HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2511-5421CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 08, 2025
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
14.Recommend City Council Approval of the CSD Equipment & Materials Inventory
Management and Building Permit & Inspection Fees Audits as recommended by the
Policy & Services Committee and Extension of the Deadline for several FY2025 Task
Orders
8
5
6
7
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Auditor
Meeting Date: December 8, 2025
Report #:2511-5421
TITLE
Recommend City Council Approval of the CSD Equipment & Materials Inventory Management
and Building Permit & Inspection Fees Audits as recommended by the Policy & Services
Committee and Extension of the Deadline for several FY2025 Task Orders
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy & Services Committee and the Office of the City Auditor recommend City Council
approve the results of two audits:
1. Community Services Department Equipment & Materials Inventory Management Audit
(Attachment A, P&S Committee recommended approval on October 29, 2025), and
2. Building Permit and Inspection Fees Audit (Attachment B, P&S Committee
recommended approval on November 19, 2025)
The City Auditor’s Office also seeks City Council approval to extend the deadlines for several
FY2025 Task Orders through April 30, 2026 with a net zero impact, including:
1. Task 4.31: Junior Museum & Zoo
2. Task 4.33: Public Safety Staffing & Overtime
3. Task 4.34: Follow-Up Audit Activities
BACKGROUND
Baker Tilly Advisory, in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor (OCA), performed a
citywide risk assessment that evaluated a wide range of risk areas, including strategic, financial,
operational, compliance, technological, and reputational risks. The purpose of the assessment
was to identify and prioritize risks to develop the annual audit plan.
During the FY2024 risk assessment, the OCA identified inventory management practices at CSD
facilities and building permit and inspection fees assessed via the City’s Development Services
8
5
6
7
Center as potential areas of risk and these audit topics were included in the FY2025 Annual
Audit Plan approved by Council.
ANALYSIS
8
5
6
7
Building Permit & Inspection Fees Audit
Determine if the City’s building permit and inspection fees are accurately and
consistently applied.
Evaluate the administration of the Development Services Program for adequate internal
controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse.
Overall, fee assessments for most major fees were accurately assessed, but some
smaller fees were not applied consistently across all transactions. OCA recommends the
city evaluate any areas identified by the audit where fees were inappropriately charged
to customers and resolve any issues. In addition, OCA recommends the City:
o reinstate periodic internal audits of the building permit function to ensure fees
are consistently applied and training needs are identified and remediated,
o explore the feasibility of simplifying fees and making improvements to the City’s
permitting platform to facilitate consistent and more efficient application of
fees,
o evaluate current training process and consider updating and/or reimplementing
the onboarding and training program for new employees, and
o ensure staff retain all documentation related to financial processing transactions
for greater transparency and accountability.
8
5
6
7
Task Order Deadline Extension
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
August 21, 2025
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor
Community Services Department (CSD) Equipment and
Materials Inventory Management Audit
Contents
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global
network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that
provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are
not licensed CPA firms.
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5
Audit Results ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Audit
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Baker Tilly), in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor
(OCA) for the City of Palo Alto (the City), conducted an Equipment and Materials Inventory
Management Audit based on approved Task Order 4.32 as part of the City’s FY25 Audit Plan. The
objective of this audit was to determine if the Community Services Department Equipment and
Materials Inventory Management system is operating effectively and efficiently.
Report Highlights
(Page 7) While most tested items were accounted for, management of materials
and equipment at CSD facilities needs improvement.
OCA was able to locate almost all items selected for inventory testing. However,
CSD lacks a comprehensive, regularly updated inventory list, which may increase
the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse, as it becomes harder to confirm purchases and
ensure items remain in use. Through the course of testing, OCA also noted that the
City’s process for disposing of goods was not followed in some instances. Adhering
to disposal procedures ensures accountability, prevents unauthorized removal of
City property, addresses security concerns such as properly wiping electronics, and
protects against fraud, waste, abuse, and reputational harm.
OCA’s testing and staff interviews identified issues that could be addressed through
improved inventorying, organization, and inter-facility sharing of materials and
equipment. While certain facilities had organized storage systems with labels and
locked cabinets, others lacked clear labeling and designated storage spaces.
Additionally, materials and equipment are not currently shared between facilities,
though staff suggested that a shared-drive inventory could allow borrowing of
seldom-used, high-cost items, potentially minimizing unnecessary purchases and
generating cost savings. Finally, OCA observed that some items at various
locations were not properly stored or secured, creating potential risks of theft,
damage, or premature wear.
Key Recommendations
We recommend management implement a centralized inventory management
system to track and update assets regularly and consistently across all facilities.
Establishing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for conducting periodic
inventory audits, such as quarterly or annually, will ensure that inventory records
remain accurate. Designating staff members responsible for inventory tracking and
providing them with training on best practices will improve accountability and
ensure that City policies related to the procurement and disposal of City materials
and equipment are followed. Additionally, adopting a digital system for real-time
updates can enhance efficiency and transparency.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Finding 2:
(Page 10) and equipment which can help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
Best practices recommend that when entities procure goods, the individual who
orders the item is not the same individual that approves the purchase of the item.
The City has clear guidelines through its Purchasing Card Guidebook that
addresses this issue and ensures that items purchased go through a clear approval
process. However, it does not appear that the City has formal guidance on how
goods should be received and inventoried. Similar to the segregating of activities
above, the person ordering an item should not be the same person to receive and
inventory the item as it presents an opportunity for fraud to occur.
According to the City’s Municipal Code, 2.08.075, care of city-owned property, each
department director is responsible for safeguarding their department’s equipment
and materials. As each CSD facility is not maintaining a current and/or
comprehensive list of materials, there are also no procedures in place to ensure
segregation of duties when receiving and inventorying items. While the City has
guidance related to purchasing items and the municipal code has provisions for the
City to donate obsolete and surplus items to nonprofits, there does not appear to be
comprehensive guidance related to the receipt and inventorying of City items. Such
policies and procedures (P&P) help ensure that appropriate controls are in place to
prevent fraud, waste and abuse and ensure that items are effectively and efficiently
stored and managed.
Key Recommendations
We recommend that the City establish clear guidelines for the receipt and inventory
of goods and equipment to ensure accountability, accuracy and efficiency in
managing physical assets.
Additional
Observation:
(Page 11)
The current practice of using the City’s Capital Improvement Process
(CIP) to replace equipment is burdensome.
The current process for replacing equipment at CSD is to go through the City’s
Capital Improvement Process (CIP). This process can take months. Several staff at
CSD noted that each time a substantial piece of equipment fails, they are often
without use of that item for an extended period of time due to having to go through
the City’s CIP process. Staff stated that it would be helpful if the Department had
funds that could be applied for such purchases.
Introduction
Objective The objective of this audit was to determine if the CSD Equipment and
Materials Inventory Management system is operating effectively and
efficiently.
residents through a wide array of programs, services, and facilities.
Established to foster community engagement and well-being, the
department oversees numerous urban and neighborhood parks, recreational
facilities, and cultural institutions. Among its notable offerings are the Palo
Alto Junior Museum & Zoo, the Palo Alto Art Center, and the Children's
Theatre, which collectively serve thousands of community members
annually.
Historically, the CSD has been instrumental in shaping Palo Alto's
community landscape. The department's roots can be traced back to the
early development of the City, with significant growth over the decades
leading to the establishment of many of the parks and recreational facilities
that residents enjoy today. Over the years, the CSD has continually evolved
to meet the changing needs of the community, emphasizing sustainability,
inclusivity, and innovation in its programs and services.
According to the 2024 Palo Alto Community Survey, approximately 95% of
residents surveyed have visited a neighborhood park or City Park in the past
year, and 50% have used Palo Alto recreation centers or their services. The
department's efforts to engage residents of all ages and backgrounds have
resulted in high levels of satisfaction, with 91% of survey respondents rating
the quality of Open Spaces as excellent or good and 81% rating the quality
records from July 2023 through February 2025 and selected inventory items
to verify their existence, confirm they could be located, and assess their
procedures:
• Interviewed the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of
the organizational structure, processes, and controls related to
equipment and materials inventory management.
• Analyzed P&P to identify the criteria to be used for evaluation of
control design and effectiveness.
• Judgmentally selected a sample of recent P-Card purchases over
$500 within the CSD as well as selecting items on the inventory
INTRODUCTION
1 Recreation includes the following locations: Lucie Stern Community Center (Lucie Stern), Mitchell Park Community Center (MPCC), and
Cubberley Community Center (Cubberley)
2 Open Space Parks & Golf include the following locations: Municipal Service Center (MSC), Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands), and
Foothills Nature Preserve (FHP)
3 Government auditing standards require an external peer review at least once every three (3) years. The last peer review of the Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor was conducted in 2017. The Palo Alto City Council approved a contract with Baker Tilly U.S, LLP for internal audit
services for October 2020 through June 2022 with an extension through June 2025. City Council appointed Kate Murdock, Audit Manager in
Baker Tilly’s Risk Advisory practice, as City Auditor in May 2024. As a result of transitions in the Audit Office and peer review delays due to
the COVID pandemic, an external peer review is targeted for 2025. It should be noted that Baker Tilly’s most recent firmwide peer review
was completed in November 2024 with a rating of “Pass”. The scope of that peer review includes projects completed under government
auditing standards.
Space Parks & Golf 2 during the audit period, July 1, 2023 through
February 5, 2025, to determine whether inventory exists, can be
located, and is in good condition as well as observe inventory
systems and storage practices in place.
• The OCA selected a minimum of 15 items per location from either
recent P-Card purchases or inventory listings and performed onsite
inspections at the above-mentioned locations to confirm the item’s
existence and condition.
• Completed audit report of findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered.
Statement
This audit activity was conducted from January 2025 to August 2025 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except
for the requirement of an external peer review 3. Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, observations, and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, observations, and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Strengths
During this audit activity, we noted the professionalism and responsiveness
of CSD management and staff. We appreciate CSD’s participation in
interviews, providing tours of City facilities and inventory documentation, as
well as responding to follow-up requests.
The OCA greatly appreciates the support of CSD in conducting this audit activity.
Thank you!
Detailed Analysis
Inventory
Management
Best Practices
This audit evaluated the CSD Equipment and Materials Inventory processes
against recognized best practices. Reputable sources such as the Institute of
Internal Auditors (IIA), Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), and
Government Accountability Office (GAO) emphasize strong internal controls,
accurate record-keeping, and efficient processes for managing public sector
inventories. Key best practices include:
Comprehensive Policies and Recordkeeping
• Establish and regularly update written inventory management policies
and procedures.
• Create clear guidelines for purchasing, usage, and disposal of assets
to ensure consistency and support employee training.
• Track all equipment and materials in an official inventory system or
register.
• Require each department maintain and periodically certify the
completeness of its asset list.
• Keep detailed inventory records (e.g., item descriptions, serial
numbers, location, purchase date, condition) to ensure transparency
and safeguard assets.
Regular Physical Counts and Reconciliation
• Conduct periodic physical inventories to verify recorded balances
match actual quantities.
• Adopt best practice of performing a complete count at least annually by
staff independent from daily custody of items.
• Promptly reconcile discrepancies between physical counts and
inventory records.
• Research and resolve differences to correct records and identify root
causes for corrective action.
• Maintain a cycle of counting and reconciliation to ensure inventory data
accuracy and reliability.
Segregation of Duties and Security Controls
• Segregate key inventory tasks so no single person handles ordering,
receiving/issuing, and record-keeping. (e.g., one inputs purchase
orders, another logs received items, a third conducts physical counts).
• In smaller organizations, apply mitigating controls such as supervisory
review or dual-count teams.
• Maintain secure storage and access controls for inventory, especially
valuable or easily stolen items.
• Store sensitive items in locked rooms or cabinets with limited key/card
access.
• Require sign-outs or manager approval before removing items.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
• Label all equipment with asset tags or identifiers to deter theft and
ensure accountability.
Clear Accountability and Management Oversight
• Assign specific responsibility for inventory control within each
department.
• Have departments take ownership of “controlled capital-type items,”
with designated individuals accountable for safeguarding and tracking
assets.
• Appoint an inventory custodian in each department to maintain records
and coordinate counts.
• Require custodians to report inventory status periodically to
management.
• Ensure management actively oversees inventory by reviewing audit
results, approving significant adjustments/write-offs, and monitoring
key metrics.
• Maintain a clear “paper trail” documenting purchases, transfers,
counts, and disposals for management or auditor review.
• Reinforce inventory as a priority through consistent oversight and tone
at the top, holding staff accountable for following procedures.
Training Personnel and Continuous Improvement
• Train all employees involved in inventory tasks on policies, procedures,
and inventory systems.
• Promote regular training to reduce errors and promote consistent
practices across the organization.
• Ensure counters and custodians are knowledgeable about items and
counting processes to improve accuracy.
• Foster a culture of continuous improvement by periodically reviewing
and updating inventory control procedures.
• Analyze discrepancies or theft incidents for lessons learned and
corrective actions.
• Gather employee feedback to identify process pain points and
improvement opportunities.
• Stay informed on industry best practices to adapt and strengthen
inventory management over time.
AUDIT RESULTS
Audit Results
Finding 1:
While most
tested items were
accounted for,
management of
materials and
equipment at
CSD facilities
needs
improvement.
As mentioned in the previous section of this report, CSD has several
facilities that provide a wide array of services to Palo Alto’s population. In
turn, various types of equipment, materials and supplies are needed and
stored by CSD in the provision of these services. While OCA was able to
locate most items selected for testing, we identified several areas of
concern. These issues do not apply to each CSD facility but across the
department’s facilities we noted the following: a lack of comprehensive and
regularly updated inventories, a lack of documentation for disposed items,
a general lack of organization, and few areas where equipment is not
properly stored and/or secured.
CSD does not maintain comprehensive or regularly updated
inventory lists.
CSD was unable to provide OCA with an up-to-date, comprehensive list of
items for each facility. Each facility had varying types of lists and degrees
of items inventoried.
• Art Center – The Art Center had various inventories for different
spaces and items but several of these were outdated or not dated.
For example, the “Equipment Inventory” list was last updated in
2019 and the “Equipment Log” had no date but listed estimated
replacement dates for items. While these two documents appeared
to have some of the same items, one was in a word document and
the other in excel. A “Pedestal Inventory” had not been updated
since 2013.
• Children’s Theatre – The Children’s Theatre had several inventory
lists, but they had not been updated since 2014.
• Cubberley Theatre – The theatre has a “Theatre Technician
Equipment” list but it appeared this list had not been updated since
2022 with one item entered that year making it difficult to determine
if the list was accurate or complete.
• Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) – The JMZ had an updated list of
animals and various undated materials and dry goods lists. They
did not appear to have inventory lists for equipment used in their
workshop or of veterinary supplies.
• Parks & Open Space -The Parks & Open Space division appears
to have updated inventory listings of vehicles. However, their tool
and equipment lists were undated making it difficult to determine if
they were accurate or complete.
• Recreation – It did not appear that the Recreation division has an
inventory tracking system for their equipment and materials.
OCA used a combination of the documentation listed above, as well as P-
card statements from July 2023 through February 2025 to take a sample of
inventory items to check for the item’s presence, condition and appropriate
use. OCA was able to locate all items selected for testing, except for a few
AUDIT RESULTS
4 The Art Center management staff specified that they have third-party insurance for artwork and art installations
displayed in City facilities.
comprehensive and regularly updated list can present several risks to the
organization including fraud, waste, and abuse.
Without a comprehensive and regularly updated list of equipment,
materials and supplies, it is difficult to determine what has been purchased
and if those items are present. This creates conditions where it is much
easier for fraud to occur.
We noted that the City does not have insurance for inventoried materials
or equipment as the City is self-insured.4 Another purpose of having a
comprehensive and regularly updated inventory of materials and
equipment is in case of theft or damage. Without a comprehensive list of
items, it might be difficult to establish and/or identify when items have gone
missing or been stolen. Should there be flooding or fire damage, an
inventory can also help with replacing items and help to minimize any time
that might be lost trying to create a list after an emergency.
The City’s process for disposing of goods was not followed in some
instances.
The City has a Surplus Property Disposal and Destruction Policy and
Procedure which provides guidelines for the sale and disposal of items
with and without commercial value. For items determined to have no
commercial value, the department is “expected to make surplus property
available to other departments for City use by posting the item on the
City’s Intranet”. If the item generates no interest, is broken or unusable, the
department is responsible for completing a Surplus Property Disposal
Form. This form is supposed to be signed by the department head and
then forwarded to the Administrative Services Department (ASD)
Warehouse Supervisor. ASD then notifies the Department if the form has
been approved and the resulting action – disposal, donation, or inclusion in
the City’s warehouse.
OCA sampled a list of materials and equipment for inventory and found a
few items were not present at the Art Center. While staff were able to
provide an explanation for the absence of these items, they were not able
to provide supporting documentation in each case nor was it clear if the
City’s process had been followed for some items. For example, there were
15 iPads that staff determined were obsolete and past their useful life.
Staff stated that these items were sent to the City’s stores but were not
able to provide documentation to support this occurred. In addition, OCA
found a kiln and one polishing machine were missing. Staff stated these
items were disposed of as they were no longer working properly. It did not
appear that staff had filled out the required forms for disposing of these
items and could not provide documentation to support the items had been
approved for disposal.
AUDIT RESULTS
Following established processes for disposing of aging or obsolete items
helps streamline decision-making and provides clear criteria for how and
when to redistribute an item to another department, donate it to a non-
profit, or dispose of it and helps ensure items do not go home with City
employees which is prohibited by the City’s policy. In addition, any items
disposed of should be considered for possible data security issues. For
example, when disposing of electronic items, they should be properly
wiped of any sensitive information. Following established City P&P not
only protect against fraud, waste and abuse but help protect the City’s
reputation as well.
Items could be better organized to facilitate shared and easier use.
Through the course of our testing and interviews with staff OCA found a
few issues that may be at resolved by better inventorying and organizing of
materials and equipment. In addition, staff stated it would be helpful to
have inventories from the different facilities on a shared drive to facilitate
the sharing of equipment and materials.
One issue we noted was the significant amount of time it took for staff to
locate some items and in a couple of instances staff could not locate the
item until after our site visit. While some CSD facilities had organizational
systems in place such as specific storage spaces for items, locked
cabinets and labels showing where certain items should be stored, other
facilities lacked clear labels and storage spaces. We also noted two
instances where sampled equipment items were still in original packaging
and had not been used. In both instances these items had been purchased
more than six months earlier. While of relatively low dollar amount, it was
unclear why this equipment was not in use and if it might be the result of
ordering an item and then realizing there was already useable equipment
on site.
OCA also noted that it does not appear materials and equipment are
shared between facilities, which could be beneficial. Staff stated that if
each facility had an inventory list on a shared drive where staff could
search for a needed item to see if it could be borrowed from a neighboring
facility would be helpful. While sharing equipment and materials may not
make sense in many cases due to heavy/regular use at the primary facility,
for larger and more expensive equipment that is only needed sporadically
or one-time, having a shared inventory could provide greater flexibility and
may result in cost savings.
Some items were not properly stored or secured.
OCA noted that some items at various locations were not properly stored
or secured. For example, at the Children’s Theatre wooden sets are stored
in an open, outdoor shed in the alley behind the building. OCA noted that
this area was not secure and there was nothing to prevent theft or damage
of the sets. However, the cost of securing these items may be more than
they are worth and it may not make sense for the City to invest in a
security system for these items. At the JMZ, OCA noted that an electronic
AUDIT RESULTS
tarp, keeping this item indoors may prolong its life. At the Baylands Ranger
Station, OCA noted that there was lawn equipment with rust present as it
was unprotected from the elements.
• Implementing a centralized inventory management system to track
and update assets regularly and consistently across all facilities. A
centralized system could be as simple as a shared excel file with
product and location information as well as sign in and sign out
capabilities for items shared across facilities. More sophisticated
digital systems can provide real-time updates and map items to
specific a location but the cost of such a system may be prohibitive
and unnecessary.
• Establishing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for conducting
periodic inventory audits, such as quarterly or annually, which will
ensure that inventory records remain accurate.
• Designating specific staff members responsible for inventory
monitoring and providing them with training on best practices will
improve accountability and ensure that City policies related to the
procurement and disposal of City materials and equipment are
followed.
Response Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: March 31, 2026
Corrective Action Plan: CSD will develop an inventory management
system and related standard operating procedure for conducting
periodic inventory audits.
CSD will establish criteria on the types of equipment and materials
that should be included in the inventory management system. This
could be based on items of a certain value or type (e.g., electronics
and tools).
CSD anticipates using a simple format as the department does not
have funds budgeted to develop a complex system with mapping
tools. For parks and open-space related equipment, CSD will
explore the possibility of combining with another department’s
inventory management system.
AUDIT RESULTS
5 2.08.075 Care of city-owned property.
CSD lacks formal
processes for
receiving and
inventorying
materials and
equipment which
can help prevent
fraud, waste and
abuse.
Best practices recommend that when entities procure goods, the individual who
orders the item is not the same individual that approves purchase of the item.
The City has clear guidelines through its Purchasing Card Guidebook that
addresses this issue and ensures that items purchased go through a clear
approval process. However, it does not appear that the City has formal
guidance on how goods should be received and inventoried. Similar to the
segregating of activities above, the person ordering an item should not be the
same person to receive and inventory the item as it presents an opportunity for
fraud to occur.
The City’s Municipal Code, 2.08.075 5, care of city-owned property, states:
Each department head and council-appointed officer shall be
responsible for care and safekeeping of all city-owned property used by
or in the custody of the department and shall take steps as necessary
to ensure that the use or condition of said property does not incur legal
liability or loss for the city or its officers and employees.
Items included in the definition of property, per the code, include equipment,
tools, supply, and furniture. The code does not provide any additional guidance
on how city property should be received or stored.
As each CSD facility is not maintaining a current and/or comprehensive list of
materials, there are also no procedures in place to ensure segregation of
duties when receiving items. While the City has guidance related to purchasing
items and, as mentioned in Finding 1, the municipal code has provisions for
the City to donate obsolete and surplus items to nonprofits, there does not
appear to be comprehensive guidance related to the receipt and inventorying
of City items.
With multiple facilities and a wide array of materials and equipment in use at
each facility, segregating the responsibilities for ordering, receiving, and
inventorying materials and goods may prove overly burdensome. Many
organizations establish a threshold for when items need to be inventoried
and/or categories of goods that should be inventoried versus those that don’t.
For example, CSD may determine that office supplies do not need to be
inventoried as the cost of undertaking such an effort could exceed the value of
the items in question. However, we noted in our observations that CSD
appropriately tracks and inventories art supplies used in classes and sold to
the public. Items that are often inventoried due to higher risk of theft include
electronics and power tools.
Once CSD determines which categories or items should be inventoried and/or
a dollar threshold for items to inventory, certain responsibilities should be
segregated. For example, segregating the responsibilities of ordering,
receiving, and inventorying materials and goods helps ensure that appropriate
controls are in place to prevent fraud, waste and abuse. Developing formal
P&Ps related to these processes can also help to ensure items are effectively
AUDIT RESULTS
Recommendation We recommend that CSD establish clear guidelines for the receipt and
inventory of goods and equipment to ensure accountability, accuracy and
efficiency in managing physical assets. Such guidelines should delineate either
the types of goods and equipment that should be inventoried or establish a
threshold for when items should be monitored and inventoried. This policy
should have clear instructions related to the following areas:
• Receiving Goods – delivery should be verified against purchase order,
packing slip or contract
• Inventory Entry and Documentation – items should be logged with the
date, a description, quantity and location with relevant warranty
information if applicable
• Storage and Security – defined procedures for how items should be
stored and secured
• Discrepancy Procedures – steps for reporting and resolving issues
such as missing or damaged items
• Periodic Reconciliation – regular inventory audit or counts to resolve
discrepancies
Response Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: March 31, 2026
Corrective Action Plan: CSD will develop a policy for receiving and storing certain
equipment and materials. The policy will establish criteria on the types of equipment
and materials that should be included in the inventory management system. This could
be based on items of certain value or type (e.g., electronics and tools).
Additional
Observation:
The current
practice of using
the Capital
Improvement
Process (CIP) to
replace
equipment is
burdensome.
Capital Improvement Process (CIP). This process can take months. Several
staff at CSD noted that each time a substantial piece of equipment fails, they
are often without use of that item for an extended period of time due to having
to go through the City’s CIP process. Staff stated that it would be helpful if the
Department had funds that could be applied for such purchases.
Based on discussions with management, with implementation of a
comprehensive equipment inventory that includes estimated replacement
timelines and costs, funding for replacement of equipment could be planned
during the annual budget development process. During this process, the
department can appropriate funding for routine equipment replacement and a
reasonable amount of unanticipated replacement costs, as the City
monetary/fund balance permits. Planning, foresight, and funding may
contribute to more efficient replacement and fewer extended periods of
November 5, 2025
City of Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor
Building Permit and Inspection Fees
Audit
Contents
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global
network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that
provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are
not licensed CPA firms.
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 7
Audit Results ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Audit
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Baker Tilly), in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor
(OCA) for the City of Palo Alto (the City), conducted a Building Permit and Inspection Fees Audit
based on approved Task Order 4.30 as part of the City’s FY25 Audit Plan. The objectives of this audit
were to:
• Determine If the City’s building permit and inspection fees are accurately and consistently
applied.
• Evaluate the administration of the Development Services Program for adequate internal
controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse.
Report Highlights
Finding 1:
(Page 10)
Overall, fee assessments for most major fees were accurately assessed,
but some smaller fees were not applied consistently across all
transactions.
The City’s Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) provides
building permit and inspection services for residential, commercial and mixed-
use building projects. The City’s Municipal Fee Schedule establishes the
annual fees that will be charged for these services. In FY23 and FY24, there
were a total of 4,774 projects reviewed by the Development Services Center
and 7,686 building permits issued. The Development Services Center
collected approximately $15 million in revenue in FY23 and $17 million in
FY24. OCA tested a sample of building permit types and inspection fees for
accuracy and consistency.
While most major fees were accurately assessed, OCA found several smaller
fees were not consistently applied. In a few cases, fee errors resulted in
overcharging customers, but most errors resulted in customers being
undercharged.
Building Permit Fees
Out of 60 sampled projects, OCA identified two projects (3%) with
inappropriately applied fees. One project was not charged a fire plan check fee
resulting in this project not receiving a fire inspection. One project was not
charged the New Single-Family fee resulting in $1,305.72 in lost revenue to the
City.
OCA found several different types of fees were not accurately assessed over
the testing period. Some of these errors resulted in overcharging customers
but most errors resulted in undercharging customers.
SB 1473 – California Building Standards Administration Special Revolving
Fund
OCA identified that SB1473 fees were inappropriately assessed to demolition
the projects were incorrectly assessed the fee. The fee ranged from $1 to $41
across the projects sampled. In total, OCA estimated potential overcharges of
less than $1,300 over the course of FY23 and FY24. While this represents a
small amount in overcharged fees, charging unauthorized fees can have
financial, legal, operational and reputational consequences and the City
should take steps to minimize such occurrences.
Record Retention Fees
The City’s fee schedule requires that all projects with plans pay a records
retention fee. In FY23, the fee was $7.04 per plan sheet and in FY24 $7.88
per plan sheet. This fee helps cover the City’s costs in maintaining such
records.
Out of 60 sampled projects, OCA found that the City had not assessed record
retention fees for 15 projects or 25% of sampled projects. For the 15 tested
projects missing record retention fees, $184.41 in fees should have been
assessed and collected but were not. This represents approximately $15,000
in uncollected record retention fees for FY23 and FY24 when applying this
error rate to the entire population of permits.
Reinspection Fees
Built into the City’s fee structure is an initial and follow-up inspection.
Reinspection fees are assessed beginning with the second failed inspection in
order to cover the cost of the third inspection, with additional fees required for
each subsequent failure.
Only 84 re-inspection fees were charged in FY23 and FY24. In collaboration
with PDS staff, OCA identified 164 permits during FY23 and FY24 out of 7,686
(approximately 2%) that might have missing re-inspection fees. OCA sampled
30 of the permits and found a total of 6 re-inspection fees that should have
been charged but were not.
Factors contributing to inconsistent fee assessment
OCA identified three primary factors contributing to inconsistent fee
assessment. First, OCA noted a general lack of internal controls and oversight
of building permit and inspection assessments. Second, staff mentioned the
complexity of the fee schedule and how the fees are organized in the City’s
cloud-based building platform, Accela. Third, staff mentioned the lack of
training available for new employees.
Refunds
All refunds evaluated were in alignment with the fee schedule, refunding 80%
of the original fee amount unless there was a City error necessitating a full
refund. However, out of the 10 refunds tested, 5 were missing finalized
documentation showing that the refund was processed through accounting, a
all final, accounting approved refund documents are included and saved in the
appropriate records in Accela.
1. Evaluate any areas identified by the audit where fees were
inappropriately charged to customers and resolve any issues.
2. Reinstate periodic internal audits of building permit and reinspection
fees on either a monthly or quarterly basis. This should include:
a. developing a documented quality control process with assigned
responsibilities to ensure this activity is performed consistently
moving forward,
b. procedures for providing feedback, and if appropriate,
additional training to staff when errors are identified, and
c. ongoing tracking and monitoring of issues to identify patterns or
trends that might require wider training or corrective actions for
the department.
1. Explore the feasibility of simplifying fees and improving the Accela
platform by:
a. considering ways to simplify fee application processes and
procedures including revisiting the fee structure itself and
identifying opportunities to better communicate standards to
customers,
b. automating certain fees such as SB1743 as an internal control
and to help streamline the assessment process,
c. grouping fees by project type to ensure easier application by
project coordinators, and
d. configuring the software to allow coordinators to select multiple
fees at one time. Performing an assessment to determine the
time it takes for staff to individually select each permit versus
being able to select them in one step might help to establish
how much time could be saved by this enhancement and
whether it is worth the investment. Such an assessment could
also consider other fees for automation that are not specifically
addressed through this audit.
3. We recommend the City evaluate the current training process and
consider updating and/or reimplementing the onboarding and training
program for new employees including comprehensive guidance on fee
application, system use, as well as periodic, ongoing training.
4. Ensure staff retain all required documents when processing financial
transactions such as permit fee refunds for greater transparency and
accountability.
Introduction
Objective
The objectives of this audit were to determine if the City’s building permit and
inspection fees are accurately and consistently applied and evaluate the
administration of the Development Services Program for adequate internal
controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse.
Background The City’s Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) is
responsible for administering building permits and inspection services for
residential, commercial, and mixed-use development projects. These services
ensure that all construction activities within city limits comply with applicable
building codes, zoning ordinances, and health and safety regulations. Fees
associated with these services such as building permit fees, and re-inspection
fees, are intended to support the City’s cost-recovery efforts, maintain efficient
service delivery, and ensure fairness and consistency in how applicants are
charged.
Building permit and inspection fees are assessed on a cost-recovery basis
within the development process and have a direct impact on residents,
contractors, and businesses. The public expects these fees to be reasonable,
consistently applied, and transparent. Inconsistencies or misapplications
whether due to system limitations, staff discretion, or unclear guidance can lead
to reputational risk, delays in construction timelines, or a perception of inequity
among applicants.
In Palo Alto, the permit issuance and fee calculation process is managed
through Accela, the City’s electronic permitting system. This system allows for
the intake of permit applications, automated fee calculations, scheduling of
inspections, and documentation of changes, waivers, and/or refunds. Accela
plays a key role in enforcing standardized fee schedules and recording
valuation data, but it also allows staff to manually override certain values under
specific circumstances. This flexibility can introduce control risks if not
adequately monitored.
During the audit period covering fiscal years 2023 through 2024, the City issued
7,686 building permits spanning residential remodels, new commercial
construction, and other project types. The audit included a review of both plan
check and inspection fee components, as well as related surcharges such as
the SB 1473 state-mandated fee, technology fees, and record retention
charges. In addition, the audit evaluated the processes and controls governing
refunds, to ensure that all deviations from the standard fee schedule were
properly documented, justified, and approved.
The intention of this audit is to provide independent assurance that the
Development Services Program is functioning effectively and with appropriate
internal controls.
1 Government auditing standards require an external peer review at least once every three (3) years. The last peer review of the Palo Alto
Office of the City Auditor was conducted in 2017. The Palo Alto City Council approved a contract with Baker Tilly U.S, LLP for internal audit
services for October 2020 through June 2022 with an extension through June 2025. City Council appointed Kate Murdock, Audit Manager in
Baker Tilly’s Risk Advisory practice, as City Auditor in May 2024. As a result of transitions in the Audit Office and peer review delays due to
the COVID pandemic, an external peer review is targeted for 2025. It should be noted that Baker Tilly’s most recent firmwide peer review
was completed in November 2024 with a rating of “Pass”. The scope of that peer review includes projects completed under government
auditing standards. A report on the next firmwide peer review should be available later in 2024.
activities and internal controls that manage the permit lifecycle across all
applicable departments.
• Interviewed the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of the
organizational structure, processes, and controls related to building
permit and inspection fees.
• Analyzed policies and procedures as well as the legislative and
regulatory requirements to identify the criteria to be used for evaluation
of control design and effectiveness.
• Conducted on-site walkthroughs to gain an understanding of the building
permit process, from initial application through final inspection, to inform
our assessment of internal controls and fee application.
• Judgmentally selected a sample of 54 permits issued in FY23-24 for
testing. The sample included the following permit types: Commercial
Remodel or Addition, Demo, Minor, New Commercial Building, New
Multi-Family, New Single Family, Residential Remodel or Addition, Use
and Occupancy only, and other permits to determine if the City’s building
permit and inspection fees are accurately and consistently applied.
• Judgmentally selected a sample of 10 refunds for testing which were
evaluated for supervisor approval, proper accounting, accuracy of the
refund amount, and adequacy of supporting explanations.
• Judgmentally selected a sample of Re-inspections for testing to
determine if re-inspections were accurately and consistently applied in
accordance with the City’s fee schedule and Palo Alto Municipal Code
16.04.110.
• Completed audit report of findings, conclusions, and recommendations
based on the supporting evidence gathered.
Statement
This audit activity was conducted from January 2025 to September 2025 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except for
the requirement of an external peer review 1. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings, observations, and conclusions based on our
basis for our findings, observations, and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Strengths
We noted the professionalism and responsiveness of the PDS throughout the
audit. We appreciate the department’s participation in interviews, timely
provision of building permit and inspection fee documentation for selected
samples, and responsiveness to follow-up information requests.
The OCA greatly appreciates the support of the Development Services Program staff
involved in conducting this audit activity.
Thank you!
Detailed Analysis
Best Practices:
Building Permit
and Inspection
Fees Criteria
that are transparent, efficient, and cost-effective. Leading practices endorsed by the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), International Code Council
(ICC), California Building Officials (CALBO), and peer cities across the region
support consistent fee application, sound internal controls, and public
accountability. Benchmarking fee structures, processes, and outcomes against
similar jurisdictions is a critical part of evaluating whether a city’s practices remain
aligned with both regulatory and public service expectations.
Key Best Practices Include:
Fee Schedule Transparency and Accessibility
Cities should maintain a clearly defined, publicly accessible fee schedule that is
easy to interpret and reviewed at regular intervals ideally on an annual or biennial
basis to ensure alignment with cost-of-service goals and regulatory changes. Palo
Alto’s current fee schedule is easily accessible to the public and outlines multiple
fee categories, including plan check fees, inspection fees, and state-mandated
assessments such as SB 1473.
Use of ICC Valuation Tables and Cost of Services Study
Peer cities including Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose utilize the
International Code Council’s (ICC) Building Valuation Data as a standardized basis
for estimating construction costs, which informs the calculation of plan review and
inspection fees. Industry best practices recommend updating these valuation tables
annually and applying them consistently across all permit types. Palo Alto annually
updated valuation tables aligning with industry best practices until FY2026.
Since the timeframe of the audit, the Planning and Development Services
Department has completed and implemented a cost of services study and
developed an alternative fee methodology after determining the ICC valuation
tables were too complex to accurately apply to commercial construction projects.
The new hybrid model uses square footage for residential fees and an expanded
valuation tier system for commercial projects, creating a more equitable structure
that more accurately reflects project complexity and the associated costs of plan
review and inspection services. This update also aligns with industry best practices
of updating fees through a cost of services study every five to eight years.
Benchmarking Against Peer Jurisdictions
Benchmarking against peer cities helps assess whether Palo Alto’s fees are
competitively positioned and cost-recovery goals are reasonable. For example, plan
check fees for typical residential remodels in Palo Alto were found to be within 5–
15% of those charged by Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Inspection fees per permit
were slightly higher than those in San Jose.
2 Significant changes were made to the Palo Alto FY2026 Fee Schedule and some of the benchmarked fees
above may no longer apply.
Table 1: FY2024 Development Services Fees Benchmarked 2
= Fee/fee structure similar to Palo Alto
= Fee/fee structure differs from Palo Alto
Fee Category Palo Alto Mountain View Sunnyvale San Jose
Plan Check Fee
• Based on ICC
valuation
• Sliding scale of
permit fee
• Based on ICC
valuation
• ~70% of permit
fee
• Based on ICC
valuation
• 65–75% of permit
fee
• Based on ICC
valuation
• Sliding scale of
permit fee
Building Permit
Fee
• Based on ICC
• Tiered structure
as project value
increases
• Based on ICC
• Based on ICC
• Based on ICC
• Residential
adjusted lower
Inspection Fee
• Typically
included in
permit fee
• Typically
included in
permit fee
• Separate line
item, based on
inspection hours
• Flat fee for
typical
inspections
Technology
Surcharge
• Incorporated into
the fee schedule
• 4–6% surcharge
applied to all
permits
• 5% surcharge
with cap
• 3% surcharge
• Waived for low-
income or ADA
retrofits
SB 1473 Fee • Charged per CA
BSC standard
• Charged per CA
BSC standard
• Charged per CA
BSC standard
•
BSC standard
• Auto calculated
Record
Retention Fee
• FY24 $7.56 Per
Plan Sheet
• Flat rate ($5–
$20)
• Often bundled
into tech
surcharge
• Sometimes
included in admin
fee
Permit Valuation
Basis
• ICC tables
• Exceptions with
approval
• ICC tables
• Exceptions with
approval
• ICC tables
• Exceptions with
approval
• ICC tables
• Exceptions with
approval
Refund Policy
• Standard form &
supervisor
approval required
• Standard form &
supervisor
approval required
• Standard form &
supervisor
approval required
• Standard form &
supervisor
approval required
• Online request
Public Fee
Calculator Not available Not available Not available
• Yes, robust
estimator with
plan set details
3 https://statescoop.com/san-jose-ai-permitting/
4 https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?FullText=1&G=FA76FAAA-7A&GUID=8BB4D40E-
185A-4BC3-B6EA-9CC97BE43861&ID=7419969&Options=&Search=
5 https://developmentpermits.mountainview.gov/about-permits/fees/planning-permit-fees/planning-cost-recovery-
fees
6 https://permits.sanjoseca.gov/fee-estimator/building
Automated Fee Enforcement Through Permit Systems
Accela and other e-permitting systems should be configured to calculate fees
automatically based on input valuation and permit type. Manual overrides should be
limited to authorized personnel and logged with justification and supervisory
approval. Some peer cities, such as San Jose, have implemented audit flags within
their permitting software 3 to detect inconsistencies in valuation entries or fee
waivers.
Standardized Refund and Adjustment Workflows
Cities should have formal, written policies for granting refunds or fee adjustments,
with clear documentation standards. Benchmark cities typically require a refund
request form, written justification, and supervisor sign-off before processing. In
contrast, inconsistent practices can lead to errors or public perception of favoritism.
The City of Palo Alto currently follows the practices of benchmark cities.
Peer Comparison of Staffing and Cost Recovery
Cities like Sunnyvale 4 and Mountain View 5 regularly assess whether their
Development Services programs are meeting cost-recovery targets and whether
staffing levels align with workload demands. Palo Alto conducts similar
assessments through its annual fee review and budget process. These evaluations
are used to inform fee increases or process improvements.
Public-Facing Permit Calculators and Estimators
To improve transparency and reduce disputes, San Jose offers an online permit fee
estimator 6. This tool allows applicants to enter basic project information and receive
a preliminary estimate of fees owed enhancing trust and reducing back-and-forth
with staff.
Audit Results
Finding 1:
Overall, fee
assessments for
most major fees
were accurately
assessed, but
some smaller
fees were not
applied
consistently
across all
transactions.
As discussed in the Background section of this report, the City’s
Planning and Development Services Department (PDS) provides
building permit and inspection services for residential, commercial
and mixed-use building projects. The City’s Municipal Fee Schedule
establishes the annual fees that will be charged for these services.
The PDS is responsible for ensuring these fees are accurately and
consistently applied. Building permit applications are typically
submitted through the City’s online platform, Accela. Project
coordinators review applications and determine which fees should
be assessed based on the scope of the work being performed.
OCA tested a sample of building permit types and inspection fees
for accuracy and consistency.
In FY23 and FY24, there were a total of 4,774 projects reviewed by
the Development Services Center and 7,686 building permits
issued. The Development Services Center collected approximately
$15 million in revenue in FY23 and $17 million in revenue in FY24.
Most major fees were accurately assessed, but some smaller
fees were not consistently applied.
OCA sampled 60 building permits from several different project
types including: Commercial Remodel or Addition, Demolition, New
Commercial Building, New Multi-Family, New Single Family,
Residential Remodel or Addition, Use and Occupancy, and Minor.
OCA judgmentally selected projects that had similar descriptions in
order to determine if the same types of projects were assessed the
same fees. While most major fees were accurately assessed, OCA
found several smaller fees were not consistently applied. Some of
these errors resulted in overcharging customers but most errors
resulted in undercharging customers.
Building Permit Fees
Aside from SB1473 and Record Retention fee errors, OCA
identified 2 projects out of 60 or 3% with missing fees. For one
“Minor” building project, PDS staff confirmed that the project was
not assessed a fire plan check fee. As a result, it appears this
project did not receive a fire inspection. OCA found one error in the
“New Single Family” home projects we evaluated. This project was
not assessed the “New Single Family” fee of $1,305.72 as listed in
the FY24 Fee Schedule. Staff confirmed that this was in error, and
the project should have been charged this fee. Due to how
could not provide an accurate estimate of uncollected building
permit fees.
SB 1473 – California Building Standards Administration Special
Revolving Fund
SB 1473 took effect in January 2009 and was established as a
surcharge on both residential and non-residential building permits
by the California Building Standards Commission. This surcharge
fee has a rate of four dollars ($4) per one hundred thousand
($100,000) building valuation and is applied in increments of
$25,000 with $1 being the minimum fee charged. The state requires
that fees are submitted quarterly to the California Building
Standards Commission. The bill also provides that a city may retain
up to ten percent of the collected fees for administrative costs and
code enforcement education.
The PDS management confirmed that SB1473 fees are only applied
to building permits and do not apply to standalone permits such as
electrical, fire, or demolition. OCA’s testing found that some
demolition permits were wrongly assessed the SB1473 fee. In FY23
and FY24 there were 224 demolition permits issued. OCA tested a
sample of 13 permits. Out of the 13 demolition permits sampled,
OCA found that 5 of the 13 or 38% had been charged the fee. On
these permits, the SB1473 permit fee ranged from $1 to $41 with an
average fee charge of $14.80 . If this error rate was found in the
larger population of demolition permits, potentially 86 permits were
erroneously charged the fee. Using the average amount of over-
assessed fees, the City may have overcharged approximately
$1,272.80. While this represents a small amount in overcharged
fees, charging unauthorized fees can have financial, legal,
operational and reputational consequences and the City should take
steps to minimize such occurrences.
Record Retention Fees
The City’s fee schedule requires that all projects with plans pay a
records retention fee. In FY23, the fee was $7.04 per plan sheet
and in FY24 $7.88 per plan sheet. This fee helps cover the City’s
costs in maintaining such records.
Out of 60 samples, OCA found that the City had not assessed
record retention fees for 15 projects or 25% of sampled projects.
For the 15 projects where record retention fees were not assessed,
$184.41 in fees (an average of $12.29 per project) should have
been assessed and collected but were not. If we assume an error
rate of 25% for the entire population of 4,774 projects in FY23 and
FY24, 1,194 projects may not have been correctly assessed record
the projects OCA sampled, OCA estimates the City may have
underassessed $14,674.26 in record retention fees. While this
represents less than a tenth of a percent of the total revenue
collected by the Development Center each year, it is important to
ensure fees are consistently and fairly assessed. OCA did note that
based on the updated FY2026 fee model, record retention costs
have been incorporated into the technology costs and therefore, the
City no longer collects a separate record retention fee.
Reinspection Fees
Built into the City’s fee structure for residential projects are initial
and follow-up inspections. Reinspection fees are assessed
beginning with the second failed inspection in order to cover the
cost of the third inspection, with additional fees required for each
subsequent failure. Re-inspection fees not only cover the additional
cost of the work performed by the City but also serve to
disincentivize the customer from using City services in a way not
intended. While these fees are an important tool for the Program to
ensure efficient and timely review, it is important to note that there is
flexibility in how they are applied and staff judgement in applying
these fees is key to their administration. These fees do not apply to
commercial and multi-family construction projects which have re-
inspection fees built into the permit fees.
Based on reports provided by staff, OCA found the City only
charged 84 reinspection fees during FY23 and FY24. OCA sampled
10 of these projects where re-inspection fees were charged to see if
the fees had been applied accurately and found no errors.
In collaboration with PDS staff, OCA identified 164 permits during
FY23 and FY24 out of 7,686 (approximately 2%) that might have
missing re-inspection fees. OCA sampled 30 of these permits and
found a total of 6 re-inspection fees that should have been charged
but were not. It is difficult to put these numbers in context given that
each permit is different and might have a different likelihood of
needing a reinspection. However, assuming that for every 30
permits, one would find 6 re-inspections that were not charged a
fee, this results in a rate of 1 re-inspection per every 5 permits.
Assuming a population of 164 permits (as noted above), this results
in potentially 33 re-inspection fees that were not collected during
FY23 and FY24. In the FY2023 Fee Schedule, each “primary” re-
inspection costs $172.95 and each “secondary” re-inspection costs
$93.03. Assuming FY23 fees, at the low end, this represents
approximately $3,070 in uncollected fees and at the high end
approximately $5,707.
OCA was unable to determine how many re-inspections should
have been assessed a fee as there is currently no definitive labeling
inspection and a fee should be applied. PDS management agreed
that additional guidance would help ensure that these fees are more
consistently and accurately applied. When a customer is informed
of issues at the initial inspection, it is up to the customer to identify if
they need additional resources to work to fix the problem and
ensure they meet building codes. Re-inspections result in additional
use of staff time and the more re-inspections the City is forced to
perform, the more staff time is consumed with less available time to
move other projects forward. Failing to apply fees consistently can
present financial, legal and operational risks including lost revenue
and possible exposure to lawsuits due to unfair treatment.
Factors contributing to inconsistent fee assessment
Through interviews with staff in PDS and observations of the
building permit and inspection processes, OCA identified three
primary factors contributing to inconsistent fee assessment. First,
OCA noted a general lack of internal controls and oversight of
building permit and inspection assessments. Second, staff
mentioned the complexity of the fee schedule and how the fees are
organized in the City’s cloud-based building platform, Accela. Third,
staff mentioned the lack of training available for new employees.
Lack of Oversight and Internal Controls
According to PDS management and staff, the City discontinued
regular internal audits of building permit and inspection fees during
the COVID-19 pandemic and has not been able to resume these
checks. According to management, this function was previously
supported by the Development Center Manager and following the
pandemic, the position’s priorities were realigned to focus on
customer service initiatives. These efforts included expanding
appointment availability to accommodate walk-in, virtual, and in-
person customers. Additionally, management reported that the
manger’s oversight was expanded to include both project
coordination and planning staff located at the Development Center
to enhance customer service and technical expertise at the counter.
OCA noted that the Accela system has the capability to flag projects
at random or to flag projects based on defined criteria established
by the user agency. For example, San Jose reports that they have
configured the system to flag projects with inconsistent valuations
and when fees are waived.
Staff also indicated that while they can consult with other project
coordinators, the Development Center Manager, and the Chief
Building Official on permitting questions, there is no formal, regular
Development Center Manager provides ongoing informal training,
which includes discussion on application processing questions form
the project coordinators. In addition, these meetings occasionally
include guest speakers from other partner departments to expand
permitting knowledge during weekly program meetings.
Without periodic review of staff work and building permit and
inspection fee assessments, management is unable to determine if
fees are being consistently and accurately assessed and misses the
opportunity to correct staff errors early, making it more likely that
mistakes are carried forward into future fee assessments.
Complexity of the Fee Schedule and Accela Configuration
According to PDS management, the City’s fee schedule has
multiple components, and its application varies based on the
specific requirements of each project. The schedule includes more
than 18 different fee categories (e.g., Building Permit, Construction
& Demolition, Electrical, Green Building, etc.) Within each fee
category, there are numerous different fees that might apply to a
project. The complexity of the fee schedule reflects the complexity
of construction process itself. There are thousands of building
projects constructed in Palo Alto each year and even two projects
that may seem similar – for example, two new single-family homes,
there will be many unique aspects of each project such as solar
panels, a pool, a garage, etc.
While the fee schedule was recently updated with a cost of services
study, staff indicated that although some areas such as the
residential square footage model were simplified, the schedule and
process for assessing fees remains complex making it difficult to
ensure consistency. In addition, staff concurred that developing
standard operating procedures for fee applications will provide more
transparency for customers and reduce potential frustrations. Future
fee studies should explore ways to further simplify the schedule and
alternate methods for communicating standards and requirements
to customers, such as through a public facing fee calculator.
Accela is designed to streamline and automate building application,
permitting and inspection processes and the platform is used by
many cities and counties in California. While staff indicated there
are many positive aspects to the City’s use of the platform, one area
that is challenging is how fees are configured in the system.
Currently, fees are not grouped by project category and staff are
forced to scroll through the entire system to locate fees. Many
building projects that come through the City’s Development
Services Center are complex and require multiple fee assessments.
multiple screens and scroll down various permit lists to locate the
appropriate fee and then repeat this process for each new fee. Staff
stated that if fees were grouped, with a list of fees that are typically
assessed for that type of project, it would save on time and also
help with consistency as users would have a list to choose from
rather than having to remember and look up each individual fee that
might apply. In addition, staff stated that if the system could be
configured to allow the project coordinator to select multiple fees at
one time that would also save time rather than having to open the
list for each fee selection.
OCA spoke with the PDS Accela technical expert, and it appears
that some, if not all, of the changes above could be implemented
with support. The City contracts with a vendor that specializes in
Accela configurations when changes need to be made to the
system. The City will need to determine if the cost of making these
changes is feasible.
OCA also noted that some fees could be automated in the system.
For example, record retention fees should be charged on every
project. If there were a field prompting project coordinators to enter
the number of plan pages when entering other essential project
information, the system could automatically calculate this per page
fee and not require any additional steps. In addition, the SB1473 fee
applies to certain types of projects and could be automatically
added to these project types.
Training
Staff reported that they attend training twice a year through CALBO,
the California Building Officials. However, staff also reported that
there isn’t a formal training process for new hires. According to staff,
the City had a more formalized onboarding and training program for
new project coordinators prior to the Covid 19 pandemic. According
to management, changes to processes and procedures driven by
new system requirements for application processing necessitated
updates to formal training materials and standard operating
procedures following the pandemic. Management asserted that
development of these updated procedures and training programs is
needed to align with current practices.
Currently, new project coordinators are primarily trained by
shadowing another project coordinator, however there are some
downsides staff noted to this approach. The coordinator being
shadowed may not be assigned the breadth of different project
types during the shadow period leaving gaps in knowledge for the
new individual. The coordinator is providing training in the moment
but also tasked with performing their primary job function and
for decisions being made. Staff indicated a more formal and
dedicated training program would be helpful.
According to the ICC Code of Ethics, code professionals have a
duty to maintain and improve their competence. ICC training
standards reinforce that jurisdictions should ensure staff are
properly trained and supported to administer building codes and
related fee structures. Sufficient, ongoing training can help minimize
the risk of errors, inconsistent application of fees and strengthen
compliance with building codes.
Additional areas for improvement
As part of this audit, OCA also evaluated the refund process. In
FY23 and FY24 there were a total of 107 refunds issued. OCA
randomly selected refunds for testing, as well as judgmentally
selecting a few of the larger refunds. Refunds were tested for
evidence of supervisor/manager approval, to ensure the amount
aligns with the refund receipt and was appropriately processed
through accounting, and that the amount refunded was in alignment
with the fee schedule. All refunds evaluated were in alignment with
the fee schedule, refunding 80% of the original fee amount unless
there was a City error necessitating a full refund. However, out of
the 10 refunds tested, 5 lacked the required documentation as
outlined in the department procedure, which requires uploading the
final refund documentation signed by a Senior Management
Analyst. In these cases, staff had uploaded the refund documents
initially sent to Accounting, but did not replace them with the
finalized, signed versions once processing was complete. Staff
should ensure that all final refund documents are included and
saved in the appropriate files in Accela
1. Evaluate any areas identified by the audit where fees were
inappropriately charged to customers and resolve any
issues.
2. Reinstate periodic internal audits of building permit and
reinspection fees on either a monthly or quarterly basis. This
should include:
a. developing a documented quality control process
with assigned responsibilities to ensure this activity is
performed consistently moving forward,
b. procedures for providing feedback, and if
appropriate, additional training to staff when errors
c. ongoing tracking and monitoring of issues to identify
patterns or trends that might require wider training or
corrective actions for the department.
3. Explore the feasibility of simplifying fees and improving the
Accela platform by:
a. considering ways to simplify fee application
processes and procedures including revisiting the fee
structure itself and identifying opportunities to better
communicate standards to customers,
b. automating certain fees such as SB1743 as an
internal control and to help streamline the
assessment process,
c. grouping fees by project type to ensure easier
application by project coordinators, and
d. configuring the software to allow coordinators to
select multiple fees at one time. Performing an
assessment to determine the time it takes for staff to
individually select each permit versus being able to
select them in one step might help to establish how
much time could be saved by this enhancement and
whether it is worth the investment. Such an
assessment could also consider other fees for
automation that are not specifically addressed
through this audit.
4. We recommend the City evaluate the current training
process and consider updating and/or reimplementing the
onboarding and training program for new employees
including comprehensive guidance on fee application,
system use, as well as periodic, ongoing training.
5. Ensure staff retain all required documents when processing
financial transactions such as permit fee refunds for greater
transparency and accountability.
Response
Planning & Development Services
Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: 4th Quarter Fiscal Year 2026
Action Plan:
1. PDS is reviewing appropriate actions to address the areas
identified by the audit where fees were inappropriately charged
and will implement remediating actions as appropriate. (Target
Date: Q2 FY 2026)
2. PDS will develop a documented quality control process to
ensure that periodic internal audits of building permit and
reinspection fees take place. This will include exploring technical
solutions with Accela to flag permits for review as well as
quarterly review of a randomized sample of permits.
Concurrently, PDS will provide feedback and additional training
when errors are identified and will also longitudinally track errors
to identify trends and patterns. (Target Date: Q4 FY 2026)
3. PDS will explore the following via a request for proposals (RFP)
for the Permitting and Land Use Management system:
a. standard operating procedures for fee application by
project type;
b. providing clear guidance to applicants on how to
calculate project valuations to create further equity in fee
application;
c. conducting additional analysis with a fee consultant to
refine how fees are applied to projects with multiple
standalone components, such as exploring the use of a
fee multiplier;
d. adding a permit fee estimation tool for simple projects to
help applicants better understand permitting fees and
project costs early in the process, increasing
transparency and accountability in staff application of
fees; and
e. Assess tradeoffs of implementing technical solutions
within Accela and feasibility of those enhancements to
enhance the internal controls of the platform, including
automating certain fees, grouping other fees, and
configuring the software to better reflect the standard
‘use cases’ by project coordinators to minimize errors.
4. Staff agree an assessment of the current process and
development of a onboarding and training program for staff
including updating standard operating procedures for fee
application by permit type and system navigation. (Target Date:
Q4 FY 2026)
5. PDS staff will review existing refund procedures with
administrative staff and retain all required final documents when
processing financial transactions. Currently, all refunds are
processed through accounting and have the proper
documentation and signature approvals. Accela records should
also be updated to maintain final signed copies rather than
drafts. Additionally, staff will seek to consolidate refund
transactions and establish a process to periodically audit
refunds; regular review of transactions such as refunds will
enhance compliance and internal controls. (Target Date: Q4 FY
2026)
13
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY25-4.31 Junior Museum and Zoo
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340A
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340A
1B. TASK ORDER NO.: FY25-4.31
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: January 1, 2025 COMPLETION: June 30, 2025
4. TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $89,900
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST
ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
Kate Murdock
Manager/ City Auditor
12/23/2024
Council Member
Council Member Lydia Kou
12/25/2024
April 30, 2026
14
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting an internal audit of the Junior Museum and Zoo involves three (3) primary
steps:
Step 1: Audit Planning
Step 2: Fieldwork and Testing
Step 3: Reporting
Step 1 – Audit Planning
This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit
objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, audit process, and timing between
stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include:
Gather information to understand the environment under review
o Understand the environment under assessment
o Assess the City code, regulations, and other standards and expectations
o Assess prior audit results, as applicable
o Assess additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary
Assess the audit risk
Prepare an audit planning memo and audit program
o Refine audit objectives and scope
o Identify the audit procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined
Announce the initiation of the audit and kick-off meeting with key stakeholders
o Discuss audit objectives, scope, audit process, timing, resources, and expectations
o Discuss documentation and interview requests for the audit
Step 2 – Fieldwork and Testing
The step involves executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview
individuals, and analyze the data and information to obtain sufficient evidence to address the audit
objectives The preliminary audit objective is to determine if the City’s Junior Museum and Zoo is operating
effectively and efficiently to fulfill the program’s mission. Procedures include, but are not limited to:
Interviewing the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of the organizational structure,
processes, and controls related to the Junior Museum and Zoo
Analyze policies and procedures as well as the program mission and objectives to identify the
criteria to be used for evaluation of control design and effectiveness
Compare processes and controls against best practices
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
15
Step 3 – Reporting
In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and
review a draft report with stakeholders, and submit a final report for management response. Tasks include:
Developing findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence
gathered
Validating findings with appropriate individuals and discuss the root cause of the identified
findings
Complete supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report
Distribute a draft audit report and conduct a closing meeting with key stakeholders
o Discuss the audit results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations
o Discuss management responses
Obtain written management responses and finalize a report
Review report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Audit Report
Policy & Services Committee Audit Report Presentation
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: January 1, 2025
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2025
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $89,900.
The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 500 total project hours, of which a minimum of 40 are
estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
We plan to complete all work remote including all interviews and documentation review. However, during the
planning and fieldwork phases of this audit, the City and Baker Tilly may mutually determine it will be beneficial to
perform a portion of the work on-site. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly could incur expenses for this Task.
The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $6,500.
The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses:
Round-trip Airfare – $2,000 (1 round trip flight x 2 auditors)
Ground transportation – $800 (car rental or Uber/taxi)
Hotel accommodation – $3,000 (2 rooms x 4 nights)
Food & Incidentals – $2,100
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
19
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY25-4.33 Public Safety Staffing
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340A
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340A
1B. TASK ORDER NO.: FY25-4.33
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: January 1, 2025 COMPLETION: June 30, 2025
4. TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $95,670
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST
ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
Manager/ City Auditor
Kate Murdock
12/23/2024
Council Member
Council Member Lydia Kou
12/25/2024
April 30, 2026
20
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting an internal audit of Public Safety Staffing including Overtime three (3)
primary steps:
Step 1: Audit Planning
Step 2: Fieldwork and Testing
Step 3: Reporting
Step 1 – Audit Planning
This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit
objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, audit process, and timing between
stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include:
Gather information to understand the environment under review
o Understand the environment under assessment
o Assess the City code, regulations, and other standards and expectations
o Assess prior audit results, as applicable
o Assess additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary
Assess the audit risk
Prepare an audit planning memo and audit program
o Refine audit objectives and scope
o Identify the audit procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined
Announce the initiation of the audit and kick-off meeting with key stakeholders
o Discuss audit objectives, scope, audit process, timing, resources, and expectations
o Discuss documentation and interview requests for the audit
Step 2 – Fieldwork and Testing
The step involves executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview
individuals, and analyze the data and information to obtain sufficient evidence to address the audit
objectives The preliminary audit objective is to determine if the Public Safety Departments (Fire and
Police) are effectively and efficiently staffed including use of overtime:
Interviewing the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of the organizational structures,
processes, and controls related to staffing and use of overtime including plans and systems used
Analyze policies and procedures related to Public Safety staffing to identify the criteria to be used
for evaluation of control design and effectiveness
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
21
Analyze Public Safety performance metrics to determine if staffing levels enable desired
performance outcomes
Compare performance processes and controls against best practices
Step 3 – Reporting
In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and
review a draft report with stakeholders, and submit a final report for management response. Tasks include:
Developing findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence
gathered
Validating findings with appropriate individuals and discuss the root cause of the identified
findings
Complete supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report
Distribute a draft audit report and conduct a closing meeting with key stakeholders
o Discuss the audit results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations
o Discuss management responses
Obtain written management responses and finalize a report
Review report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Audit Report
Policy & Services Committee Audit Report Presentation
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: January 1, 2025
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2025
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $95,670.
The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 500 total project hours, of which a minimum of 50 are
estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Reimbursable Expenses
We plan to complete all work remote including all interviews and documentation review. However, during the
planning and fieldwork phases of this audit, the City and Baker Tilly may mutually determine it will be beneficial to
perform a portion of the work on-site. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly could incur expenses for this Task.
The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $6,500.
The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses:
•Round-trip Airfare – $2,000 (1 round trip flight x 2 auditors)
•Ground transportation – $800 (car rental or Uber/taxi)
•Hotel accommodation – $3,000 (2 rooms x 4 nights)
•Food & Incidentals – $2,100
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
22
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER FY25-4.34 Follow-Up Audit Activities
Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this
Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical
and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below.
CONTRACT NO. C21179340A
OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE)
1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340A
1B. TASK ORDER NO.: FY25-4.34
2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: January 1, 2025 COMPLETION: June 30, 2025
4. TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $59,390
BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD
5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST
ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________
6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT:
Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee
7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A)
MUST INCLUDE:
SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable)
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount)
8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6
Kate Murdock
Manager/ City Auditor
12/23/2024
Council Member
12/25/2024
Council Member Lydia Kou
April 30, 2026
23
Attachment A
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Introduction
Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements:
Services and Deliverables To Be Provided
Schedule of Performance
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable)
Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount)
Services & Deliverables
Baker Tilly will provide the following services in conducting Follow-Up Audit Activities::
Track and monitor progress on all audit recommendations
Obtain sufficient evidence to support conclusions regarding the status of audit recommendations
Annually report on the status of recommendations
Deliverables:
The following deliverables will be prepared as part of this engagement:
Annual Status of Audit Recommendations Report
Policy & Services Committee Report Presentation
Schedule of Performance
Anticipated Start Date: January 1, 2025
Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2025
Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule
The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $59,390.
The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 500 total project hours, of which a minimum of 40 are
estimated to be completed by the City Auditor.
Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6