HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/2010 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilTable of Contents
Agenda 2
No. 2 - Northgate Parking Rates
Coversheet revised 5
Attachment 1 - Memo Packet Provided to Northgate
Stakeholders 6
No. 3 - Briefing and update on “K2” also known as “Spice”
Coversheet revised 13
Awareness and update memo on "K2" also known as
"Spice"14
No. 4 - Risk Assessment and Audit Plan
Coversheet revised 17
Risk Assessment Report 18
Risk Assessment Exhibit A 39
Risk Assessment Exhibit B 43
No. 5 - EXIT Teen Center Operations Presentation
Coversheet - EXIT Teen Center Options revised 45
1 - EXIT Teen Center Information 47
1
Mayor Council members
Nancy Berry Jess Fields
Mayor Pro Tem Dennis Maloney
John Crompton Katy-Marie Lyles
City Manager Dave Ruesink
Glenn Brown
Agenda
College Station City Council
Workshop Meeting
Thursday, August 12, 2010 3:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding proposed rate changes at the City’s various
Northgate District Parking Assets.
3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion to prohibit the use, possession, sale, ingestion, or smoking of
“K2” also referred to as “Spice” as well as the possession of ingestion devices used to ingest illegal
smoking products.
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding (1) results of a citywide risk assessment conducted
by the City Internal Auditor, (2) selection of audit topics for the fiscal year 2011 audit plan, and (3)
amending the fiscal year 2010 audit plan.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the EXIT Teen Center Operations as requested by
the City Council on May 17, 2010.
6. Council Calendar
August 13-14 TML Newly Elected Officials Conference in Austin, 8:00 p.m.
August 13 BVSWMA Executive Director Interviews, TBA at 9:00 a.m.
August 16-18 Council Budget Workshop in Council Chambers at 3:00 p.m.
August 18 BVSWMA Inc. Board Meeting at Public Works - Room 203 Municipal Court Bldg
300 Krenek Tap, 11:00 a.m.
August 18 2010 Exploring History Lunch Lecture Series at Conference Center, 11:30 p.m.
August 19 Business After Hours - Equipment Depot, TBA at 5:30 p.m.
August 19 Planning & Zoning Meeting on Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m.
August 20 Grand Opening/Ribbon Cutting Commerce National Bank at Grand Opening/Ribbon
Cutting Commerce National Bank, 11:30 a.m.
August 24 Town Hall Meetings with City Councilman Jess Fields in Conference Center at 7:30 p.m.
August 26 Council Workshop/Regular Meeting in Council Chambers at 3:00 and 7:00 p.m.
2
Page | 2
City Council Workshop Meeting
Thursday, August 12, 2010
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Council Member may inquire
about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the
recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the
subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
8. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council of the Brazos
Valley, Audit Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Brazos
Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, BVSWMA, BVWACS. Cemetery Committee, Code
Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue
Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark
Commission, Library Board, Mayor’s Council on Physical Fitness, Metropolitan Planning Organization,
National League of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and
Zoning Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of
Governments, Signature Event Task Force, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Texas
Municipal League, Transportation Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Zoning Board of
Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board).
9. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference
Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council may seek
advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or
attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a
litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the
City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated
litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session
discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a. City of Bryan’s application with TCEQ for water & sewer permits in Westside/Highway 60 area, near
Brushy Water Supply Corporation to decertify City of College Station and certify City of Bryan
b. City of Bryan suit filed against College Station, Legal issues and advise on Brazos Valley Solid Waste
Management Agency contract, on proposed methane gas contract
c. Water CCN / 2002 Annexation / Wellborn Water Supply Corporation
d. Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn McIlhaney, and
Ben White
e. Chavers et al v. Tyrone Morrow, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et al
f. Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Merrill
Legal Advice
a. Discussion of Legal Issues Regarding: Wellborn Incorporation Request
b. Contemplated Litigation, Legal remedies available to abate weeds, rubbish, brush and other unsanitary
matter from a lot in the College Hills residential area.
c. Legal issues of purchase and lease back to Arts Council
10. Action on executive session, or any workshop agenda item not completed or discussed in today’s
workshop meeting may be discussed in tonight’s Regular Meeting if necessary.
3
Page | 3
City Council Workshop Meeting
Thursday, August 12, 2010
11. Adjourn.
APPROVED:
___________________________________________
City Manager
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas
will be held on the 12th day of August, 2010 at 3:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas
Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda
Posted this 6th day of August, 2010 at 2:00 pm
___________________________________________
Tanya McNutt, Deputy City Secretary
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of
College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of
said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City’s
website, www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times.
Said Notice and Agenda were posted on August 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm and remained so posted continuously for
at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following date
and time: _______________________ by ___________________________.
Dated this _____day of _______________, 2010.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS By____________________________________
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the ______day of _________________,
___________________Notary Public – Brazos County, Texas My commission expires:________
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be
made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be
viewed on www.cstx.gov. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
4
C:\DOCUME~1\tmcnutt\LOCALS~1\Temp\Coversheet revised.doc
August 12, 2010
Workshop Agenda Item No. 2
Northgate Parking Rates
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding proposed rate
changes at the City’s various Northgate District Parking Assets.
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation
and provide any desired input or direction in this regard.
Summary: Staff will provide a presentation to the Council outlining various rate change
options for the City’s Northgate Parking Assets. Staff will also present a forecast of the net
affects any changes may have on the Northgate Parking Enterprise Fund and will seek
direction from the Council on any potential action.
Budget & Financial Summary: Council will receive a full briefing on the fiscal impacts of
any rate change at the meeting.
Attachments: N/A
5
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 1
DATE: August 4, 2010
TO: Northgate Stakeholders
FROM: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development
SUBJECT: Northgate Parking Rates and Potential Changes Considered
The following information is being provided in advance of the meeting with stakeholders
regarding public parking rate changes currently under consideration in Northgate. We know
that the challenge of Northgate parking is and will continue to be a major issue for everyone
and I sincerely appreciate both your patience and participation in this important on-going
process.
As this investigative process began, staff received a number of stakeholder requests and
suggestions as to how we might make the parking situation better in Northgate. These items
were as follows: 1) first hour free parking; 2) lower day-time rates; 3) lower “Happy Hour”
rates; 4) assistance with merchant/employee parking; and 5) improving the access/exit system
in the College Main Garage.
With these in mind, we have tried to find ways to substantially reduce parking rates while also
seeking to mitigate any significant negative impact to the Parking Enterprise Fund. An attempt
to address the first four (4) items is the purpose of this correspondence and analysis, the fifth
issue regarding the College Main Garage access/exit system, will be handled separately in the
very near future.
After researching many possible rate change options, we have consolidated the strongest ones
into two (2) larger possible scenarios that would meet many of the needs previously identified
by stakeholders. It is important to point out that while these are the scenarios currently up for
discussion and input, they should be considered as a “rough draft” as they are very dynamic
and will still need to be further developed and refined. We also recognize that it is impossible
to make everyone happy, especially in such a tough economy, but we are sincerely working
hard to bring parking rate relief as an end product of this overall review and analysis.
The Two Scenarios
The first scenario, Scenario I, is loosely based on the general desire to have first hour free
parking. Currently, the College Main Garage is the only parking asset with the capability of
easily integrating this element into its operations; however, it is not the most convenient
parking option for many Northgate customers. Therefore, we have identified a new token
system that could allow for one or more free hours of parking on the Surface Lot depending
6
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 2
upon how many tokens were deposited by the user. This system would allow for a parking fee
reduction without affecting the currently adopted parking rate structure. Northgate merchants
would receive special tokens for use in the current pay stations by the City. In turn, the
merchants would then distribute these tokens to their customers for use on future visits. We
recognize that this does not address the customer’s initial visit but it does provide the
opportunity for reduced parking on any number of subsequent visits. The specific logistics
including the distribution methodology, costs and general operation for this element of
Scenario I have yet to be determined.
The second scenario, Scenario II, would involve a realignment of the current Surface Lot
parking fees by decreasing the rates from $1.00 per hour to $0.50 per hour during the day-
time and “Happy Hour” period every day of the week except for special events and game
days. The evening rates for Sunday through Wednesday after 7:00 p.m. and until 3:00 a.m.
would remain at the $1.00 per hour rate.
Under both of these scenarios, the City is also considering amending the current long-term
contract price structure for the College Main Parking Garage. By eliminating the less used
“Annual” contract options and strategically broadening the “Semester” contracts to run
consecutively together across the summer months, the City would be able to provide
merchant/employee parking relief by reducing the effective annual rate by $105 for annual
day-time contracts and by $180 for annual 24/7 contracts. This action should help by
providing a much more cost effective option for longer-term, more regular users of Northgate’s
public parking assets.
In compiling the fiscal analysis for these proposals, staff has extensively studied the previous
twelve (12) months’ usage and revenue data for all of the City’s parking assets. While we are
confident that the estimates are fairly solid, please note that they are incumbent upon a
continuation of previous usage trends. A significant change in overall parking customer habits
may render these estimates and scenarios obsolete and could thus require us to have to revisit
the parking asset revenue stream that supports the Parking Enterprise Fund.
It is our hope that through this process, we will be able to provide a new rate structure that
helps ensure the viability of Northgate as the leading entertainment district in College Station
while also protecting the long-term health and sustainability of the City’s parking assets and
Parking Enterprise Fund. I have also attached a summary sheet that quickly identifies the
long-term fiscal impacts of these two scenarios to the Parking Enterprise Fund and created a
list of possible cost offsets to help manage the impact of any major revenue reductions.
At your earliest convenience, I invite and encourage your input on this information. If you are
unable to attend the meeting at the Traditions Dorm at 2:00 p.m. on August 6, you may send
your ideas and comments to me at dgwin@cstx.gov or call at (979) 764-3778. Thank you for
your assistance and participation in this process thus far. It is sincerely appreciated.
7
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 3
City of College Station
Economic & Community Development
Current Northgate Parking Rates
Surface Parking Lot
• $1.00 per hour – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
College Main Garage
• $1.00 per hour 3:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. everyday
• $2.00 per hour 7:00 p.m. – 3:00 a.m. everyday
Street Meters
• $0.50 per hour 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
College Main Garage Available Contract Options
• Monthly‐Day: $50.00 / Month
• Monthly‐24/7: $75.00 / Month
• Semester‐Day: $165.00 / Semester
• Semester‐24/7: $270.00 / Semester
• Multi‐Semester‐Day : $330.00 / Two Semesters
• Multi‐Semester‐24/7: $540.00 / Two Semesters
• Annual‐Day: $475.00 / Year
• Annual‐24/7: $780.00 / Year
8
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 4
City of College Station
Economic & Community Development
Potential Northgate Parking Rate Changes
Scenario I: Customer‐Based Parking Fee Reductions
Customer Parking Relief: New Surface Lot Token System
• Provide one hour free parking program assisted by Northgate merchants
• One hour free parking made available by converting current pay stations to accept City
issued tokens
• Tokens would be distributed by the City to merchants who would then provide them
directly to customers – the specific methodology for this is yet to be determined
• Customers would then be able to utilize tokens for future usage of the Surface Lot
• No change in current rate structure
Merchant/Employee Parking Relief: College Main Garage Contract Restructure
• Eliminate “Annual Day” and “Annual 24/7” Contract options
• Realign “Semester” Contract options to run consecutively through the Summer: two (2) –
six (6) month semester passes
• Reduces the effective annual rate by $105 for annual day and $180 for annual 24/7 users
PROS
• Provides merchant‐selected parking
relief for customers
• Provides a discount without reducing the
overall parking rate structure
• Rewards customer loyalty and promotes
return visits
• Provides merchant/employee parking
relief
CONS
• Two month lead time to implement
• Significant start‐up cost
• Token distribution logistics
• Could result in significant revenue
decreases
• May invite system abuse
• Will require 24% rate increase by
October 2011
9
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 5
City of College Station
Economic & Community Development
Potential Northgate Parking Rate Changes
Scenario II: Surface Lot Parking Rate Reduction
Customer Parking Relief: Surface Parking Lot Token System
• Decrease rate from $1.00 per hour to $0.50 per hour between 3:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
everyday
• Maintain current rate of $1.00 per hour between 7:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. everyday
Merchant/Employee Parking Relief: College Main Garage Contract Restructure
• Eliminate “Annual Day” and “Annual 24/7” Contract options
• Realign “Semester” Contract options to run consecutively through the Summer: two (2) –
six (6) month semester passes
• Reduces the effective annual rate by $105 for annual day and $180 for annual 24/7 users
PROS
• Provides ½ off “Happy Hour” parking
• Provides ½ off day‐time parking
• Can be implemented very quickly
• Provides merchant/employee parking
relief
CONS
• Does not strategically align rates with
existing peak usage
• Will require 19% rate increase by
December 2011
10
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 6
City of College Station
Economic & Community Development
Fiscal Analysis
Scenario I Cost
Hard start‐up cost $ ( 15,000)
Reduced Revenue $ (100,000)
Garage Contract
Restructure $ 10,000
Net Annual Affect $ ( 90,000)
Scenario II Cost
Hard start‐up cost $ 0
Reduced Revenue $ ( 69,000)
Garage Contract
Restructure $ 10,000
Net Annual Affect $ ( 59,000)
Long‐Term Parking Enterprise Fund Impact
Scenario I: Potential Rate Increase: 24% by October 2011
Scenario II: Potential Rate Increase: 19% by December 2011
Potential Cost Offsets
1) General Fund Transfer
• Scenario I: $198,370 in FY 2012
• Scenario II: $136,792 in FY 2012
2) Reduction in Services
• Reinvestment in assets
• Staffing
• Sanitation and maintenance services
3) Partial Cost Offset – Surface Lot Peak Time Increase
• Increase rate to $2.00 per hour from 7:00 p.m. – 3:00 a.m. Thursday‐Saturday
• Increases revenues by $69,000
4) Cost Sharing with Northgate Merchants
• Token cost sharing
• Parking validation system
11
Northgate Parking Rates & Potential Changes Considered Page 7
City of College Station
Economic & Community Development
Proposed Northgate Parking Rate Changes
New Garage Contract Options (If ultimately approved under Scenarios I or II)
• Eliminate “Annual Day” and “Annual 24/7” Contract Options
• Realign “Semester” Contract options to run consecutively from January to June and July
to December (previous Semester contracts ran from January to June and Mid‐August to
December).
New Garage Contract Rates (previous rates shown in parentheses)
Monthly Day: $50.00 (No Change)
Monthly 24/7: $75.00 (No Change)
Semester Day: $185.00 ($165.00)
Semester 24/7: $300.00 ($270.00)
Multi‐Semester Day: $370.00 ($330.00)
Multi‐Semester 24/7: $600.00 ($540.00)
Annual Day: $475.00
Annual 24/7: $780.00
12
August 12, 2010
Workshop Agenda Item No. 3
Briefing and update on “K2” also known as “Spice”
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Jeff Capps, Chief of Police
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion to prohibit the use,
possession, sale, ingestion, or smoking of “K2” also referred to as “Spice” as well as the
possession of ingestion devices used to ingest illegal smoking products.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.8 Evaluate public safety needs.
Recommendation(s): Seeking Council direction.
Summary: During this presentation, we will seek to provide the Council with an overview
of what K2 is and the dangers involved with the use of this substance.
Over the past few months, there has been an increased awareness of K2 or Spice through
media reports, law enforcement circles and community service groups. Several states have
introduced legislation, which would ban the sell and possession of K2, and most recently,
several municipalities have been studying the feasibility of establishing city ordinances,
which would ban the substance until state laws are enacted. There is pending legislation in
Texas that would make it illegal to possess or sell the substance. If passed the law would
take effect in September of 2011.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
· Awareness and update memo “K2” also known as “Spice”
13
Home of Texas A&M University ®
A C A L E A A c c r e d i t e d A g e n c y
COLLEGE STATION POLICE DEPARTMENT
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: GLENN BROWN, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JEFF CAPPS, CHIEF OF POLICE
REF: UPDATE ON “K2” ALSO KNOWN AS “SPICE”
DATE: JULY 26, 2010
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Over the past few weeks, there has been an increase in media reports and raised
awareness related to a substance called “K2” or “Spice”, which is currently sold legally in
the United States. This memo will provide you with an update on what K2 is and what
we are seeing locally as it relates to this substance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
K2 or Spice is an herbal smoking blend made of herbs, spices and synthetic cannabinoids
(notably JWH-018), which mimic the effects of cannabis. The appearance is similar to
that of marijuana or oregano. Dr. John Huffman, a Clemson University organic chemistry
professor, was researching the effects of cannabinoids on the brain when his work
resulted in a 1995 paper that contained the method and ingredients used to make the
compound. The recipe found its way to marijuana users, who replicated Huffman’s work
and began spraying it onto dried flowers, herbs and tobacco.
K2 or Spice is currently legal and readily available throughout most of the United States.
It is being sold as incense through online purchases, in convenience stores and some
smoke shops. Locally it is being sold for about $10 a gram. The pictures below depict
what the substance looks like and how it is commonly being packaged for sale.
14
2
K2 or Spice is commonly being smoked by rolling the substance in papers, packing into a
blunt, smoking it through hookah pipes or by inhaling after burning it as incense.
While there have not been any long term studies as it relates to the effects of K2 on
individuals, some of the following side effects have been noted in users;
Euphoria, sleepiness and relaxation
Agitation, vomiting, hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, seizures
Fast heart beat, dangerously elevated blood pressure, pale skin
Effects suggest the substance may be affecting the cardiovascular and central
nervous system of users.
CONCLUSION:
Over the past few months, there has been an increased awareness of K2 or Spice
through media reports, law enforcement circles and community service groups. Several
states have introduced legislation which would ban the sell and possession of K2 and
most recently several municipalities have been studying the feasbility of establishing city
15
3
ordinances which would ban the substance until state laws are enacted. There is
pending legislation in Texas that would make it illegal to possess or sell the substance. If
passed the law would take effect in September of 2011. The most recent municipality in
Texas to enact an ordinance related to this matter is the City of Marshall. Their
ordinance, which is slated to go into effect August 1st, will ban the possession, purchase,
sale and use of synthetic cannibinoids.
I met last week with Susan Guy, who is the Program Director and a Licensed Chemical
Dependency Counselor for the “The Way to Recovery”, which is a local group here in
College Station. Guy indicated that they are seeing an increase in use of this substance
among their clientele. Guy indicated K2 use seems to be increasingly popular among
teenagers and those currently on probation as the substance is not detected by the
standard DON Urinalysis probationers are required to take. I asked Mrs. Guy specifically
how many new users she has seen using K2 reguarly over the past 6 months and she said
three.
From the Police Department’s perspective, we have seen approximately three to four
instances over the past year in which we were called to deal with an individual under the
influence of K2. In these instances, the user had smoked a large amount of the
substance and had become extremely intoxicated and ill from its effects. Those from
within our agency that reguarly work Narcotics advise that the drug users they have
come into contact with have stated that if they have a choice they will use marijuana
before K2 as they feel the “high” lasts longer. The effects of K2 or Spice have been
reported to last from three to five hours.
We will continue to monitor K2 or Spice use in College Station and be prepared to bring
forward a draft ordinance if warranted.
Through: Kathy Merrill – Assistant City Manager
16
August 12, 2010
Workshop Agenda Item No. 4
Citywide Risk Assessment,
Fiscal Year 2011 Audit Selection, and
Amendment to Fiscal Year 2010 Audit Plan
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Ty Elliott, City Internal Auditor
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding (1) results of a
citywide risk assessment conducted by the City Internal Auditor, (2) selection of audit topics
for the fiscal year 2011 audit plan, and (3) amending the fiscal year 2010 audit plan.
Recommendation(s):
1. The fiscal year 2011 audit plan should include the following topics: sanitation
operations, land acquisition, payroll phase II, implementation of continuous monitoring
systems, and revenue generating cost centers (which should include a review of
Emergency Medical Services).
2. The fiscal year 2010 audit plan should be amended in order to expand the scope of the
Parks and Recreation cash handling audit (the last project on the fiscal year 2010 audit
plan) to comprise audit objectives that would be included in the revenue generating cost
center audit.
Summary:
Every three years, the City Internal Auditor performs a citywide risk assessment as a tool in
creating the annual audit plan. The risk assessment is the first step in determining which
areas of the city have high quantifiable risk factors and are candidates for internal audit.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, professional judgment, findings from previous
audit work, and information provided by city staff; eleven potential audit topics were
identified and described in the risk assessment report.
On July 29, 2010, the Audit Committee met to discuss the eleven audit topics presented in
the risk assessment report. Based on this discussion, five topics (identified in the
recommendation above) were selected to be recommended to the City Council for inclusion
in the fiscal year 2011 audit plan.
Because the revenue generating cost center audit topic was selected, expansion of the
scope of Parks and Recreation cash handling audit was discussed. Expanding the scope of
this audit to include additional objectives would be more efficient than conducting a
separate audit of the same cost centers currently under review at a later date. Therefore,
the Audit Committee agreed that amending the fiscal year 2010 audit plan to expand the
scope of the audit is a prudent course of action.
Attachments: Citywide Risk Assessment Report
17
Citywide Risk Assessment Results
June 2010
City Internal Auditor’s Office
City of College Station
File # 10.04
18
Citywide Risk Assessment
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 2
Results ......................................................................................................................... 4
High Ranking Cost Centers .................................................................................... 4
Planning & Performance ........................................................................................ 5
Average Cost per Customer ..................................................................................... 5
Budget to Actual Expenditure Variance ..................................................................... 6
Overtime Expenditures ............................................................................................ 7
Average Sick Hours per FTE .................................................................................... 7
Overtime Hours per FTE .......................................................................................... 7
Public Concern & Perception ................................................................................. 7
Media Coverage ..................................................................................................... 7
Claims Against the City ........................................................................................... 8
Organizational Change .......................................................................................... 8
Turnover ............................................................................................................... 8
Budget Trend ......................................................................................................... 9
FTE Change ........................................................................................................... 9
Operation Revenue Change ..................................................................................... 9
Size & Complexity .................................................................................................. 9
FTE ....................................................................................................................... 9
Operation Revenues ............................................................................................... 9
Budgeted Expenditures ......................................................................................... 10
Expenditure Trend ................................................................................................ 10
Safety & Liability .................................................................................................. 10
Average Worker’s Comp Amounts .......................................................................... 10
Average Training Expenditure per FTE.................................................................... 10
Fiscal Accountability ............................................................................................ 10
Purchasing Activity ............................................................................................... 10
Cash Handling ...................................................................................................... 11
19
Professional Service Expenditures .......................................................................... 11
Travel as Percentage of Training Expenditures ........................................................ 11
Audit Coverage ........................................................................................................... 13
Audit Plan................................................................................................................... 15
Sanitation Operations .......................................................................................... 15
Land Acquisition ................................................................................................... 15
Convention and Visitors Bureau .......................................................................... 15
Asset Management............................................................................................... 15
Payroll Audit Phase II .......................................................................................... 16
Fleet Utilization .................................................................................................... 16
Change Orders...................................................................................................... 16
Implementation of Continuous Monitoring Systems .......................................... 16
Water/Wastewater Utility ................................................................................... 17
Professional Services Contracts .......................................................................... 17
Revenue Generating Cost Centers....................................................................... 17
Exhibit A: Risk Factor Data: ......................................................................................... 18
Exhibit B: Risk Factor Scoring:...................................................................................... 22
20
Page 1 of 23
Introduction
Every two to three years, the City Internal Auditor performs a citywide
risk assessment as a tool to assist in creating the annual audit plan. The
purpose of the annual audit plan is to allocate scarce audit resources to
areas that will most benefit the city. The risk assessment is the first step
in determining which areas of the city have high risk factors and are
candidates for an internal audit.
In developing the annual audit plan, potential audit topics are identified
based on several factors:
· Assessing financial and performance risks through the citywide
risk assessment
· Considering requests and suggestions from the City Council, city
management, and other interested parties
· Reviewing the external financial auditors’ results
· Determining the feasibility of audit topics and the availability of
resources
While a risk assessment provides quantitative information, not all risk
factors are quantifiable – judgment and opportunities to improve
outcomes are also used to recommend audit projects. Therefore, the
following is also considered when making audit selection decisions:
· The impact the audit would have (the risks it would address and
the likely types of findings and recommendations to result)
· The sensitivity, complexity, and difficulty of the project compared
to its likely impact
· The breadth and depth of audit coverage across city government
· The availability of other resources
21
Page 2 of 23
Methodology
Several quantitative risk factors are identified and utilized in the risk
assessment model. The risk factors used in this assessment are split
between six categories as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Risk Categories
Fiscal Accountability Planning & Performance
· Cash handling · Overtime expenditures
· Average purchasing expenditures · Cost per customer
· Professional service expenditures · Average sick hours per FTE
· Purchasing trend · Overtime hours per FTE
· Travel as a percentage of training
expenditures
· Budget to actual expenditure
variance
Organizational Change Size & Complexity
· Budget trend · Budgeted expenditures
· FTE change · FTE
· Operation revenue change · Operation revenues
· Turnover · Expenditure trend
Safety & Liability Public Concern & Perception
· Average worker’s comp amounts · Media perception
· Average training expense per FTE · Claims against the city
Note: FTE stands for full time equivalent, which equals the number of paid hours
during a work period (part-time and fulltime) by the number of working hours in the
period.
Information for each of the risk factors was gathered from a variety of
sources. The city’s financial information system was used to collect
revenue, expenditure, purchasing, and personnel related data. The fiscal
year 2009 and 2010 approved annual budgets were also a source of data.
Other information was supplied by a number of city employees.
The raw data collected was then aggregated into the risk factors
identified in Table 1 above. These factors were then scored on a scale of
one to five, with five being the highest. A score of one was reserved for
those cost centers that did not have data for that factor or scored a zero
in that risk factor, meaning there would be no or low risk. The rest of the
scale was distributed evenly for each factor when possible.
The scores for each risk factor within a category were then summed to
get a category score, as shown in Table 2 on the next page. The total
scores varied for each category score, since some categories contained
22
Page 3 of 23
more risk factors than others. As an example, Residential Collections was
chosen randomly to illustrate the scoring methodology.
Table 2: Category Score Example
Size & Complexity Data Score
Budgeted expenditures 3,451,918 5
FTE 24.15 5
Operation revenues 6,933,172 5
Expenditure trend 4% 2
Residential Collection Size & Complexity Score: 17
Each category was weighted based upon reliability and availability of
data, number of risk measures in the category, and professional
judgment of the risk measure. The category score was then multiplied by
the category weight to get the overall risk score for that cost center. See
Table 3 for an example of the weighted score methodology.
Table 3: Weighted Score Example
Residential Collection Score Weight Weighted Score
Size & Complexity 17 16% 2.72
Organizational Change 10 18% 1.80
Fiscal Accountability 18 22% 3.96
Planning & Performance 23 22% 5.06
Public Perception 5 11% .55
Safety & Liability 8 11% .88
Total: 74 100% 14.97
Each cost center was then ranked by this overall score. The overall
scores were ranked in groups of 19 to 20 cost centers, since there are 98
total cost centers identified in this assessment.
Risk factors were adjusted as best as possible to account for missing and
incomplete data before scoring. For example, the Media Coverage
category contains data for the departmental level only, not cost center.
Therefore, media coverage was distributed among the cost centers of
areas with available data.
In the case of Residential Collections, Table 3 shows a low public
perception score; however, this is the maximum score available for this
cost center. This reflects the lack of media coverage data for Residential
Collections and Sanitation. The public perception score shown above is
entirely weighted on the claims against the city risk factor.
23
Page 4 of 23
Results
The risk assessment scores provide a very broad overview of the
departmental cost centers and their activity in various risk factors. The
findings below are not representative of any audit findings and should not
be taken as such.
High Ranking Cost Centers
Table 4 lists the cost centers with the highest weighted risk factor scores.
The risk factors constructed in this model have identified these 20 cost
centers as having high risk functions or opportunities.
Table 4: The 20 Highest Ranked Cost Centers
Department Cost Center Score
Fire Fire Suppression 15.89
BVSWMA Landfill Operations 15.25
Sanitation Residential Collection 14.97
Police Uniform Patrol 14.66
Police Special Services 14.60
Wastewater Fund Ops Wastewater Collection 14.31
Water Fund Ops Water Production 13.54
General Government Economic Development 13.32
Sanitation Commercial Collection 13.17
Fire Emergency Med Services 13.07
Fiscal Services Municipal Court 13.02
General Government City Secretary 12.98
Police Communications/Jail 12.95
Utility Customer Service Billing Collection 12.94
Fire Fire Prevention 12.57
Wastewater Fund Ops Wastewater Treatment 12.55
Public Works Traffic Signals 12.54
General Government Human Resources 12.51
Public Works Drainage Maintenance 12.46
Public Works Streets Maintenance 12.37
The overall risk score measure shows which cost centers obtained higher
values on the risk assessment model. While this does provide a good
measure of risk, there are issues to consider when examining this table.
First, the higher value each of these cost centers received could be due
to the availability of data. If more data is available for the departmental
cost center, there are more opportunities to be rated higher in that risk
factor.
24
Page 5 of 23
Second, the size of the department, budget, and responsibilities could
also lend these departments to a higher risk score. However, the score
weighting methodology accounts for some of these discrepancies, making
the above table of cost centers representative overall.
Finally, cost centers that have the highest risk scores may not have
significant issues that need correction. For example, the Municipal Court
was recently selected for an audit based on quantitative risk factors
indicating high risk in the area of cash handling. However, a cash
handling audit revealed that the Municipal Court had strong internal
controls and cash handling practices that significantly mitigated the
inherent risk associated with their operations.
Planning & Performance
Average Cost per Customer
The average cost per customer of a cost center’s services was used as a
risk factor. This measure includes the costs of services per customer for
fiscal year 2009. The ten most expensive cost centers are listed in Table
5 below; however, the list should be considered carefully.
Table 5: Cost per Customer
Cost Center Cost/Customer
Economic Development $128,485
City Manager $119,608
Capital Projects Operations $107,695
Community Development $38,920
Facilities Maintenance $14,384
Public Works Engineering Division $9,155
Communication Services $6,799
Management Information Services $2,515
E-Government $2,428
Warehouse $2,300
The table illustrates the highest cost per customer for each cost center.
However, because the definition of customer changes for each cost
center, this measure is slightly skewed. For example, Economic
Development and Community Development “customers” were only
counted as those that directly use the services of these divisions. This list
was relatively small, since only a few non-profits or companies directly
utilize these divisions’ services. However, the benefit to the city is
greater, since these organizations help many more citizens.
25
Page 6 of 23
For some internal services, the number of city employees was used as
total number of customers. The number of employees was gathered
from the online employee directory and does not include many seasonal,
temporary, or unpaid positions. Other internal services do have users
within the city and those numbers were obtained when possible.
Budget to Actual Expenditure Variance
Another risk factor based on expenditures is the variance between the
approved budget for each cost center and the actual amount of
expenditures. When looking at this factor, it should be noted that the
values for variance were taken as absolute values—the rankings do not
represent positive or negative expenditure trend variances.
Figure 1 below illustrates the budgeted expenditures and actual
expenditures of the six highest spending cost centers that went over
budget in fiscal year 2009.
Figure 1: Budgeted to Actual Expenditures
Cost Center Over Budget
Electric Fund Operations Administration $1,959,247
Fire Suppression $100,212
Uniform Patrol $ 274,089
Streets Maintenance $ 95,166
Emergency Medical Services $ 56,619
Utility Customer Service Billing Collection $ 81,253
0
2
4
6
8
10
61
65
E x p e n d i t u r e s (M i l l i o n s )
Budgeted Expenditures
Actual Expenditures
26
Page 7 of 23
Overtime Expenditures
For each cost center, overtime expenditures were gathered using
expenditure data from the city’s financial systems. This information was
used to calculate total overtime expenditures for each cost center.
Average Sick Hours per FTE
Total sick hours for each cost center were calculated from payroll
information. This data was collected from the city’s information systems
and the approved annual budget. The number of sick hours taken for
each cost center was averaged over the three years examined. The data
was not trended due to missing or incomplete numbers.
Overtime Hours per FTE
Overtime expenditure data was used in conjunction with FTE data
collected from the approved annual budget to calculate an overtime
hours per FTE risk factor. While this factor does provide a comparison, it
should be noted that the FTE numbers used for this measure include
employees exempt from FLSA overtime requirements.
Public Concern & Perception
Media Coverage
As mentioned in the methodology section of the report, media coverage
data was unavailable at the cost center level. However, the data
provided was still useful in examining the public perception of city
departments as a whole. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of media
coverage per department from January 1, 2010 to June 3, 2010.
Figure 2: City Media Coverage
2.5%2.5%2.5%0.3%
10.3%
33.6%
3.7%
40.2%
4.5%
Fiscal
Fire
Electric
Planning
General Reference
General Government
Parks & Rec
Police
Public Works
27
Page 8 of 23
Of the news coverage for Police, roughly 80 percent was classified as
reactive, while the other 20 percent was categorized as proactive
responses. The vast majority of the reactive coverage was further
classified as neutral, while proactive coverage was largely positive in
nature. General government coverage was broken into cost centers, but
no cost center experienced a large negative response from the media.
Half of the media coverage was neutral for general government, with
positive coverage at 43 percent. Only 7 percent of the general
government coverage was negative.
Claims Against the City
The number of claims made against the city was totaled for each cost
center to create this risk factor. This number includes the number of
legal claims made against the city, property damages, and vehicle
damages.
Organizational Change
Turnover
To calculate turnover, only fulltime employees were considered in the
calculations; actual FTE data was not used. In using only fulltime
employees, the results of turnover calculations are more comparable
across city departments. The calculations exclude part-time and
temporary/seasonal workers. The cost centers with the largest turnover
are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Turnover
Department Cost Center Turnover
Full-
time
Information Technology E-Government 50% 2
Community Development Community Development 44% 4.5
Police Special Services 33% 9
Planning & Development P&DS Administration 33% 3
Utility Customer Service Meter Services 30% 10
Capital Projects Capital Project Operation 30% 10
Planning & Development Code Enforcement 25% 8
General Government City Secretary 20% 5
Fiscal Services Budget & Strategic Planning 20% 5
Police Police Administration 18% 11
Parks & Recreation South District 18% 11
Sanitation Commercial Collection 18% 11
Using FTE data to calculate turnover for each cost center would have
resulted in skewed data towards those cost centers that utilize a seasonal
workforce. Parks & Recreation cost centers would likely be affected the
28
Page 9 of 23
most by this alternative calculation, as summer and temporary jobs
(lifeguards, event staff, etc) would produce a higher turnover rate.
While these departments do demonstrate a high turnover rate in the
data, consideration should be given to the number of fulltime staff per
cost center. For example, E-government demonstrated a 50 percent
turnover rate; however, there are only two fulltime employees within that
cost center. Thus, the higher turnover rate does not necessarily indicate
more employees lost compared to larger cost centers.
Budget Trend
The approved annual budget provided information on budgeted
expenditures. These expenditures were trended across fiscal year 2007
through 2009 to create the budget trend risk factor.
FTE Change
The budgeted FTE numbers, from the approved annual budgets, provide
the raw numbers for this calculation. The average percent change
between fiscal year 2009 FTE and fiscal year 2007 FTE was used for this
measure.
Operation Revenue Change
Operating revenue was trended for this risk factor. The raw data was
collected from the city’s financial information system. The risk factor
includes operating revenues, charges for services, fines & forfeits, and
licenses & permits. Other categories of revenue were eliminated that did
not represent operating revenues.
Size & Complexity
FTE
The budgeted FTE numbers were taken from the approved annual budget
to create this risk factor. Examining the number of FTE within a cost
center allows comparison across cost centers in regards to staff size and
organizational complexity. Part-time and temporary/seasonal employees
were included in this calculation of FTE.
Operation Revenues
The operational revenues of various services were used to create this risk
factor. The raw data was collected from city information systems. The
risk factor includes accounts for operating revenues, charges for services,
fines & forfeits, and licenses & permits. Other categories of revenue
were eliminated that did not constitute operating revenues.
29
Page 10 of 23
Budgeted Expenditures
The fiscal year 2009 approved budgeted expenditures were used for this
risk factor. The budgeted expenditures risk factor identifies cost centers
with large budgets and, when used with other factors, provides a
comparison of size between cost centers.
Expenditure Trend
For each cost center, actual expenditures were trended across the three
years examined. The expenditure trend risk factor reflects the results of
the trend. This risk factor identifies those departments with large
increases or decreases in spending over the course of fiscal year 2007
through 2009. It should be noted that departments with small
expenditures one year and larger expenditures the next could have
skewed trend percentages. The trend for the Internal Auditor is an
example, where the expenditure of $15,889 in 2007 skews the trend
when compared with expenditures of $114,331 in 2009.
Safety & Liability
Average Worker’s Comp Amounts
Reports were generated from the risk manager’s office to obtain the total
number of worker’s comp claims and amounts. The total claim amounts
for each fiscal year were then averaged together to create this risk factor.
It should be noted that not every cost center experienced claims each
year; therefore, a consistent trend was not feasible.
Average Training Expenditure per FTE
The total training expenditures for each cost center were gathered from
the city financial systems. To create this risk factor, the total FTE was
divided into training expenditures to determine the training expenditure
per FTE for each fiscal year. The totals were then averaged together to
complete the risk factor.
Fiscal Accountability
Purchasing Activity
The average purchasing expenditures and purchasing trend risk factors
were combined to create a purchasing activity model. To calculate
purchasing activity, purchasing data was compiled to create a trend of
fiscal year 2007 through 2009. The average purchasing expenditures of
each cost center were also calculated. Both measures include figures for
the total expenditures through purchase orders and through purchasing
card use.
30
Page 11 of 23
Figure 3 illustrates the cost centers with the largest purchasing
expenditures and their corresponding purchasing trend for fiscal years
2007 through 2009.
Figure 3: Cost Center Purchasing Activity
Cash Handling
Information regarding cash handling in each cost center was collected
from the cash handling survey conducted by the City Internal Auditor in
2009. Not all cost centers handle cash; therefore, only cost centers that
do handle cash are represented in the data.
Professional Service Expenditures
Data was also collected to provide a trend in the professional service
expenditures for each cost center. These costs could include the costs
for hiring consultants or other miscellaneous professional service related
costs. Not every cost center experienced professional service
expenditures.
Travel as Percentage of Training Expenditures
Travel and lodging costs for training are included in the total training
expenditures. As another risk factor, the travel expenditures were
extracted from total training expenditures. This permits the examination
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
T
r
e
n
d
P u r c h a s i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s
Average Purchasing
Expenditures
Purchasing Trend
31
Page 12 of 23
of travel expenditures as a percentage of total training expenditures for
each cost center.
Table 7: Percentage Travel Costs of Training Expenditures
Department Cost Center % of
Training
Expenses
% of Total
Expenses
Parks & Recreation Xtra Education 100% 1%
Parks & Recreation Hotel Tax Program (Athletics) 99% 14%
Parks & Recreation Heritage Programs 82% 2%
Parks & Recreation Recreation 81% 1%
Fire Emergency Management 76% 2%
Parks & Recreation Senior Services 71% 1%
Electrical Utility Dispatch Operations 66% 0%
Parks & Recreation Special Facilities Admin 66% 1%
Police Communications/Jail 65% 1%
BVSWMA BVSWMA Administration 65% 1%
The Xtra Education in Table 7 has relatively low training costs, but 100%
of those costs are in travel. Therefore, it is logical for these percentages
to be taken into context of the total training expenditures of a cost
center.
32
Page 13 of 23
Audit Coverage
Many areas of city government have been directly audited or have fallen
under the purview of a recent internal audit. The audits conducted have
provided a broad coverage of topics within the City of College Station;
however, not all cost centers have fallen under the scope of a previous
audit. Table 8 lists the highest scoring departments from Table 4 that
have not received audit coverage.
Table 8: Top Cost Centers without Audit Coverage
Department Cost Center Score
Fire Fire Suppression 15.89
Sanitation Residential Collection 14.97
Wastewater Fund Ops Wastewater Collection 14.31
Water Fund Ops Water Production 13.54
General Government Economic Development 13.32
Sanitation Commercial Collection 13.17
Fire Emergency Med Services 13.07
General Government City Secretary 12.98
Fire Fire Prevention 12.57
Wastewater Fund Ops Wastewater Treatment 12.55
Among previous audits, an audit of purchasing processes, policies and
procedures has likely had the broadest scope. The report of findings
from the purchasing audit identified areas of improvement for internal
controls, purchasing practices, and check security. The Purchasing
Audit’s recommendations affected citywide purchasing and requisition
policies, procedures, and practices by strengthening internal controls.
The 2010 Payroll Phase I audit provided an analysis of payroll practices
throughout the city. The findings from this audit focused mainly on
overtime and compensatory pay policies, procedures, and practices. The
audit was applicable to all city cost centers and found some payroll
practices were exceeding the minimum Fair Labor Standards Act
guidelines. Other payroll issues will be audited at a later date in Phase II
of the payroll audit.
The Ethics Hotline, established and maintained by the City Internal
Auditor, provides an opportunity for city employees and individuals to
anonymously report suspicious activity without fear of retaliation.
Hotlines repeatedly have proven their ability to detect and deter illegal
behavior. According to the ACFE's 2004 Report to the Nation on
Occupational Fraud and Abuse, fraud losses are reduced by nearly 60
33
Page 14 of 23
percent when a hotline is present. In the past year, there have been nine
hotline reports submitted by city employees from various city
departments. All reports submitted through the hotline have been fully
investigated and resolved.
A performance audit was performed by external consultants in 2008,
which examined the Police department in detail. The report provided
recommendations for all cost centers within the Police department.
Recommendations included alternative methods of scheduling work
hours, improvements to reporting incidents, and overall organizational
improvements.
The City Internal Auditor conducted an audit of fuel inventory, purchasing
and use throughout the city. This audit discovered areas of improvement
in fuel practices within the city. In addition, recommendations to improve
internal controls included using an odometer reasonability control for all
fuel cards, verifying prices and terms independently of the vendor, and
restricting the quantity of fuel available for each fuel card.
Cash handling audits were performed within the Utility Customer Billing
and Municipal Court cost centers. These audits examined the internal
controls and security for cash and cash equivalents. The
recommendations included more segregation of duties, improved receipt
practices, and improved recordkeeping.
In November 2008, the City of Bryan hired a consultant to perform an
audit of the Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency (BVSWMA).
The City Internal Auditor assisted the City of College Station’s Finance
Department during the duration of this review.
34
Page 15 of 23
Audit Plan
Based on the results of the risk assessment, professional judgment,
findings from previous audit work, and information provided by city staff,
the following areas are potential audit topics for the next fiscal year.
Sanitation Operations
Based on risk assessment results, both residential and commercial refuse
collections were identified as high risk cost centers when compared to
other cost centers throughout the city. An internal audit of sanitation
operations would include a review of internal controls, procedures, and
practices. In addition, the audit could identify opportunities to mitigate
safety and liability concerns, increase efficiencies, reduce overhead costs
and other expenses, or potentially increase revenues.
Land Acquisition
At first glance, the process of acquiring land for new city developments is
not uniform across departments. While the land agent does provide
some services for most of the departments purchasing land in the last ten
years, there may be room for improvement and uniformity. Within the
last ten years the following departments/divisions have been involved in
the purchasing of land: BVSMA, Capital Improvement Projects, City
Manager’s Office, Economic and Community Development, Fire, Planning
and Development, Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Electric and
Water Utilities. Currently, Economic and Community Development and
Electric Utilities land acquisition processes differ from other departments
in that they do not use the city’s land agent when purchasing land or
property.
Convention and Visitors Bureau
During the June 18, 2010, City Council retreat, a potential audit of the
Convention and Visitors Bureau was discussed. Depending on future
direction from the City Council, an audit of the Convention and Visitors
Bureau may be included in the fiscal year 2011 audit plan.
Asset Management
Asset management was identified as a high risk auditable area in the
2007 risk assessment. Although this area received some audit coverage
during the Fleet Fuel Inventory audit, management of city assets
throughout the city still remains an area of risk. The area of the largest
35
Page 16 of 23
risk exists in College Station Utilities, which maintains a large warehouse
of water, wastewater, and electric asset related inventories. In addition,
the Information Technology Department inventories some computer
equipment and the Fleet Services Division inventories various equipment
and parts for fleet maintenance purposes.
Payroll Audit Phase II
In May 2010, a payroll audit was completed that examined the overtime
and compensatory pay practices of the city. Phase two of this audit will
expand the scope to include a review of all other payroll practices,
policies and procedures. Audit test to detect common payroll frauds will
also be performed.
Fleet Utilization
There are over 600 vehicles or equipment city staff operates on a daily
basis. Most of these vehicles and equipment are utilized by the Fire,
Police, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Utilities departments.
Utilization of these vehicles and equipment constitute a significant risk to
the city because (1) of the high monetary value of these assets and (2)
the potential liability the city faces if these assets are not used prudently.
Included in this audit would be a review of efficient and effective use,
safety and training, personal or inappropriate use, and compliance with
city, state, and federal laws and regulations.
Change Orders
A purchasing card audit and purchasing processes audit were conducted
in 2007 and 2008 respectively. However, a review of the change order
process was not included in the scope of these audits. An audit to
inspect the number of contract changes after the bidding process is
closed could find potential cost savings for the city. This audit would
examine the number of change orders for each vendor. Cost savings
could be found by switching to vendors that would not likely require a
change in the contract after the bidding process is completed. This audit
could also identify potential areas of risk within vendor contracts.
Implementation of Continuous Monitoring Systems
Continuous monitoring is the automated collection of indicators from the
city’s information systems on a frequent or continuous basis. Through
the use of analytics, continuous monitoring is also an automated
feedback mechanism to ensure that the systems and controls have been
36
Page 17 of 23
operating as designed and transactions are processed appropriately. The
purpose of implementing continuous monitoring systems is to (1) help
ensure compliance with policies, procedures, and regulations and (2) act
as an early warning system to detect control failure on a timelier basis
than under traditional approaches. Using Audit Command Language
(ACL) analytics and scripts, the City Internal Auditor is capable of
developing robust automated monitoring systems. A continuous
monitoring system of the city’s purchasing card program will be the first
system developed due to the risk associated with this program (i.e. the
majority of city purchases across all city departments are made on city
credit cards).
Water/Wastewater Utility
Based on the risk assessment results, water and wastewater were
identified as a high risk area. An audit of the water/wastewater utility
would include a review of compliance with state and federal regulations,
meeting service demands, and cost of providing services. In addition, the
audit could include an evaluation of the adequacy of planning and
performance monitoring practices necessary to direct and control
departmental operations in the short and long term; financial
management practices necessary to protect the financial condition of the
utility and to provide accounting information for cost control and decision
making; management practices for facility operation to promote efficient
and effective use of that major investment; and staffing policies,
procedures and practices necessary to ensure efficient utilization of
workforce and retention of qualified personnel.
Professional Services Contracts
The city expends over $2.3 million in professional services each year. A
citywide review of all professional services contracts and expenditures
would include a review of compliance with city policies and procedures
and a cost benefit analysis of the method of outsourcing versus
performing the service in-house.
Revenue Generating Cost Centers
One of the strategic goals that the City Council formed during the June
2010 city council retreat was that services should pay for themselves. A
citywide audit of revenue generating cost centers would review these cost
centers’ financial management practices, policies and procedures. In
addition, the audit could include a cost utility analysis, cost minimization
analysis, and a staffing analysis.
37
38
Exhibit A: Risk Factor Data
#Department Name Division Name
FY09 Approved
Budgeted
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
FY09
Budget
FTE
Sc
o
r
e
2
FY09 Operation
Revenue
Sc
o
r
e
3
FY07-FY09
Expenditure
Trend
Sc
o
r
e
4
FY07-09 Avg
Claims Against
City
Sc
o
r
e
9
FY07-FY09
Budget Trend
Sc
o
r
e
5
FY07-FY09 FTE
Change
Sc
o
r
e
6
FY07-FY09
Operating
Revenue Change
Sc
o
r
e
7
FY09
Turnover
Sc
o
r
e
8
FY07-09 Avg
Workers Comp
Amounts
Sc
o
r
e
1
0
FY07-FY09 Avg
Training
Expenditures per
FTE Sc
o
r
e
1
1
1 General Government Mayor/Council 85,993 1 - 1 0 1 12%3 0.00 1 28%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
2 General Government City Secretary Division 411,171 3 5.00 2 35,957 3 5%3 0.00 1 5%3 0.00 1 0.14 3 20%4 0 1 4,921 5
3 General Government Internal Auditor 115,704 1 1.00 2 0 1 346%5 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
4 General Government City Manager Division 780,002 4 5.50 2 0 1 5%2 0.00 1 -9%4 -0.15 4 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 18,746 5
5 General Government Legal Division 1,083,930 4 10.00 3 0 1 5%3 0.00 1 12%4 0.11 4 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 4,766 5
6 General Government Economic/Community Devel 594,175 3 6.50 3 0 1 34%5 0.67 2 61%5 -0.26 5 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 2,510 4
7 General Government Communication Services 561,009 3 5.50 2 0 1 36%5 0.00 1 21%5 1.23 5 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 6,234 5
8 General Government Human Resources 605,861 4 6.00 3 0 1 -8%1 0.33 2 -13%4 -0.20 4 0.00 1 17%3 0 1 7,748 5
9 Fire Department Fire Admin Division 489,932 3 5.00 2 0 1 4%2 0.00 1 6%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 112 2 1,996 3
10 Fire Department Emergency Management 261,885 2 3.00 2 0 1 11%2 0.00 1 -7%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 3,611 4
11 Fire Department Fire Suppression Division 7,499,662 5 77.00 5 0 1 16%4 4.67 4 18%5 0.12 4 0.00 1 3%2 5,436 5 3,028 4
12 Fire Department Fire Prevention Division 734,266 4 6.00 3 22,207 3 -6%1 17.00 5 -5%3 -0.20 4 1.10 5 0%1 41 2 2,633 4
13 Fire Department Emergency Med Srv Div 2,620,734 5 31.00 5 887,891 4 5%3 1.00 2 4%3 0.00 1 0.07 2 3%2 559 4 2,268 3
14 Fiscal Services Fiscal Administration 602,696 3 3.50 2 0 1 16%4 0.00 1 7%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 4,539 4
15 Fiscal Services Accounting Division 773,119 4 10.00 3 0 1 1%2 0.00 1 3%2 -0.09 3 -1.00 5 10%2 0 1 4,825 5
16 Fiscal Services Purchasing & Stores Div 330,284 2 4.00 2 0 1 1%2 0.00 1 3%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 5,642 5
17 Fiscal Services Budget & Strategic Plng 409,465 2 5.00 2 0 1 22%4 0.00 1 8%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 20%4 0 1 2,825 4
18 Fiscal Services Municipal Court Division 1,114,113 4 16.50 4 3,524,342 5 -5%1 0.33 2 -5%3 -0.05 3 0.00 2 13%3 83 2 1,273 3
19 Fiscal Services Judiciary 145,934 1 1.50 1 0 1 4%2 0.00 1 6%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 5,326 5
20 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Admin Division 835,282 4 10.50 4 0 1 5%3 0.00 1 9%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 10%2 0 1 3,284 4
21 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Programs (Athletics)161,076 2 0.50 4 0 1 -16%1 0.00 1 1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 104,089 5
22 Parks & Recreation Dept Recreation Division 594,604 3 3.50 1 0 1 29%5 1.67 3 30%5 0.20 4 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 4,003 4
23 Parks & Recreation Dept Athletics 529,787 3 6.00 1 370,537 4 4%2 0.00 1 2%2 0.00 1 -0.13 3 0%1 286 3 5,719 5
24 Parks & Recreation Dept Concessions 157,966 2 3.00 1 118,110 3 18%4 0.00 1 -6%3 0.00 1 0.67 5 0%1 0 1 0 1
25 Parks & Recreation Dept Programs & Special Events 151,127 2 2.50 1 28,942 3 3%2 0.00 1 3%2 0.00 1 0.35 4 0%1 0 1 882 2
26 Parks & Recreation Dept Senior Services 58,038 1 1.00 1 240 2 -3%1 0.00 1 -2%2 0.00 1 0.09 2 0%1 0 1 1,257 3
27 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Programs (Prog. & Spc. Events)287,790 2 1.00 1 0 1 10%3 0.00 1 3%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 73 2 1,696 3
28 Parks & Recreation Dept Instruction 286,783 2 6.50 5 152,111 3 4%2 0.00 1 5%3 0.00 1 0.16 3 0%1 465 3 4,586 4
29 Parks & Recreation Dept Heritage Programs 57,636 1 1.00 1 0 1 339%5 0.00 1 269%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
30 Parks & Recreation Dept Special Facilities Administration 107,508 1 1.00 1 0 1 10%3 4.33 4 9%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 1,436 3
31 Parks & Recreation Dept Aquatics 847,688 4 20.00 1 286,637 4 7%3 0.00 1 2%2 0.00 1 0.07 2 0%1 1,311 4 1,558 3
32 Parks & Recreation Dept Conference Center 326,392 2 6.50 1 0 1 0%2 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 937 2
33 Parks & Recreation Dept Lincoln Center 408,673 2 6.50 1 21,758 2 1%2 0.00 1 8%4 0.00 1 0.01 2 0%1 122 2 2,070 3
34 Parks & Recreation Dept Youth Recreation 212,603 2 4.00 1 2,410 2 1%2 0.00 1 -24%5 0.00 1 0.43 5 0%1 0 1 954 2
35 Parks & Recreation Dept Library 1,130,871 4 - 1 0 1 9%3 0.00 1 9%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
36 Parks & Recreation Dept Xtra Education 96,474 1 - 1 0 1 1%2 0.00 1 0%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
37 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Operations Administration 667,188 4 1.00 5 0 1 -2%1 11.33 5 9%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 13,822 5
38 Parks & Recreation Dept East District 807,553 4 15.00 1 0 1 5%3 0.00 1 2%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 8%2 369 3 43 2
39 Parks & Recreation Dept South District 601,055 3 12.00 1 0 1 6%3 0.00 1 6%3 0.09 3 0.00 1 18%3 1,077 4 80 2
40 Parks & Recreation Dept West District 595,748 3 12.00 1 0 1 -3%1 0.00 1 2%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 838 4 0 1
41 Parks & Recreation Dept Cemetery 349,099 2 5.00 4 0 1 61%5 0.00 1 92%5 0.67 5 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 80 2
42 Parks & Recreation Dept Forestry 1,219,028 4 14.50 1 0 1 14%4 2.33 3 16%4 0.32 5 0.00 1 7%2 2,678 5 1,340 3
43 Planning & Dev Serv Dept P&DS Administration 423,831 3 3.00 2 0 1 -29%1 0.67 2 -33%5 -0.39 5 0.00 1 33%5 33 2 3,677 4
44 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Building 496,714 3 7.00 3 17,576 2 2%2 1.00 2 -1%2 -0.02 2 -0.30 4 0%1 60 2 3,877 4
45 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Development Coordination 486,760 3 8.00 3 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
46 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Code Enforcement 564,485 3 8.00 3 2,423 2 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 -0.46 5 25%4 0 1 0 1
47 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Planning 633,411 4 8.50 3 153,864 3 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 -0.25 4 0%1 0 1 0 1
48 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Neighborhood Services 85,588 1 5.00 2 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
49 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Transportation 94,670 1 - 2 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
Page 18 of 2339
Exhibit A: Risk Factor Data
#Department Name Division Name
FY09 Approved
Budgeted
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
FY09
Budget
FTE
Sc
o
r
e
2
FY09 Operation
Revenue
Sc
o
r
e
3
FY07-FY09
Expenditure
Trend
Sc
o
r
e
4
FY07-09 Avg
Claims Against
City
Sc
o
r
e
9
FY07-FY09
Budget Trend
Sc
o
r
e
5
FY07-FY09 FTE
Change
Sc
o
r
e
6
FY07-FY09
Operating
Revenue Change
Sc
o
r
e
7
FY09
Turnover
Sc
o
r
e
8
FY07-09 Avg
Workers Comp
Amounts
Sc
o
r
e
1
0
FY07-FY09 Avg
Training
Expenditures per
FTE Sc
o
r
e
1
1
50 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Greenways 77,097 1 - 2 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
51 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Geographic Information Services (GIS)103,606 1 - 2 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
52 Police Department Police Admin Division 860,437 4 9.00 4 0 1 7%3 0.67 2 3%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 18%3 0 1 5,363 5
53 Police Department Uniform Patrol Division 6,028,350 5 84.50 5 147,042 3 9%3 25.33 5 9%4 0.02 2 0.01 2 13%3 22,208 5 1,190 3
54 Police Department Criminal Invest Division 1,670,126 5 20.00 5 0 1 4%2 1.33 3 7%3 0.03 2 0.00 1 0%1 96 2 2,288 3
55 Police Department Recruiting and Training 455,073 3 4.00 2 0 1 4%2 0.33 2 2%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 12,975 5
56 Police Department Quarter Master 2,579,336 5 1.00 2 0 1 10%3 0.00 1 24%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 67 2
57 Police Department Communications/Jail Div 1,552,810 5 31.00 5 0 1 7%3 0.33 2 5%3 0.07 3 0.00 1 13%3 202 3 993 2
58 Police Department Special Services 766,444 4 9.00 3 7,924 2 -17%1 3.67 4 -11%4 -0.15 4 0.19 3 33%5 925 4 2,227 3
59 Police Department Information Services 394,302 2 8.00 3 12,993 2 -6%1 0.00 1 2%2 0.00 1 0.29 4 0%1 0 1 799 2
60 Public Works Dept Public Works Admin 553,202 3 5.00 2 0 1 -6%1 0.00 1 4%3 -0.30 5 0.00 1 0%1 151 3 2,298 4
61 Public Works Dept Facilities Maintenance 1,354,822 4 7.00 3 0 1 2%2 0.00 1 1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 14%3 66 2 281 2
62 Public Works Dept Streets Maintenance 3,123,565 5 22.00 5 0 1 5%3 10.33 5 4%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 14%3 492 3 397 2
63 Public Works Dept Drainage Maintenance 1,163,069 4 12.00 4 0 1 120%4 6.67 4 23%5 0.05 2 0.00 1 8%2 5,101 5 466 2
64 Public Works Dept Traffic Signs and Markings 359,840 2 3.00 2 0 1 -14%1 2.00 3 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 2,396 4
65 Public Works Dept Engineering Division 712,848 4 9.00 3 0 1 -7%1 0.67 2 -26%5 -0.46 5 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 2,560 4
66 Public Works Dept Traffic Signals 731,251 4 5.00 2 0 1 8%3 1.33 3 16%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 83 2 2,384 4
67 Public Works Dept Traffic Engineering 0 1 1.00 1 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%0 1 0 1
68 Utility customer Service Billing Collection 1,617,863 5 19.00 4 2,199,879 4 7%3 4.33 4 3%3 0.00 1 -0.14 3 11%3 1,731 2 536 2
69 Utility customer Service Meter Services 592,431 3 10.50 4 0 1 2%2 0.00 1 5%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 30%4 489 3 236 2
70 Northgate District Management Northgate District Management 0 1 - 1 990,735 4 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.61 5 0%1 0 1 0 1
71 Community Development Community Development 3,908,517 5 4.50 2 0 1 29%3 0.67 2 40%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 44%5 1,377 4 0 1
72 Sanitation Residential Collection 3,451,918 5 24.15 5 6,933,172 5 4%2 21.00 5 7%3 -0.06 3 0.07 2 4%2 3,310 5 1,066 3
73 Sanitation Commercial Collection 2,389,945 5 11.10 4 0 1 -1%1 0.00 1 3%3 0.00 2 0.00 1 18%3 469 3 1,855 3
74 Fleet Services Parts 102,192 1 2.00 2 0 1 2%1 2.00 3 1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 162 2
75 Fleet Services Administration 1,462,756 5 13.00 4 1,799,400 4 1%2 0.00 1 1%2 0.00 1 0.02 2 0%1 494 4 2,079 3
76 BVSWMA Landfill Operations 4,300,062 5 24.50 5 6,561,529 5 -7%1 3.67 4 20%5 0.00 1 0.06 2 4%2 5,940 5 1,436 3
77 BVSWMA BVSWMA Administration 305,441 2 2.75 2 0 1 -10%1 0.00 1 -1%2 -0.04 2 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 8,400 5
78 Capital Projects Capital Projects Operations 883,807 4 11.00 3 0 1 0%5 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 30%4 0 1 0 1
79 Electric Fund Operations Warehouse 229,957 2 5.00 2 0 1 1%2 0.00 1 -2%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 76 2
80 Electric Fund Operations Administration 63,664,505 5 6.50 3 82,610,204 5 3720%5 0.00 1 3076%5 0.09 3 0.23 4 0%1 0 1 9,858 5
81 Electrical Substations 100,612 1 12.00 1 0 1 36%3 0.00 1 -17%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
82 Electrical Utility Dispatch Operations 20,993 1 11.00 1 0 1 -6%1 0.00 1 -28%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
83 Electrical Engineering & Design 0 1 9.00 1 0 1 465%5 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
84 Electrical Energy Mgmt Service 176,290 2 3.00 1 0 1 60%1 0.00 1 -15%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
85 Electrical Electric Administration 5,049,390 5 23.00 1 0 1 -21%1 29.33 5 -37%5 0.00 1 0.00 1 17%3 12,019 5 0 1
86 Electrical Transmission Maintenance 29,327 1 - 1 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 -4%3 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
87 Electrical Distribution Maintenance 174,518 2 - 1 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 -15%4 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 0 1
88 Water Fund Operation Water Production 2,226,240 5 5.00 2 14,101,818 5 24%5 29.33 5 3%3 0.00 1 0.40 5 0%1 2 1 3,885 4
89 Water Fund Operation Water Distribution 2,109,779 5 24.00 5 0 1 18%3 0.00 1 2%2 -0.02 2 0.00 1 0%1 13,780 5 1,680 3
90 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Collection 2,032,208 5 25.00 5 11,655,527 5 38%5 6.33 4 11%4 0.07 3 0.11 3 0%1 2,676 5 857 2
91 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Treatment 2,985,236 5 24.50 5 0 1 9%3 0.00 1 8%4 0.01 2 0.00 1 4%2 820 4 2,408 4
92 Information Technology Information Technology Administration 440,114 3 5.00 2 0 1 6%2 0.00 1 1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 3,776 4
93 Information Technology E-Government 170,514 2 2.00 2 0 1 2%2 0.00 1 1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 50%5 0 1 8,660 5
94 Information Technology Geographic Information Services (GIS)210,735 2 2.50 2 0 1 1%2 0.00 1 -1%2 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 0 1 7,176 5
95 Information Technology Mail 106,848 1 1.75 2 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 727 4 0 1
96 Information Technology Management Information Services 2,236,824 5 15.00 4 0 1 0%2 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0%1 461 3 6,334 5
97 Information Technology Communication Services 0 1 - 1 0 1 0%1 0.00 1 0%1 0.00 1 0.00 1 14%3 135 3 0 1
Page 19 of 2340
Exhibit A: Risk Factor Data
#Department Name Division Name
1 General Government Mayor/Council
2 General Government City Secretary Division
3 General Government Internal Auditor
4 General Government City Manager Division
5 General Government Legal Division
6 General Government Economic/Community Devel
7 General Government Communication Services
8 General Government Human Resources
9 Fire Department Fire Admin Division
10 Fire Department Emergency Management
11 Fire Department Fire Suppression Division
12 Fire Department Fire Prevention Division
13 Fire Department Emergency Med Srv Div
14 Fiscal Services Fiscal Administration
15 Fiscal Services Accounting Division
16 Fiscal Services Purchasing & Stores Div
17 Fiscal Services Budget & Strategic Plng
18 Fiscal Services Municipal Court Division
19 Fiscal Services Judiciary
20 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Admin Division
21 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Programs (Athletics)
22 Parks & Recreation Dept Recreation Division
23 Parks & Recreation Dept Athletics
24 Parks & Recreation Dept Concessions
25 Parks & Recreation Dept Programs & Special Events
26 Parks & Recreation Dept Senior Services
27 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Programs (Prog. & Spc. Events)
28 Parks & Recreation Dept Instruction
29 Parks & Recreation Dept Heritage Programs
30 Parks & Recreation Dept Special Facilities Administration
31 Parks & Recreation Dept Aquatics
32 Parks & Recreation Dept Conference Center
33 Parks & Recreation Dept Lincoln Center
34 Parks & Recreation Dept Youth Recreation
35 Parks & Recreation Dept Library
36 Parks & Recreation Dept Xtra Education
37 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Operations Administration
38 Parks & Recreation Dept East District
39 Parks & Recreation Dept South District
40 Parks & Recreation Dept West District
41 Parks & Recreation Dept Cemetery
42 Parks & Recreation Dept Forestry
43 Planning & Dev Serv Dept P&DS Administration
44 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Building
45 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Development Coordination
46 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Code Enforcement
47 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Planning
48 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Neighborhood Services
49 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Transportation
FY09 Budget to
Actual
Expenditure
Variance Sc
o
r
e
1
2
FY09 Overtime
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
3
FY07-FY09 Avg
Sick Hrs Taken
Per FTE
Sc
o
r
e
1
4
FY09
Overtime
Hours per
FTE Sc
o
r
e
1
5
FY09 Cost
per Customer
Sc
o
r
e
1
6
Estimated Annual
Cash Handling
Sc
o
r
e
1
7
FY07-FY09 Avg
Purchasing
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
8
FY07-FY09
Purchasing
Trend
Sc
o
r
e
1
9
Professional
Service
Expenditures
trend Sc
o
r
e
2
0
FY07-09 Avg
Travel/Training
Expenditure
Sc
o
r
e
2
1
7,448 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 61,417 3 7%2 0%1 54%4
38,735 4 6,542 4 83 5 46.05 4 520 4 34,098 3 86,689 3 33%2 -25%2 64%5
1,373 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 5,022 1 0%2 0%1 0%1
57,254 4 6,951 4 29 2 35.86 4 119,608 5 0 1 120,447 4 -40%2 -30%2 58%5
129,069 5 0 1 55 3 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 70,895 3 37%2 -81%2 50%4
80,234 5 0 1 30 2 9.27 3 128,485 5 700 2 320,780 5 31%3 469%5 59%5
91,662 5 0 1 50 3 0.00 1 6,799 5 0 1 259,864 4 119%3 -22%2 59%5
82,818 5 251 2 63 3 1.56 2 638 4 111,000 4 221,347 4 19%2 310%5 26%3
798 2 259 2 74 4 1.20 2 0 1 30,000 3 29,276 2 64%4 128%4 36%3
16,454 3 171 2 62 3 4.83 2 3 2 0 1 134,078 4 12%2 -100%2 76%5
100,212 5 247,718 5 112 5 90.53 5 2,171 5 500 2 881,332 5 216%4 214%5 30%3
24,876 3 18,588 4 87 5 9.75 3 35 3 0 1 64,482 3 80%5 0%1 41%4
56,619 4 93,101 5 110 5 93.10 5 32 3 0 1 193,560 4 49%3 0%3 9%2
13,313 3 0 1 45 2 0.00 1 712 4 0 1 468,931 5 75%3 88%4 25%2
20,718 3 3,565 3 46 2 10.20 3 909 5 0 1 236,744 4 50%3 8%3 29%3
11,225 3 0 1 131 5 0.00 1 602 4 0 1 13,065 1 30%5 -23%2 49%4
31,608 4 0 1 107 5 0.00 1 906 5 0 1 28,012 2 -12%2 -13%2 23%2
129,891 5 5,603 3 66 4 17.50 3 47 3 5,000,000 5 133,405 4 -33%2 -85%2 40%4
5,132 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 94 4 0 1 2,150 1 -7%2 0%1 29%3
15,536 3 1,086 3 72 4 4.17 2 0 1 1,078,158 5 57,475 3 0%2 21%3 51%4
24,508 3 3,097 3 0 1 0.00 1 17 2 0 1 92,937 3 -8%2 191%4 99%5
138,372 5 1,219 3 42 2 1.43 2 0 1 40,000 3 27,634 2 366%5 0%1 81%5
19,383 3 5,693 3 47 2 24.21 3 51 3 0 1 174,189 4 2%2 11%3 9%2
3,199 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 2 2 0 1 34,329 2 -23%2 459%5 0%1
2,066 2 41 2 12 2 7.10 2 4 2 0 1 15,124 2 1%3 -48%2 49%4
896 2 0 1 8 2 0.00 1 10 2 0 1 7,647 1 -7%3 0%1 71%5
342 2 933 2 3,835 5 14,069.49 5 6 2 0 1 129,044 4 5%2 41%4 39%3
10,509 3 3,862 3 44 2 14.10 3 86 3 3,500 2 63,253 3 15%3 -29%2 8%2
2,297 2 374 2 0 1 10.84 3 54 3 0 1 18,456 2 230%4 0%1 82%5
3,984 2 0 1 33 2 0.00 1 0 1 326,959 4 1,670 1 47%2 0%1 66%5
78,738 4 18,946 4 132 5 519.71 5 7 2 0 1 143,199 4 28%3 9%3 21%2
26,495 3 249 2 23 2 3.08 2 4 2 160,300 4 17,535 2 -12%2 3%3 25%2
46,432 4 2,119 3 10 2 15.85 3 6 2 0 1 35,972 2 -17%3 -27%2 59%5
19,971 3 956 2 27 2 7.31 2 14 2 0 1 25,932 2 4%4 128%4 22%2
11,104 3 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 5 2 0 1 960,579 5 8%2 5%3 0%1
8,441 2 3,863 3 0 1 0.00 1 28 3 0 1 0 1 0%1 0%1 100%5
75,270 4 0 1 16 2 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 73,301 3 -54%3 -56%2 61%5
15,049 3 38,228 5 62 3 81.85 4 0 1 0 1 101,077 4 -47%3 -5%2 0%1
46,774 4 14,633 4 74 4 40.46 4 0 1 0 1 55,885 3 -34%2 106%4 28%3
61,102 4 14,750 4 153 5 265.16 5 0 1 0 1 35,132 2 31%3 468%5 0%1
49,507 4 94 2 34 2 0.00 1 1,338 5 0 1 104,386 4 27%3 0%1 0%
25,353 3 20,280 4 72 4 59.10 4 0 1 0 1 363,887 5 17%2 23%3 40%4
27,882 3 0 1 11 2 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 248,201 4 56%3 -1%2 43%4
6,040 2 2,947 3 58 3 5.64 2 45 3 0 1 24,298 2 51%2 226%5 41%4
6,001 2 701 2 0 1 2.41 2 43 3 2,460,000 5 12,801 1 0%5 0%1 0%1
78,759 4 2,418 3 0 1 8.13 2 41 3 0 1 29,727 2 0%5 0%1 0%1
36,439 4 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 1,913 5 0 1 15,718 2 0%5 0%1 0%1
16,871 3 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 982 5 500 2 1,705 1 0%5 0%1 0%1
5,243 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 1,908 1 0%5 0%1 0%1
Page 20 of 2341
Exhibit A: Risk Factor Data
#Department Name Division Name
50 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Greenways
51 Planning & Dev Serv Dept Geographic Information Services (GIS)
52 Police Department Police Admin Division
53 Police Department Uniform Patrol Division
54 Police Department Criminal Invest Division
55 Police Department Recruiting and Training
56 Police Department Quarter Master
57 Police Department Communications/Jail Div
58 Police Department Special Services
59 Police Department Information Services
60 Public Works Dept Public Works Admin
61 Public Works Dept Facilities Maintenance
62 Public Works Dept Streets Maintenance
63 Public Works Dept Drainage Maintenance
64 Public Works Dept Traffic Signs and Markings
65 Public Works Dept Engineering Division
66 Public Works Dept Traffic Signals
67 Public Works Dept Traffic Engineering
68 Utility customer Service Billing Collection
69 Utility customer Service Meter Services
70 Northgate District Management Northgate District Management
71 Community Development Community Development
72 Sanitation Residential Collection
73 Sanitation Commercial Collection
74 Fleet Services Parts
75 Fleet Services Administration
76 BVSWMA Landfill Operations
77 BVSWMA BVSWMA Administration
78 Capital Projects Capital Projects Operations
79 Electric Fund Operations Warehouse
80 Electric Fund Operations Administration
81 Electrical Substations
82 Electrical Utility Dispatch Operations
83 Electrical Engineering & Design
84 Electrical Energy Mgmt Service
85 Electrical Electric Administration
86 Electrical Transmission Maintenance
87 Electrical Distribution Maintenance
88 Water Fund Operation Water Production
89 Water Fund Operation Water Distribution
90 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Collection
91 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Treatment
92 Information Technology Information Technology Administration
93 Information Technology E-Government
94 Information Technology Geographic Information Services (GIS)
95 Information Technology Mail
96 Information Technology Management Information Services
97 Information Technology Communication Services
FY09 Budget to
Actual
Expenditure
Variance Sc
o
r
e
1
2
FY09 Overtime
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
3
FY07-FY09 Avg
Sick Hrs Taken
Per FTE
Sc
o
r
e
1
4
FY09
Overtime
Hours per
FTE Sc
o
r
e
1
5
FY09 Cost
per Customer
Sc
o
r
e
1
6
Estimated Annual
Cash Handling
Sc
o
r
e
1
7
FY07-FY09 Avg
Purchasing
Expenditures
Sc
o
r
e
1
8
FY07-FY09
Purchasing
Trend
Sc
o
r
e
1
9
Professional
Service
Expenditures
trend Sc
o
r
e
2
0
FY07-09 Avg
Travel/Training
Expenditure
Sc
o
r
e
2
1
940 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 484 1 0%1 0%1 0%1
3,143 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 328 4 0 1 2,872 1 0%1 0%1 0%1
66,921 4 4,406 3 51 3 23.03 3 0 1 0 1 106,268 4 172%2 213%5 61%5
274,089 5 326,404 5 60 3 81.02 4 111 4 0 1 119,221 4 64%4 2%3 42%4
4,874 2 101,987 5 71 4 110.11 5 88 3 15,000 3 53,781 3 7%2 6%3 55%4
874 2 9,004 4 86 5 83.19 5 1,135 5 20,000 3 61,960 3 0%2 -14%2 17%2
421,875 5 19 2 83 5 1.00 2 2,247 5 0 1 787,301 5 42%2 0%1 0%1
48,017 4 73,316 5 60 3 58.83 4 0 1 450,572 4 29,852 2 30%2 5%3 65%5
95,338 5 28,474 4 51 3 105.47 5 223 4 2,500 2 76,654 3 -49%3 195%4 64%5
71,585 4 4,731 3 51 3 25.38 3 20 3 88,669 3 4,681 1 164%3 0%1 21%2
13,534 3 0 1 56 3 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 45,943 2 -52%2 -95%2 45%4
146,527 5 4,925 3 82 5 27.00 4 14,384 5 0 1 480,908 5 -8%2 0%1 30%3
95,166 5 19,864 4 81 4 20.33 3 53 3 0 1 1,822,695 5 3%2 83%4 23%2
61,277 4 10,132 4 60 3 19.13 3 35 3 0 1 182,617 4 364%5 -35%2 39%3
109,684 5 4,295 3 73 4 39.00 4 159 4 0 1 136,389 4 -11%2 334%5 44%4
46,999 4 8,669 4 35 2 25.50 3 9,155 5 0 1 114,430 4 46%2 0%1 23%2
88,994 5 7,278 4 109 5 58.90 4 459 4 0 1 134,074 4 170%4 -40%2 56%5
0 1 0 1 74 4 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0%1 2599%5 0%1
81,253 5 784 2 87 5 1.09 2 47 3 110,500,000 5 469,873 5 62%3 0%1 53%4
26,084 3 20,431 4 65 4 84.98 5 16 2 0 1 15,658 2 120%5 194%4 33%3
0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 518,856 5 0 1 0%1 0%1 0%1
3,285,794 5 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 38,920 5 0 1 513,826 5 48%2 0%1 0%1
115,026 5 62,386 5 88 5 72.79 4 176 4 3,000 2 1,073,581 5 -13%2 2141%5 51%4
103,769 5 36,240 5 83 5 124.43 5 2,241 5 0 1 374,600 5 -40%2 99%4 55%4
6,060 2 821 2 102 5 19.41 3 207 4 0 1 1,431 1 -14%4 0%1 0%
4,209 2 9,379 4 81 4 30.67 4 0 1 0 1 378,387 5 32%2 225%5 42%4
1,860,543 5 112,420 5 82 4 134.00 5 344 4 747,122 5 2,224,941 5 31%3 11%3 37%3
47,510 4 0 1 49 3 0.00 1 0 1 480 2 286,816 4 261%4 92%4 65%5
22,247 3 90 2 0 1 0.00 1 107,695 5 0 1 19,467 2 0%2 0%1 57%5
4,693 2 545 2 47 3 2.20 2 2,300 5 600 2 1,486 1 52%4 348%5 0%1
1,959,247 5 280 2 55 3 2.00 2 0 1 4,650 2 402,865 5 72%3 0%1 20%2
8,316 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 3 2 0 1 50,433 3 39%3 3774%5 44%4
6,159 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 1 2 10,000 3 8,638 1 9%2 0%1 66%5
66,261 4 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 2 2 0 1 61,613 3 273%5 0%1 53%4
55,512 4 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 303 4 0 1 23,984 2 14%2 0%1 38%3
416,029 5 272,541 5 0 1 309.10 5 0 1 0 1 688,636 5 -43%2 49%4 29%3
2,895 2 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 1 2 0 1 37,946 2 -3%2 0%1 0%1
67,257 4 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 3 2 0 1 35,779 2 64%2 0%1 0%1
19,471 3 33,452 5 62 3 251.00 5 97 4 0 1 1,292,260 5 14%3 3613%5 11%2
109,696 5 67,393 5 73 4 90.23 5 88 3 0 1 334,951 5 6%2 27%3 24%2
127,924 5 55,691 5 82 5 75.88 4 84 3 2,000 2 237,967 4 -32%2 94%4 17%2
41,634 4 101,174 5 66 4 141.55 5 133 4 0 1 706,803 5 9%2 23%3 20%2
23,595 3 4,671 3 76 4 33.55 4 0 1 1,200 2 69,123 3 -47%2 67%4 36%3
17,547 3 0 1 63 3 0.00 1 2,428 5 0 1 22,138 2 -7%2 154%4 38%3
8,466 2 776 2 39 2 9.70 3 237 4 0 1 46,696 2 3%2 175%4 37%3
28,366 3 0 1 0 1 1.43 2 91 4 100,000 4 132,451 4 -6%3 0%1 0%1
91,595 5 28,730 5 81 4 46.35 4 2,515 5 100 2 1,101,437 5 7%2 -54%2 39%3
0 1 0 1 0 1 0.00 1 0 1 0 1 180,839 4 24%3 0%1 0%1
Page 21 of 2342
Exhibit B: Risk Factor Scoring
#Department Name Division Name Sc
o
r
e
1
Sc
o
r
e
2
Sc
o
r
e
3
Sc
o
r
e
4
Si
z
e
Sc
o
r
e
5
Sc
o
r
e
6
Sc
o
r
e
7
Sc
o
r
e
8
Or
g
∆
Sc
o
r
e
9
Sc
o
r
e
1
0
Sc
o
r
e
1
1
Sc
o
r
e
1
2
Sc
o
r
e
1
3
Et
h
i
c
s
Sc
o
r
e
1
4
Sc
o
r
e
1
5
Sc
o
r
e
1
6
Sc
o
r
e
1
7
Sc
o
r
e
1
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Me
d
i
a
Sc
o
r
e
1
9
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sc
o
r
e
2
0
Sc
o
r
e
2
1
Sa
f
e
t
y
0.16 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 Total Rank
1 General Government Mayor/Council 1 1 1 3 6 5 1 1 1 8 1 3 2 1 4 11 2 1 1 1 1 6 5 1 6 1 1 2 0.96 1.44 2.42 1.32 0.66 0.22 7.02 1
2 General Government City Secretary Division 3 2 3 3 11 3 1 3 4 11 3 3 2 2 5 15 4 4 5 4 4 21 5 1 6 1 5 6 1.76 1.98 3.30 4.62 0.66 0.66 12.98 5
3 General Government Internal Auditor 1 2 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 6 5 1 6 1 1 2 1.44 0.72 1.32 1.32 0.66 0.22 5.68 1
4 General Government City Manager Division 4 2 1 2 9 4 4 1 1 10 1 4 2 2 5 14 4 4 2 4 5 19 5 1 6 1 5 6 1.44 1.80 3.08 4.18 0.66 0.66 11.82 4
5 General Government Legal Division 4 3 1 3 11 4 4 1 1 10 1 3 2 2 4 12 5 1 3 1 1 11 5 1 6 1 5 6 1.76 1.80 2.64 2.42 0.66 0.66 9.94 3
6 General Government Economic/Community Devel 3 3 1 5 12 5 5 1 1 12 2 5 3 5 5 20 5 1 2 3 5 16 5 2 7 1 4 5 1.92 2.16 4.40 3.52 0.77 0.55 13.32 5
7 General Government Communication Services 3 2 1 5 11 5 5 1 1 12 1 4 3 2 5 15 5 1 3 1 5 15 5 1 6 1 5 6 1.76 2.16 3.30 3.30 0.66 0.66 11.84 4
8 General Government Human Resources 4 3 1 1 9 4 4 1 3 12 4 4 2 5 3 18 5 2 3 2 4 16 5 2 7 1 5 6 1.44 2.16 3.96 3.52 0.77 0.66 12.51 5
9 Fire Department Fire Admin Division 3 2 1 2 8 3 1 1 1 6 3 2 4 4 3 16 2 2 4 2 1 11 2 1 3 2 3 5 1.28 1.08 3.52 2.42 0.33 0.55 9.18 2
10 Fire Department Emergency Management 2 2 1 2 7 3 1 1 1 6 1 4 2 2 5 14 3 2 3 2 2 12 2 1 3 1 4 5 1.12 1.08 3.08 2.64 0.33 0.55 8.80 2
11 Fire Department Fire Suppression Division 5 5 1 4 15 5 4 1 2 12 2 5 4 5 3 19 5 5 5 5 5 25 2 4 6 5 4 9 2.40 2.16 4.18 5.50 0.66 0.99 15.89 5
12 Fire Department Fire Prevention Division 4 3 3 1 11 3 4 5 1 13 1 3 5 1 4 14 3 4 5 3 3 18 2 5 7 2 4 6 1.76 2.34 3.08 3.96 0.77 0.66 12.57 5
13 Fire Department Emergency Med Srv Div 5 5 4 3 17 3 1 2 2 8 1 4 3 3 2 13 4 5 5 5 3 22 2 2 4 4 3 7 2.72 1.44 2.86 4.84 0.44 0.77 13.07 5
14 Fiscal Services Fiscal Administration 3 2 1 4 10 3 1 1 1 6 1 5 3 4 2 15 3 1 2 1 4 11 3 1 4 1 4 5 1.60 1.08 3.30 2.42 0.44 0.55 9.39 3
15 Fiscal Services Accounting Division 4 3 1 2 10 2 3 5 2 12 1 4 3 3 3 14 3 3 2 3 5 16 3 1 4 1 5 6 1.60 2.16 3.08 3.52 0.44 0.66 11.46 4
16 Fiscal Services Purchasing & Stores Div 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 2 4 13 3 1 5 1 4 14 3 1 4 1 5 6 1.12 0.90 2.86 3.08 0.44 0.66 9.06 2
17 Fiscal Services Budget & Strategic Plng 2 2 1 4 9 4 1 1 4 10 1 2 2 2 2 9 4 1 5 1 5 16 3 1 4 1 4 5 1.44 1.80 1.98 3.52 0.44 0.55 9.73 3
18 Fiscal Services Municipal Court Division 4 4 5 1 14 3 3 2 3 11 5 4 2 2 4 17 5 3 4 3 3 18 3 2 5 2 3 5 2.24 1.98 3.74 3.96 0.55 0.55 13.02 5
19 Fiscal Services Judiciary 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 3 8 2 1 1 1 4 9 3 1 4 1 5 6 0.80 1.08 1.76 1.98 0.44 0.66 6.72 1
20 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Admin Division 4 4 1 3 12 4 1 1 2 8 5 3 2 3 4 17 3 3 4 2 1 13 3 1 4 1 4 5 1.92 1.44 3.74 2.86 0.44 0.55 10.95 4
21 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Programs (Athletics)2 4 1 1 8 2 1 1 1 5 1 3 2 4 5 15 3 3 1 1 2 10 3 1 4 1 5 6 1.28 0.90 3.30 2.20 0.44 0.66 8.78 2
22 Parks & Recreation Dept Recreation Division 3 1 1 5 10 5 4 1 1 11 3 2 5 1 5 16 5 3 2 2 1 13 3 3 6 1 4 5 1.60 1.98 3.52 2.86 0.66 0.55 11.17 4
23 Parks & Recreation Dept Athletics 3 1 4 2 10 2 1 3 1 7 1 4 2 3 2 12 3 3 2 3 3 14 3 1 4 3 5 8 1.60 1.26 2.64 3.08 0.44 0.88 9.90 3
24 Parks & Recreation Dept Concessions 2 1 3 4 10 3 1 5 1 10 1 2 2 5 1 11 2 1 1 1 2 7 3 1 4 1 1 2 1.60 1.80 2.42 1.54 0.44 0.22 8.02 2
25 Parks & Recreation Dept Programs & Special Events 2 1 3 2 8 2 1 4 1 8 1 2 3 2 4 12 2 2 2 2 2 10 3 1 4 1 2 3 1.28 1.44 2.64 2.20 0.44 0.33 8.33 2
26 Parks & Recreation Dept Senior Services 1 1 2 1 5 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 3 1 5 11 2 1 2 1 2 8 3 1 4 1 3 4 0.80 1.08 2.42 1.76 0.44 0.44 6.94 1
27 Parks & Recreation Dept Hotel Tax Prog. (Prog. & Spc. Events)2 1 1 3 7 3 1 1 1 6 1 4 2 4 3 14 2 2 5 5 2 16 3 1 4 2 3 5 1.12 1.08 3.08 3.52 0.44 0.55 9.79 3
28 Parks & Recreation Dept Instruction 2 5 3 2 12 3 1 3 1 8 2 3 3 2 2 12 3 3 2 3 3 14 3 1 4 3 4 7 1.92 1.44 2.64 3.08 0.44 0.77 10.29 3
29 Parks & Recreation Dept Heritage Programs 1 1 1 5 8 5 1 1 1 8 1 2 4 1 5 13 2 2 1 3 3 11 3 1 4 1 1 2 1.28 1.44 2.86 2.42 0.44 0.22 8.66 2
30 Parks & Recreation Dept Special Facilities Administration 1 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 1 7 4 1 2 1 5 13 2 1 2 1 1 7 3 4 7 1 3 4 0.96 1.26 2.86 1.54 0.77 0.44 7.83 2
31 Parks & Recreation Dept Aquatics 4 1 4 3 12 2 1 2 1 6 1 4 3 3 2 13 4 4 5 5 2 20 3 1 4 4 3 7 1.92 1.08 2.86 4.40 0.44 0.77 11.47 4
32 Parks & Recreation Dept Conference Center 2 1 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 3 2 13 3 2 2 2 2 11 3 1 4 1 2 3 0.96 0.72 2.86 2.42 0.44 0.33 7.73 2
33 Parks & Recreation Dept Lincoln Center 2 1 2 2 7 4 1 2 1 8 1 2 3 2 5 13 4 3 2 3 2 14 3 1 4 2 3 5 1.12 1.44 2.86 3.08 0.44 0.55 9.49 3
34 Parks & Recreation Dept Youth Recreation 2 1 2 2 7 5 1 5 1 12 1 2 4 4 2 13 3 2 2 2 2 11 3 1 4 1 2 3 1.12 2.16 2.86 2.42 0.44 0.33 9.33 2
35 Parks & Recreation Dept Library 4 1 1 3 9 4 1 1 1 7 1 5 2 3 1 12 3 1 1 1 2 8 3 1 4 1 1 2 1.44 1.26 2.64 1.76 0.44 0.22 7.76 2
36 Parks & Recreation Dept Xtra Education 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 9 2 3 1 1 3 10 3 1 4 1 1 2 0.80 0.90 1.98 2.20 0.44 0.22 6.54 1
37 Parks & Recreation Dept Parks Operations Administration 4 5 1 1 11 4 1 1 1 7 1 3 3 2 5 14 4 1 2 1 1 9 3 5 8 1 5 6 1.76 1.26 3.08 1.98 0.88 0.66 9.62 3
38 Parks & Recreation Dept East District 4 1 1 3 9 2 1 1 2 6 1 4 3 2 1 11 3 5 3 4 1 16 3 1 4 3 2 5 1.44 1.08 2.42 3.52 0.44 0.55 9.45 3
39 Parks & Recreation Dept South District 3 1 1 3 8 3 3 1 3 10 1 3 2 4 3 13 4 4 4 4 1 17 3 1 4 4 2 6 1.28 1.80 2.86 3.74 0.44 0.66 10.78 4
40 Parks & Recreation Dept West District 3 1 1 1 6 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 5 1 12 4 4 5 5 1 19 3 1 4 4 1 5 0.96 0.90 2.64 4.18 0.44 0.55 9.67 3
41 Parks & Recreation Dept Cemetery 2 4 1 5 12 5 5 1 1 12 1 4 3 1 0 9 4 2 2 1 5 14 3 1 4 1 2 3 1.92 2.16 1.98 3.08 0.44 0.33 9.91 3
42 Parks & Recreation Dept Forestry 4 1 1 4 10 4 5 1 2 12 1 5 2 3 4 15 3 4 4 4 1 16 3 3 6 5 3 8 1.60 2.16 3.30 3.52 0.66 0.88 12.12 4
43 Planning & Dev Serv P&DS Administration 3 2 1 1 7 5 5 1 5 16 1 4 3 2 4 14 3 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 3 2 4 6 1.12 2.88 3.08 1.76 0.33 0.66 9.83 3
44 Planning & Dev Serv Building 3 3 2 2 10 2 2 4 1 9 1 2 2 5 4 14 2 3 3 2 3 13 1 2 3 2 4 6 1.60 1.62 3.08 2.86 0.33 0.66 10.15 3
45 Planning & Dev Serv Development Coordination 3 3 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 5 1 1 13 2 2 1 2 3 10 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.28 0.72 2.86 2.20 0.22 0.22 7.50 2
46 Planning & Dev Serv Code Enforcement 3 3 2 1 9 1 1 5 4 11 1 2 5 1 1 10 4 3 1 2 3 13 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.44 1.98 2.20 2.86 0.22 0.22 8.92 3
47 Planning & Dev Serv Planning 4 3 3 1 11 1 1 4 1 7 1 2 5 1 1 10 4 1 1 1 5 12 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.76 1.26 2.20 2.64 0.22 0.22 8.30 2
48 Planning & Dev Serv Neighborhood Services 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 5 1 1 10 3 1 1 1 5 11 1 1 2 1 1 2 0.80 0.72 2.20 2.42 0.22 0.22 6.58 1
49 Planning & Dev Serv Transportation 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 0.80 0.72 1.98 1.32 0.22 0.22 5.26 1
Page 22 of 23 43
Exhibit B: Risk Factor Scoring
#Department Name Division Name Sc
o
r
e
1
Sc
o
r
e
2
Sc
o
r
e
3
Sc
o
r
e
4
Si
z
e
Sc
o
r
e
5
Sc
o
r
e
6
Sc
o
r
e
7
Sc
o
r
e
8
Or
g
∆
Sc
o
r
e
9
Sc
o
r
e
1
0
Sc
o
r
e
1
1
Sc
o
r
e
1
2
Sc
o
r
e
1
3
Et
h
i
c
s
Sc
o
r
e
1
4
Sc
o
r
e
1
5
Sc
o
r
e
1
6
Sc
o
r
e
1
7
Sc
o
r
e
1
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Me
d
i
a
Sc
o
r
e
1
9
Pu
b
l
i
c
Sc
o
r
e
2
0
Sc
o
r
e
2
1
Sa
f
e
t
y
0.16 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 Total Rank
50 Planning & Dev Serv Greenways 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 1 1 2 0.80 0.72 1.10 1.32 0.22 0.22 4.38 1
51 Planning & Dev Serv Geographic Information Services (GIS)1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 4 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 0.80 0.72 1.10 1.98 0.22 0.22 5.04 1
52 Police Department Police Admin Division 4 4 1 3 12 3 1 1 3 8 1 4 2 5 5 17 4 3 3 3 1 14 5 2 7 1 5 6 1.92 1.44 3.74 3.08 0.77 0.66 11.61 4
53 Police Department Uniform Patrol Division 5 5 3 3 16 4 2 2 3 11 1 4 4 3 4 16 5 5 3 4 4 21 5 5 10 5 3 8 2.56 1.98 3.52 4.62 1.10 0.88 14.66 5
54 Police Department Criminal Invest Division 5 5 1 2 13 3 2 1 1 7 3 3 2 3 4 15 2 5 4 5 3 19 5 3 8 2 3 5 2.08 1.26 3.30 4.18 0.88 0.55 12.25 4
55 Police Department Recruiting and Training 3 2 1 2 8 2 1 1 1 5 3 3 2 2 2 12 2 4 5 5 5 21 5 2 7 1 5 6 1.28 0.90 2.64 4.62 0.77 0.66 10.87 4
56 Police Department Quarter Master 5 2 1 3 11 5 1 1 1 8 1 5 2 1 1 10 5 2 5 2 5 19 5 1 6 1 2 3 1.76 1.44 2.20 4.18 0.66 0.33 10.57 3
57 Police Department Communications/Jail Div 5 5 1 3 14 3 3 1 3 10 4 2 2 3 5 16 4 5 3 4 3 19 5 2 7 3 2 5 2.24 1.80 3.52 4.07 0.77 0.55 12.95 5
58 Police Department Special Services 4 3 2 1 10 4 4 3 5 16 2 3 3 4 5 17 5 4 3 5 4 21 5 4 9 4 3 7 1.60 2.88 3.74 4.62 0.99 0.77 14.60 5
59 Police Department Information Services 2 3 2 1 8 2 1 4 1 8 3 1 3 1 2 10 4 3 3 3 3 16 5 1 6 1 2 3 1.28 1.44 2.20 3.52 0.66 0.33 9.43 3
60 Public Works Dept Public Works Admin 3 2 1 1 7 3 5 1 1 10 1 2 2 2 4 11 3 1 3 1 1 9 3 1 4 3 4 7 1.12 1.80 2.42 1.98 0.44 0.77 8.53 2
61 Public Works Dept Facilities Maintenance 4 3 1 2 10 2 1 1 3 7 1 5 2 1 3 12 5 3 5 4 5 22 3 1 4 2 2 4 1.60 1.26 2.64 4.84 0.44 0.44 11.22 4
62 Public Works Dept Streets Maintenance 5 5 1 3 14 3 1 1 3 8 1 5 2 4 2 14 5 4 4 3 3 19 3 5 8 3 2 5 2.24 1.44 3.08 4.18 0.88 0.55 12.37 5
63 Public Works Dept Drainage Maintenance 4 4 1 4 13 5 2 1 2 10 1 4 5 2 3 15 4 4 3 3 3 17 3 4 7 5 2 7 2.08 1.80 3.30 3.74 0.77 0.77 12.46 5
64 Public Works Dept Traffic Signs and Markings 2 2 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 5 4 16 5 3 4 4 4 20 3 3 6 1 4 5 0.96 0.72 3.52 4.40 0.66 0.55 10.81 4
65 Public Works Dept Engineering Division 4 3 1 1 9 5 5 1 1 12 1 4 2 1 2 10 4 4 2 3 5 18 3 2 5 1 4 5 1.44 2.16 2.20 3.96 0.55 0.55 10.86 4
66 Public Works Dept Traffic Signals 4 2 1 3 10 4 1 1 1 7 1 4 4 2 5 16 5 4 5 4 4 22 3 3 6 2 4 6 1.60 1.26 3.52 4.84 0.66 0.66 12.54 5
67 Public Works Dept Traffic Engineering 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 1 4 1 1 8 3 1 4 1 1 2 0.64 0.54 1.98 1.76 0.44 0.22 5.58 1
68 Utility Customer Service Billing Collection 5 4 4 3 16 3 1 3 3 10 5 5 3 1 4 18 5 2 5 2 3 17 0 4 4 2 2 4 2.56 1.80 3.96 3.74 0.44 0.44 12.94 5
69 Utility Customer Service Meter Services 3 4 1 2 10 3 1 1 4 9 1 2 5 4 3 15 3 4 4 5 2 18 0 1 1 3 2 5 1.60 1.62 3.30 3.96 0.11 0.55 11.14 4
70 Northgate District Mgt Northgate District Management 1 1 4 1 7 1 1 5 1 8 5 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 5 0 1 1 1 1 2 1.12 1.44 1.98 1.10 0.11 0.22 5.97 1
71 Community Development Community Development 5 2 1 3 11 5 1 1 5 12 1 5 2 1 1 10 5 1 1 1 5 13 0 2 2 4 1 5 1.76 2.16 2.20 2.86 0.22 0.55 9.75 3
72 Sanitation Residential Collection 5 5 5 2 17 3 3 2 2 10 2 5 2 5 4 18 5 5 5 4 4 23 0 5 5 5 3 8 2.72 1.80 3.96 5.06 0.55 0.88 14.97 5
73 Sanitation Commercial Collection 5 4 1 1 11 3 2 1 3 9 1 5 2 4 4 16 5 5 5 5 5 25 0 1 1 3 3 6 1.76 1.62 3.52 5.50 0.11 0.66 13.17 5
74 Fleet Services Parts 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 4 1 0 7 2 2 5 3 4 16 0 3 3 1 2 3 0.80 0.90 1.54 3.52 0.33 0.33 7.42 1
75 Fleet Services Administration 5 4 4 2 15 2 1 2 1 6 1 5 2 5 4 17 2 4 4 4 1 15 0 1 1 4 3 7 2.40 1.08 3.74 3.30 0.11 0.77 11.40 4
76 BVSWMA Landfill Operations 5 5 5 1 16 5 1 2 2 10 5 5 3 3 3 19 5 5 4 5 4 23 3 4 7 5 3 8 2.56 1.80 4.18 5.06 0.77 0.88 15.25 5
77 BVSWMA BVSWMA Administration 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 1 1 6 2 4 4 4 5 19 4 1 3 1 1 10 3 1 4 1 5 6 0.96 1.08 4.18 2.20 0.44 0.66 9.52 3
78 Capital Projects Capital Projects Operations 4 3 1 5 13 1 1 1 4 7 1 2 2 1 5 11 3 2 1 1 5 12 0 1 1 1 1 2 2.08 1.26 2.42 2.64 0.11 0.22 8.73 3
79 Electric Fund Operations Warehouse 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 5 2 1 4 5 1 13 2 2 3 2 5 14 2 1 3 1 2 3 1.12 0.90 2.86 3.08 0.33 0.33 8.62 2
80 Electric Fund Operations Administration 5 3 5 5 18 5 3 4 1 13 2 5 3 1 2 13 5 2 3 2 1 13 2 1 3 1 5 6 2.88 2.34 2.86 2.86 0.33 0.66 11.93 4
81 Electrical Substations 1 1 1 3 6 4 1 1 1 7 1 3 3 5 4 16 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.96 1.26 3.52 1.54 0.33 0.22 7.83 2
82 Electrical Utility Dispatch Operations 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 8 3 1 2 1 5 12 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.64 1.44 2.64 1.54 0.33 0.22 6.81 1
83 Electrical Engineering & Design 1 1 1 5 8 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 5 1 4 14 4 1 1 1 2 9 2 1 3 1 1 2 1.28 0.72 3.08 1.98 0.33 0.22 7.61 2
84 Electrical Energy Mgmt Service 2 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 3 9 4 1 1 1 4 11 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.80 1.26 1.98 2.42 0.33 0.22 7.01 1
85 Electrical Electric Administration 5 1 1 1 8 5 1 1 3 10 1 5 2 4 3 15 5 5 1 5 1 17 2 5 7 5 1 6 1.28 1.80 3.30 3.74 0.77 0.66 11.55 4
86 Electrical Transmission Maintenance 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 6 1 2 2 1 1 7 2 1 1 1 2 7 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.64 1.08 1.54 1.54 0.33 0.22 5.35 1
87 Electrical Distribution Maintenance 2 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 7 4 1 1 1 2 9 2 1 3 1 1 2 0.80 1.26 1.54 1.98 0.33 0.22 6.13 1
88 Water Fund Operation Water Production 5 2 5 5 17 3 1 5 1 10 1 5 3 5 2 16 3 5 3 5 4 20 0 5 5 1 4 5 2.72 1.80 3.52 4.40 0.55 0.55 13.54 5
89 Water Fund Operation Water Distribution 5 5 1 3 14 2 2 1 1 6 1 5 2 3 2 13 5 5 4 5 3 22 0 1 1 5 3 8 2.24 1.08 2.86 4.84 0.11 0.88 12.01 4
90 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Collection 5 5 5 5 20 4 3 3 1 11 2 4 2 4 2 14 5 5 5 4 3 22 0 4 4 5 2 7 3.20 1.98 3.08 4.84 0.44 0.77 14.31 5
91 Wastewater Fund Operation Wastewater Treatment 5 5 1 3 14 4 2 1 2 9 1 5 2 3 2 13 4 5 4 5 4 22 0 1 1 4 4 8 2.24 1.62 2.86 4.84 0.11 0.88 12.55 5
92 Information Technology Information Technology Administration 3 2 1 2 8 2 1 1 1 5 2 3 2 4 3 14 3 3 4 4 1 15 0 1 1 1 4 5 1.28 0.90 3.08 3.30 0.11 0.55 9.22 2
93 Information Technology E-Government 2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 5 9 1 2 2 4 3 12 3 1 3 1 5 13 0 1 1 1 5 6 1.12 1.62 2.64 2.86 0.11 0.66 9.01 2
94 Information Technology Geographic Information Services (GIS)2 2 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 4 3 12 2 2 2 3 4 13 0 1 1 1 5 6 1.12 0.90 2.64 2.86 0.11 0.66 8.29 2
95 Information Technology Mail 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 1 13 3 1 1 2 4 11 0 1 1 4 1 5 0.80 0.72 2.86 2.42 0.11 0.55 7.46 2
96 Information Technology Management Information Services (MIS)5 4 1 2 12 1 1 1 1 4 2 5 2 2 3 14 5 5 4 4 5 23 0 1 1 3 5 8 1.92 0.72 3.08 5.06 0.11 0.88 11.77 4
97 Information Technology Communication Services 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 6 1 4 3 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 5 0 1 1 3 1 4 0.64 1.08 2.20 1.10 0.11 0.44 5.57 1
Page 23 of 23 44
August 12, 2010
Workshop Agenda Item No. 5
EXIT Teen Center Operations Presentation
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: David Schmitz, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the EXIT Teen
Center Operations as requested by the City Council on May 17, 2010.
Relationship to Strategic Goals: Goal I.2 Those who benefit from services should pay,
Goal III.5 Senior-friendly and Goal III. 7 Reduce the cost of doing business provided it
doesn’t increase costs for taxpayers
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the current level of services being provided
at the EXIT Teen Center remain as is at the EXIT with the exception of the dedication of the
Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. center schedule specifically for senior programs
and activities subject to available funding.
Summary: At the May 17, 2010 City Council meeting, staff was directed by the City
Council to investigate the possibility of the EXIT Teen Center teen programs (6th - 8th grades)
being turned over to the College Station Independent School District to serve as a part of
their after school programs with creative programming in mind. The Council’s intent was to
follow the Kids Klub Program model that is already offered in the elementary schools (K - 4th
grades) and the intermediate schools (5th - 6th grades). The Council’s thoughts were that with
those teen programs possibly no longer being offered at the EXIT, the center could be used
for other purposes such as a dedicated site for senior programs and activities.
PARD staff has visited and discussed this possibility with CSISD staff. The CSISD staff is
very satisfied with the City’s operation of the Teen Center and its corresponding teen
programs component. They feel that it serves a very good purpose in the community.
PARD staff discussed two scenarios with the District staff. The first scenario was related to
the City no longer offering any teen programs at the EXIT or any other City facility, and the
District taking over teen programming. The second scenario was also related to the City no
longer offering any teen programs at the EXIT or any other City facility, but with the City
providing the staffing for teen programming at District facilities during the school year or
the summer months. In response to both scenarios, the District stated that it would not be
in a position to offer or support any similar after school teen programs. Their after school
activities for those middle school (7th - 8th grade) age groups are either extracurricular
(athletics, drama, band, etc.) or dedicated after school programs (Spanish Club, Student
Council, Math Club, etc.). Many of the teens that are involved in the Teen Center activities
are not interested in participating in the District’s after school activities. As such the types
of facilities that the Kids Klub Program typically uses at the other schools are already in use
by the District for their extracurricular and dedicated after school programs. Therefore,
available space to host those other proposed teen programs would be difficult for the
District to provide even if it was the City that was operating the teen programs.
With respect to the proposed change in schedule of operations that staff is recommending
for the EXIT, it must be understood that an impact of dedicating the EXIT for senior
programs and activities from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the week will be the loss of the EXIT
as a city training facility. Those training programs would need to be relocated to other city
facilities.
45
Attached is information related to the EXIT Teen Center operations and programs with more
specific information related to the day to day activities at the center.
Budget & Financial Summary: The FY 2009-10 Adjusted Operating Budget for the EXIT
Teen Center operations is $205,747 with $3,000 in anticipated revenues.
Attachments:
1. EXIT Teen Center Information
46
College Station EXIT Teen Center Information
City Objective – Utilizing City-owned and operated teen centers, park facilities and resources,
as well as school and privately owned facilities and resources, to provide and make easily
accessible programs and activities for College Station’s youth population that will create
positive mental, physical and social youth development.
Background – In 1996 the City established the Teen Advisory Board to aid in the City’s
implementation of a Teen Center. Several sites for the Teen Center operations were used
before the EXIT Teen Center (ETC) was built in 1999 at 1600 Rock Prairie Road at the
Southwood Athletic Park in central College Station. The Teen Advisory Board was disbanded
soon after that since the ETC had been built. The ETC Program has had over 170,000 youth
visits since its inception. It has also served many more clients besides teens since 2002 when
the ETC was open for use by all age groups on a fee and non-fee basis six days a week (closed
on Sundays).
Programs Offered – The ETC serves as the site for a wide variety of uses from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
as needed Monday through Friday with some Saturday usage throughout the year. During the
normal school days, it is the site of senior activities (computer skills, Senior Advisory Committee
meetings, Genealogy, Bridge, travel events, etc.) and Xtra Education programs (Spanish,
Hunters’ Education, First Aid, etc.), City meetings and functions (public hearings, staff
development, First Aid, CPR, etc.) and private rentals. In the afternoon, the teen programming
begins. In the evenings, the facilities are also used for youth sport groups meetings, community
meetings and private rentals.
The ETC youth programming is designed to provide responsible supervision, constructive
activities, mentorship and insulation from harmful peer pressure during high-risk hours for
College Station teens. These teen programs include tutoring, computer skills, social skills,
outdoor group activities, mentoring, school work help, character building, role modeling,
leadership, free play and other life skills. Field trips are earned privileges for the teen
participants. The teen special events are typically teen socials that are scheduled for some
Saturday nights during the school year.
Budget Information – The ETC operates out of the General Fund as a part of the Parks and
Recreation Department.
· FY 10 Adjusted Operating Budget - $205,747
· FY 10 Revenues Budget - $3,000 (Park Bucks Program, youth sports fee waivers and
City use of facilities offset revenues)
· FY 10 Staff – One Fulltime staff with 12 seasonal staff as needed
· FY 09 Attendance – Teen programs - 17,212 visits (incl. 302 Special Events visits)
Senior programs - 1,871 visits
47
2
City use - 785 visits
Other uses - 3,505 visits
Total 23,373 visits
· FY 09 EXIT membership – 325 members with an average of 37 Monday-Thursday
visits, average of 108 Friday visits and average of 101 Special Events visits
· FY 09 EXIT membership fee – $20 per year (Park Bucks Program payment option)
· FY 09 Individual participation – Teen Programs - 525 individuals (325 EXIT
members plus an average 200 Lincoln Recreation Center and Drop In youth per year)
Senior programs - 148 individuals
Xtra Education - 71 individuals
City training - 495 individuals
Daily average - 90 individuals
Contact Information – Telephone – 979.764.6351
Address – 1600 Rock Prairie Road
College Station, Texas 77845
EXIT Teen Center Supervisor – Ms. Kelly Kelby
6/14/10
48