La lecture en ligne est gratuite
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres
Télécharger Lire

Office of Audit and Evaluation Director

De
3 pages
Office of Audit Services and Management Support MEMORANDUM To: Frank Billingsley, Economic Development Director From: Beryl H. Davis, CPA, CGFM, Director Office of Audit Services and Management Support Re: Follow-Up of Audit of the Permitting Services Division Special Project (Report No. 07-06) Date: January 26, 2007 Attached is a summary of the status of recommendations as determined from our follow-up review of the “Permitting Services Division Special Project” (Report No. 06-10), issued April 17, 2006. Our review procedures consisted of staff inquiries and a review of the status of the recommendations provided by management. Our follow-up was made in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except that we did not perform substantial tests of evidence supporting the replies from the officials responsible for resolving audit findings and recommendations. Two of the eight recommendations in the original report are implemented. Two are partially implemented, one is planned for implementation and one is not implemented. Two recommendations are no longer applicable. The recommendation not implemented regards the development of a performance goal for the inspection “rollovers” of the Division. We continue to believe that determining performance standards for this area would improve the customer service of the Division. Every year, we perform an annual follow-up on all city-wide recommendations that have not ...
Voir plus Voir moins
Office of Audit Services and Management Support MEMORANDUMTo: FrankBillingsley, Economic Development Director From: BerylH. Davis, CPA, CGFM, Director  Officeof Audit Services and Management SupportRe: FollowUpof Audit of the Permitting Services Division Special Project (Report No. 0706)Date: January26, 2007 Attached is a summary of the status of recommendations as determined from our followup review of the “Permitting Services Division Special Project”(Report No. 0610), issued April 17, 2006.Our review procedures consisted of staff inquiries anda review of the status of the recommendations provided by management. Our followup was made in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except that we did not perform substantial tests of evidence supporting the replies from the officials responsible for resolving audit findings and recommendations. Two of the eight recommendations in the original report are implemented. Two are partially implemented, one is planned for implementation and one is not implemented. Two recommendations are no longer applicable.The recommendation not implemented regards the development of a performance goal for the inspection “rollovers” of the Division. We continue to believe that determining performance standards for this area would improve the customer service of the Division. Every year, we perform an annual followup on all citywide recommendations that have not been fully implemented. Report recommendations #4, 5, 7 and 8 will be reviewed again during this annual process. We wish to thank the officials and personnel of the Economic Development Department and Permitting Division for their cooperation and response to the followup request. Maryann Bonk, Performance Optimization Manager, performed this followup review. BHD/am Attachment c: HonorableBuddy Dyer, Mayor  CherylJ. Henry, Chief of Staff  ByronW. Brooks, Chief Administrative Officer  RebeccaW. Sutton, Chief Financial Officer  BrookeD. RimmerBonnett, Deputy Director, Economic Development Department  TimothyL. Johnson, Permitting Division Manager
REPLY ANDIMPLEMENTATIONSUMMARYFOLLOWUPREVIEW OFAUDIT OFPERMITTINGSERVICESDIVISIONSPECIALPROJECTAUDITEE COMMENTSCURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUSDATE #RECOMMENDATIONRESPONSE 1. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur ImplementedDecember 2006Permitting Services agrees and will increase its number of inspectors bysixto beginimplementation. Permitting reduce backlogs, meet customer demandsreceived 8 new positions. At this time and increase customer satisfaction.5 are filled, 3 “inprocess.” 2. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur ImplementedDraft of thePermitting Services agrees and is analyze economic development activity, withforecast chartdeveloping a comparison diagram to assistance from City Planning, to forecastsubmitted totrack and forecast the anticipated future customer demand for permittingCAO/and EDVpermitting volume. services.Director in  December 3. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur NoLonger PermittingServices disagrees with determine performance standards for theApplicable determiningand setting an average average number of inspections that shouldnumber. There is no uniform method be performed each day by its inspectors.of measuring inspection times and  lengthof inspections. Audit Services and Management Support (ASMS) concurs and suggests Permitting continue to review aggregate productivity on an annual basis. 4. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur NotNo ActionPermitting Services agrees with identify an acceptable level of “rollovers”Implemented limitingthe number of “rollovers”. and include this as a performance goal in itsHowever there is not an acceptable annual Business Plan.level for performance measurement. 5. ThePermitting Services Division should useConcur PartiallyOngoing Forecastingcharts are being the forecasts and performance standards toImplemented developedto determine the volume, evaluate staffing levels and report to thewhich will be used to evaluate the Director its projected staffing needs.staffing needs.
REPLY ANDIMPLEMENTATIONSUMMARYFOLLOWUPREVIEW OFAUDIT OFPERMITTINGSERVICESDIVISIONSPECIALPROJECTAUDITEE COMMENTSCURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUSDATE #RECOMMENDATIONRESPONSE 6. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur NoLonger NoAction PermittingServices disagrees – review the current reinspection fee toApplicable raisingthe fee would discourage but determine whether raising it will decreaseis not the true source of excessive re the number of reinspections.inspections. Last increase in fee was  2002and there is concern that another increase so soon will not be well received by those affected. ASMS concurs. The City fee is $50 and the County fee is $30. A further increase is not warranted and alternative methods are needed to review reinspections to determine their cause and develop possible solutions. 7. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur Plannedfor OngoingPermitting Services agrees and will discuss with Fleet Management whatImplementation discusswith the Fleet Services options exist for assigning a vehicle to act asDivision. a “spare” vehicle for its inspectors. 8. ThePermitting Services Division shouldConcur PartiallyOngoing PermittingServices has completed determine and report the benefits andImplemented thepilot program and is formatting efficiencies of its take home vehicle “pilot”data for further review – A policy has program. beencompiled for review.