Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 150-07City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS DATE:FEBRUARY 21, 2007 CMR: 150:07 SUBJECT:TRANSMITTAL OF THE STATUS OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS (STREET MAINTENANCE AUDIT CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 7, 2006) This is an informational report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND At the November 7, 2006 Finance Committee meeting several questions were raised regarding the status of the Street Maintenance Audit (See Attachment A). This report presents staff’s response to the questions. DISCUSSION A number of street audit recommendations were in process and have now been completed. Staff’s answers to the questions raised are noted below: /)Are 100 percent of all permits being issued by the Director, per recommendation number 7 on page 62 ? No, the Director does not issue permits for utility street cuts but is instead notified of every utility cut performed through a quarterly report. Staff has significantly improved coordination by developing a street work tracking system that integrates data from street work permits and utility work orders, This tracks all emergency and private development-related street cuts in the public right-of-way and provides a description and reason for the street cut performed. Utility and Public Works staff coordinate street paving and utility work by meeting monthly and using the City’s Graphical Information System (GIS) to view all projects within the next 5 years. Is the Director being noticed or getting justification of emergency street cuts on the next day? The Utility Department tracks emergency cuts on a daily basis and submits a quarterly report of these cuts to Public Works for review. The Utilities Department with Information Technology Support, has implemented a street work tracking system for emergency street cuts which tracks work orders in SAP and identifies emergency street cut information on a regular basis. Staff believes the most efficient way to CMR:150:07 Page 1 of 3 administer tracking of emergency street cuts is on a quarterly basis. Please refer to Attachment B, staff comments to audit recommendation number 7, page 62. Are quarterly reports being generated on these emergency cuts? Yes, quarterly reports on emergency cuts are being submitted to the Public Works Director and staff What has the Director done with the emergency cut reports? The Assistant Public Works Director uses the reports to ensure routine utility maintenance work is not being categorized as emergency work thereby avoiding coordination with Public Works. Routine utility maintenance is coordinated to the extent possible with the City’s capital improvement projects and discussed during the monthly coordination meetings. Has the Director validated the cuts are caused by emergencies? Yes, the Assistant Public Works Director receives and validates the quarterly reports. How many emergency cuts have there been? There were 21 emergency cuts from July to November 2006 as identified in the quarterly report for this period. ls the City looking/accessing GIS to see if permits are being issued? Utility work orders from SAP and street work permits are now linked to GIS. The City displays current work orders entered in SAP and open street work permits issued in the Accela database. This information can be refreshed as often as is required from these data sources. This integration accomplishes the GIS-related recommendations and will support improved coordination of all projects impacting city streets. What is the status of comparing the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Street Saver with the City’s Pavement Maintenance Management System (PMMS) ? The City received grant funding to compare MTC’s Street Saver program with the City’s PMMS. This comparison will include a street condition survey developed by MTC, comparing the MTC system’s pavement condition scores with the City’s PMMS. In addition, the project will do a pilot study analyzing various budget scenarios addressing street maintenance backlog. Staff anticipates entering into a consultant contract this spring to assist staff in the comparison of the City’s pavement network with other agencies within the Bay Area. Is there a reluctance to convert to MTC’s Street Saver and if so why? Yes. The City has integrated the PMMS into the City’s GIS which allows staff to access pavement data on any view displayed. This improves project coordination and tracking of street cut fees. By comparison, MTC’s Street Saver is proprietary and has only limited GIS integration capabilities which can not be modified. However, based on a scoping meeting between staff and MTC consultants, it was determined that the best features of both systems can be incorporated by normalizing the PMMS and Street Saver data CMR:150:07 Page 2 of 3 the City’s street conditions can be directly compared to others in the Bay Area and none of the City’s advanced PMMS-GIS integration will be lost. 10)When will the standard specifications be completed? The City’s updated standard drawings and specifications have been approved by all City departments and will become available to the public in Spring 2007. 11) What is the process for implementing the standard specifications? In accordance with the City Resolution 7161, the City Engineer can make revisions, changes or modifications to the standard drawings and specifications as deemed necessary. Staff will prepare an informational report to Council this spring summarizing revisions incorporated into the new specifications. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Excerpt of Finance Committee meeting notes dated November 7, 2006 Attachment B: Excerpt of the Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (Issued 11/7/06) pages 60 to 68" PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ETH AMES Pro" ct Manag,~r ~ kOgERTS EM!IEY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR: 150:07 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Mr. Marinaro said he anticipated three to four in the upcoming year. Council Member Beecham questioned the difficulty in finding replacement recruits. Mr. Marinaro said the City generally had little trouble at the recruit level. The experience in Palo Alto was-that people did not want to retire at an earlier age, especially those with injuries. There were constraints with the system. The Fire Department worked with the administrators, who worked with doctors to. make decisions on whether or not employees, would be able to return to work in a timely manner. Mr. Perez.said the City had seen a decrease in the numbers but an increase in the cost because of the medical costs. Mr. Marinaro said employees with work related injuries went on disability and employees were put on sick leave If the injury was undetermined. Ms. Erickson said Palo Alto was the exception rather than the rule in not requiring rank for rank overtime. Senior Fire Captains had the benefit of first choice, A Captain might fill in for a firefighter, at Captain’s overtime.pay. There was"~io automated wayto calculate. " ..... " Mr. Marinaro said the.Fire Department was unsuccessful in the negotiations to try to negotiate the strict call back classification. Palo Alto was one.of only two departments in the County that had a standard list, regardless of rank. Calls were made in a rotation fashion. Council Member Beecham said he had questions about some of the Public Works items but there was no one available from that department to answer questions. Mr. Perez said the item could be continued to another meeting. Ms. Erickson said a number of the Public Works recommendations were in process. Staff assured the Auditor’s Office the problems would be corrected. The first recommendation was to figure out how to fund the backlog and how the work would get done. Council Member Beecham said his concern was operational control. During prior discussions, the Council thought the Public Works Director was the individual responsible for cuts in this streets, but that was not the understanding of the Public Works Director, City Manager, or Utilities. Item 7 on page 62 of the Report indicated permits would be approved by the 11/07106 FIN "8 Public Works Director. The request Was to see the report the Public. Works Director prepared on notification of .emergency cuts to ¯find out if the emergencies were validated. Item 19. on page 67 of the Report indicates Public Works should make information on street work permits available to all entities¯ that work on City streets, preferably through GIS. Item 20 of the Report referred to. PMMS and MTC Streetsaver program. Staff was asked about the status of the system. Chairperson Kishimoto said Palo Alto was the only entity In the Bay Area that did not use Streetsaver. Council Member Beecham said his expectation, was that the Public works Director be the focal point, forstreet .maintenance..Information requested included the number of emergency cuts there had been and specifications established by.the Public Works Director. ~ Council Member Mossar suggested staff members Whose recommendations were in process, incomplete, or pending should be represented at the Finance Committee meetings. Mr. Perez said~ staff would look at the December 5 or December 12 meeting ¯ ~to continue the item. CONSENSUS OI= COUN(:IL: That the Finance Committee review and accept the report and invite the Director of Public Works to attend the meeting to discuss the recommendations. 4. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas Council Member Klein wanted to know about the delay on the business license registry. Mr. Perez said he would give the Finance Committee an update on the .business license registry. There was hesitation from some members of the business committee as to the City’s intention and how the fee would be used. Council Member Beecham said the Finance Committee talked recently about fees for landfill and suggested that the matter be completed with the current Finance Committee. Council Member Mossar indicated she would not be at the December 5, 2006, meeting. 11107/06 FIN :9 ATTACHMENT B The Honorable City Council Attn: Policy and Services Committee (November 7, 2006) Finance Committee (November 8, 2006) Palo Alto, California November 7, 2006 REPORT ON THE STATUS OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation We recommend the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services Committee review and accept the attached report. As noted in the attached summary, the Policy and Services Committee is asked to review the status of recommendations from the audits of code enforcement and the development review process, and the recommendation related to the Police Community Survey. The Finance Committee is asked to review the status of recommendations from the audits of payroll, utility risk management, overtime expenditures, restructuring efforts, contract contingencies, workers’ compensation, parks maintenance, street maintenance, and the reviews of the long range financial plan, the environmental services center proposal, and the Palo Alto Airport. Background The Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to issue an annual report on the implementation status of recommendations from recently completed audits. This report summarizes the status of 143 recommendations from 14 different audit reports and reviews. This includes 98 recommendations that were outstanding after our last status report as of June 30, 2005, and 45 new recommendations that were adopted this year. The report shows recommendations that have been completed since our last report and an agreed upon course of action for implementing other recommendations. We compiled this report based on interviews with appropriate City staff and reviewed its contents with them. Summary of Results Since our last report, City staff completed 77 recommendations, and worked on or partly implemented an additional 51 recommendations. A total of 15 recommendations are not started. Staff’s cooperation in implementing audit recommendations demonstrates a commitment to improving the City’s administrative processes. I would like to thank the City Manager’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, the City Clerk’s Office, and the Administrative Services, Community Services, Fire, Human Resources, Planning and Community Environment, Police, Public Works, and Utilities Departments for their assistance in compiling this report. Respectfully submitted, Sharon W. Erickson City Auditor E c.o 0 "o 0 "oc: ,..s 0 c o 8.9.° ~n o ._o’.~ o ~ o 0 o o ot- o o o 00 o 0 t- o