluation of the internal control infrastructure.



Reviewed and evaluated management responses to the Internal Control Questionnaire.

Based on the analysis performed, the program internal controls such as documented policies
and procedures and external audits of the County’s internal control environment arereasonable to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations;contracts; grant agreements; and local policies and procedures.
ANALYSIS
The MJ Team reviewed applicable policies and procedures, the Consolidated Annual Financial
Reports, and internal control questionnaire responses. These are discussed in the paragraphs
below.
Policies and Procedures
Policies and procedures provide formal documentation of key internal controls. The Orange
County Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Budget Book states: “the County shall establish sound fiscal
policies and procedures that comply with all applicable state and federal laws.” Orange County
has the following policies in place to ensure compliance with applicable regulations:

Budget Management

Capital Program

Financial Management

Procurement Policies

Consolidated Annual Financial Reports
In addition to reviewing policies and procedures, the MJ Team reviewed the Compliance andInternal Control Section of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs) for fiscal years

PAGE | 129

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

2019, 2020, and 2021. These reports were issued by Cherry Bekaert LLP and included any
findings discovered and corresponding management responses. Their report also included any
unresolved prior year audit findings. A summary of these findings is included in Research Task
6.3.
Internal Control Questionnaire
In addition to reviewing policies and procedures, the MJ Team submitted an Internal Control
Questionnaire to key management positions. This questionnaire asked management staff torate themselves from one (1) through five (5), with a one (1) indicating “Weak” and a five (5)indicating “Strong” controls. Orange Country provided the MJ team with three (3) completed
Internal Control Questionnaires. Figure 6-2A presents a summary of the relevant responses
which indicate internal control strengths and their comments.

Area

Overall Rating of Processes forSegregation of Duties andEffectiveness (1-Weak to 5-Strong)

Additional Comments

Purchasing

5

No additional comments provided.

Payroll5

Payroll is automated and all personnel receive direct
deposit.

Accounts
Payable5This process is managed by the Comptroller’s Office who
is independently elected.

CashManagement

5Bank accounts are approved by the County Comptroller.
Orange County is the only one in the state with anindependently elected Comptroller.

Contracts
Management5

No comments provided.

GrantsManagement5

No comments provided.

Area

Overall Internal
Controls

Overall Rating of Processes forSegregation of Duties andEffectiveness (1-Weak to 5-Strong)

5

Example Comments Regarding Overall
Internal Controls
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Aware of any
areas ofnoncompliance?

Comptroller auditing procedures.
Budget approval process through the Board ofCounty Commissioners that include public hearings.
County procurement procedures/policies.
Department organization and procedural control
structure.
Community & stakeholder oversight.

No

FIGURE 6-2A: Summary of Internal Control Questionnaire Responses.
Source: Responses to the MJ Team’s Internal Control Questionnaire.

PAGE | 130

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

Additional internal controls that we noted through discussions and policy reviews include:
1.

Segregation of duties.

2.

Multi-level approval processes.

3.

Reconciliation.

4.

Policies and Procedures reviewed regularly.

5.

System Workflows.

6.

Risk Assessment – Approval Authority

7.

Pre-Approvals, Reconciliations & Checks and Balances in Each Department

8.

Policies and training in place.

9.

Reviews of performance – quarterly budgets to actuals.

10. Audits.
11. Robust electronic workflow with multiple approvers for grants, contracts, and regular
payments.
12. With each review step there are opportunities for communication and collaboration
should there be any questions or concerns.
13. An external review board (Independent Transportation Surtax Oversight Board) was
created with the aim to provide transparency and public participation.
SUBTASK 6.3 – Determine whether program administrators have taken reasonable andtimely actions to address any noncompliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws,
rules, and regulations; contracts; grant agreements; and local policies and procedures
identified by internal or external evaluations, audits, or other means.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 6.3 is met overall. To reach this conclusion, the MJ Team interviewed the seniorassistant county attorney, assistant Manager of procurement, the Orange County comptroller
special project director and reviewed the following reports:
County Comptroller Audits and follow ups

Annual Comprehensive Financial Report – Independent Auditor Report for FY 2019-FY
2021

Based on the support received, and the review completed, Orange County has reasonable andtimely process in place to ensure program administrators address recommendations related tononcompliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations.

PAGE | 131

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYANALYSIS
To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ team interviewed the senior assistantcounty attorney, assistant manager of procurement, and the Orange County comptroller special
project director regarding knowledge of any noncompliance and or outstanding action items for
the County.
In addition, the MJ Team reviewed the Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR) for
Fiscal Years 2019-2021 and the list of internal audits completed by the Comptrollers Internal
Audit function.
Based on the reviews performed in Subtasks 6.1 and 6.2, the MJ Team concludes the County
takes reasonable and timely actions to address any noncompliance with applicable federal,state, and local laws, rules, and regulations; contract; grant agreements and local policies andprocedures identified by internal or external evaluations, audit or other means.
County Comptroller
In addition, the County Comptroller Audit Division follows Government Auditing Standards andrequires auditors to evaluate whether the audited entity has taken appropriate corrective
action to address findings and recommendations from previous engagements that are
significant within the context of the audit objectives as noted in Section F of the Policy Manual.
Follow-Up Reviews: It is the policy of County Comptroller Audit Division to conduct
follow-up reviews on most audits performed. These reviews will normally be conducted
approximately one (1) to three (3) years after the report was issued. However, depending
on staff availability and other resources, follow-up reviews may not be conducted until
after that time, or not at all. In addition, large audits with significant issues that require
resolution may not be performed until several years after the report has been issued, or
broken into separate smaller reviews, to give management adequate time to address theissues. The scope of the follow-up review is solely to verify the status of each
recommendation and whether the original condition noted in the report has beenaddressed. A written report is issued on each follow-up review that summarizes thenature of the finding, repeats the recommendation, and indicates its status. Normally, thestatus will be implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented. If a
recommendation is only partially implemented or not implemented, there will be further
explanation as to its status or why it was not implemented. If further action is still needed,
the County Auditor will make additional recommendations in the status section.
Consideration should be given to commending management if they implement or
partially implement most recommendations. In those instances where an operation haschanged significantly since the original audit, a follow-up audit may not be performed.
This decision is considered auditor judgment and the Director will make the final
determination.

PAGE | 132

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYThe County Comptroller issued an audit report in July 2022 (report No. 495) on the follow-up to
the one recommendation included in the Orange County Utilities Department’s Environmental
Surcharge Program (Report No. 444) issued in January 2015. The recommendation was that the
Utilities Department should consider reducing the frequency of sampling and testing Program
participants with annual surcharges less than the sampling cost. The follow-up audit concluded
that the recommendation was implemented for one (1) year and was poorly received bycustomers because less frequent testing made it more difficult for customers to appeal
applicable surcharges. In response to this adverse customer reaction, Utilities changed its
practices by removing customers from the program. The County Comptroller acknowledged theefforts made to reduce testing frequencies to achieve cost savings. However, they cited that
there were no written procedures or documented approvals for removing these accounts.
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
The County is required to undergo an annual “Single Audit” to comply with provisions of theSingle Audit Act of 1984, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, and the Title 2 U.S. Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, andAudit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Furthermore, with respect tocertain grants funded by the State of Florida, the County is required to comply with therequirements of the Florida Single Audit Act and the related Rules of the Florida Audit General.
The MJ Team reviewed the Single Audit Report presented in the latest three (3) AnnualComprehensive Financial Reports (ACFR). The Fiscal Years 2019-2021 ACFRs showed that theCounty had no repeat findings in the Single Audit and every year the financial statements had
an unqualified opinion.
A summary of the findings noted in each CAFR are the following:
March 29, 2022
 Cherry Bekaert LLP, the contracted auditor, gave opinion that the financial statements
present fairly, in all material respect, the respective financial position of the governmental
activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component
units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information on the County as
of September 30, 2021.
Finding 2021-001: Recognizing unearned revenue - Material Weakness - Statement of
Condition: Unearned revenue recorded at the fund level for certain COVID-19 funding was
improperly recorded as revenue at the government-wide level in FY 2020 and FY 2021
requiring adjustment of the County's fiscal 2021 government activities financial
statements and restatement of FY 2020 County’s governmental activities financial
statements.

PAGE | 133

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFinding 2021-002: Recording FEMA transactions - Significant Deficiency - Statement of
Condition: Expenditures for the Public Assistance Presidential Declared Disaster(Hurricane Irma) grant were recorded on the cash basis in the general ledger and on thedraft Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ("SEFA"). In addition, the SEFA included
expenditures reimbursed through state match as expenditures of federal awards.

March 22, 2021
 Cherry Bekaert LLP gave opinion that the financial statements present fairly, in all material
respect, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and theaggregate remaining fund information on the County as of September 30, 2020.


No findings noted.

March 22, 2019
 Cherry Bekaert LLP gave opinion that the financial statements present fairly, in all material
respect, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type
activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and theaggregate remaining fund information on the County as of September 30, 2019.


No findings noted.

SUBTASK 6.4 – Determine whether program administrators have taken reasonable andtimely actions to determine whether planned uses of the surtax are in compliance withapplicable state laws, rules, and regulations.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
Subtask 6.4 is met overall. To address the requirements of this subtask, the MJ Team
interviewed the Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Project Director and Policy Analyst. We
also examined the following:Section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes;



The Orange County Transportation Initiative Report;Orange County Ordinance No. 2022-14, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners(BCC) on April 26, 2022;

Orange County’s Website; andTransportation Initiative Work Sessions and Agendas.

Based on information obtained and analysis performed, the County has a process to takereasonable timely actions to determine whether planned uses of the surtax are in compliancewith applicable state laws, rules and regulations.

PAGE | 134

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYANALYSIS
The County Attorney and staff has been actively involved with the Mayor’s Transportation
Initiative since its inception in 2019, engaging in an extensive process leading up to drafting thesurtax ordinance. The County held six Transportation Initiative open houses between February
28, 2022, and March 21, 2022, holding at least one open-house in each Commissioner District.
Additionally, Orange County held community meetings and deployed a survey to gather publiccomments and opinions regarding Orange County’s Transportation Initiative.
The County Attorney provided research and guidance to the BCC on applicable Florida Statutes
related to the surtax process and legality of uses of surtax proceeds. The BCC has had work
sessions on the following dates: January 25, 2022, March 22, 2022, and April 26, 2022. Anexample of an agenda is provided in Figure 6-4A.

PAGE | 135

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYFIGURE 6-4A: Orange County’s Board of County Commissioners conducted a series of Work Sessions related to theTransportation Initiative determining proposed uses of the Transportation System Sales Surtax.
Source: Orange County Website - Transportation Initiative Work Sessions(https://www.orangecountyfl.net/TrafficTransportation/TransportationInitiative/WorkSessions.aspx#.YvY8xXbMJEZ).

PAGE | 136

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTY

According to the April 2022 Transportation Initiative Report Revised per BCC Hearing April 26,
2022, the County community feedback from meetings, open houses, and the survey to identify
top challenges and priorities.
Orange County dedicated a section of its website to the Transportation Initiative. This webpage
includes links to the Transportation Initiative Report, the Ordinance, the Resolution, facts,
frequently asked questions (FAQs), community feedback, open house information, and BCC
work session documents. According to the frequently asked questions posted on the Orange
County Transportation Initiative website, the Transportation System Sales Surtax dollars will go
through an oversight process. This will include review by a Technical Committee, as well as byan appointed Citizens Oversight Board and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners.
Concurrently, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2022-M-20
established the Transportation and Transit Initiative Citizens Oversight Board to oversee thepreparation of a nontechnical report or consolidated schedule of projects identifying certain
information for each active project or purpose funded by the Transportation System Sales
Surtax. This board is tasked with preparing an annual report summarizing project costs, surtax
expended during the fiscal year, any excess proceeds that have not been expended for a projector purpose, the estimated project completion date and the actual completion cost during the
fiscal year, and a statement of what corrective action the responsible jurisdiction or authority
has planned with respect to each project which is underfunded or behind schedule. This reportis to be published on the County’s website.
Based on the documents provided, Orange County took reasonable and timely actions todetermine whether planned uses of the surtax are in compliance with applicable state laws,
rules, and regulations. Additionally, the County has put mechanisms in place to monitor surtax
usage compliance should the referendum pass.

PAGE | 137

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYMANAGEMENT COMMENTS

PAGE | 138

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPAGE | 139

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPAGE | 140

Final Report
ORANGE COUNTYPAGE | 141